Teachings Of Buddha

[rockyysdt]

The Vedic/Brahman teaching that there is a "ground of being" that underpins phenomena is not so much metaphysical as logical - in fact, tautological. For being to arise there must be being from which it arises. The metaphysical bit comes in when we speculate about what the ground of being is like and the process by which ground gives rise to "figure" (name and form), and how the ground relates morally, if at all, to beings like ourselves.

Wouldn't it be metaphysical as it is theoretical and unknowable?

Isn't anything which includes infinity and infinite values metaphysical?

Edited April 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

In the quoted passage, the Rig Veda is reasonably open about the mechanics of creation. The reference to Devas is standard Brahman/Hindu cosmology. Indra, Varuna, Agni, etc, came to India with the Aryans. The Godhead (Trimurti) of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is an earlier construct.

The Buddha made fun of this poem (Poem of Creation), by deliberately misquoting passages of it in the Agganna Sutta, found in the 27th sutta in the Digha Nikaya long discourses.

Buddhagosa interpreted this poem literally whilst the Buddha was making it to be a big joke.

The Buddha was pointing to the real world (actual), and was leading away from the unknowable (metaphysical).

The teaching of the way things are.

Rocky, I don't see anything in the Agganna Sutta that makes reference to the quoted passage in the Rig Veda.

In the Agganna Sutta the Buddha dismisses self-serving notions of Brahmin caste origin ("from the mouth of Brahma") and then proceeds to recite his own bizarre creation story. There is nothing I see in that story that indicates satire or ridicule. There is nothing in the whole Sutta that I see as even a glancing critique of the Nasadiya Hymn.

In the Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11), the Buddha makes fun of popular belief in Brahma as a personal creator God. In that Sutta, Brahma is clearly presented as a Deva, not as a member of the Triune Godhead (Trimurti) and certainly not as Brahman, the "infinite, indivisible reality in which the transient data of the world cohere" (E. Easwaran, The Bhagavad Gita, 2007). It is the latter that the Vedas were working towards and is most clearly presented in the Upanishads. The Rig Veda, in which the Nasadiya Hymn is found, dates back to 3000 BCE and would have been known to the Buddha, though as a Kshatriya rather than a Brahmin I don't know how much he would have been schooled in the ancient scriptures. The Upanishads were being written down over a period that included the Buddha's life, though based on an oral tradition that goes back much earlier.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

The Vedic/Brahman teaching that there is a "ground of being" that underpins phenomena is not so much metaphysical as logical - in fact, tautological. For being to arise there must be being from which it arises. The metaphysical bit comes in when we speculate about what the ground of being is like and the process by which ground gives rise to "figure" (name and form), and how the ground relates morally, if at all, to beings like ourselves.

Wouldn't it be metaphysical as it is theoretical and unknowable?

Isn't anything which includes infinity and infinite values metaphysical?

Maybe. When I see or hear the words infinity and infinite my eyes glaze over and my brain shuts down.

Infinity is incomprehensible. It can't even be spoken about in any meaningful way. How can something be "infinitely small" or "infinitely distant"? The adjective-noun construct just doesn't make any sense unless substantive phenomena are illusory, mere phantasms, or all things are expressions of universal and underpinning consciousness - the "infinite, indivisible reality" referred to in my previous post, and that doesn't make it any more comprehensible, just more logical perhaps.

That being (phenomena) proceeds from Being (the underpinning substratum from which phenomena proceed) rather than itself seems logical, perhaps tautological, to me. To the extent that such a statement is not quantifiable, I guess it is metaphysical. However, as a tautology, it does not require verifiability or falsifiability beyond its own propositional coherence. Tautologies are trivial, however, and in this case, any discussion that proceeds from the proposition is, most likely, metaphysical. So I think I agree with you, Rocky.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

In the Agganna Sutta the Buddha dismisses self-serving notions of Brahmin caste origin ("from the mouth of Brahma") and then proceeds to recite his own bizarre creation story. There is nothing I see in that story that indicates satire or ridicule. There is nothing in the whole Sutta that I see as even a glancing critique of the Nasadiya Hymn.

In the Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11), the Buddha makes fun of popular belief in Brahma as a personal creator God. In that Sutta, Brahma is clearly presented as a Deva, not as a member of the Triune Godhead (Trimurti) and certainly not as Brahman, the "infinite, indivisible reality in which the transient data of the world cohere" (E. Easwaran, The Bhagavad Gita, 2007). It is the latter that the Vedas were working towards and is most clearly presented in the Upanishads. The Rig Veda, in which the Nasadiya Hymn is found, dates back to 3000 BCE and would have been known to the Buddha, though as a Kshatriya rather than a Brahmin I don't know how much he would have been schooled in the ancient scriptures. The Upanishads were being written down over a period that included the Buddha's life, though based on an oral tradition that goes back much earlier.

I think it's the way I delivered (wording) my message.

Isn't reciting his own bizarre creation story teasing or ridiculing the incumbent creation story?

That it was "bizarre" are your words and fit into what I was conveying.

I think others have said, "he is taking the mickey", but Buddhagosa took it as literal.

Also by the Buddha demoting Brahman to Deva level instead of head he is also trivialising him to less than his own status.

Edited April 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

In the Agganna Sutta the Buddha dismisses self-serving notions of Brahmin caste origin ("from the mouth of Brahma") and then proceeds to recite his own bizarre creation story. There is nothing I see in that story that indicates satire or ridicule. There is nothing in the whole Sutta that I see as even a glancing critique of the Nasadiya Hymn.

In the Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11), the Buddha makes fun of popular belief in Brahma as a personal creator God. In that Sutta, Brahma is clearly presented as a Deva, not as a member of the Triune Godhead (Trimurti) and certainly not as Brahman, the "infinite, indivisible reality in which the transient data of the world cohere" (E. Easwaran, The Bhagavad Gita, 2007). It is the latter that the Vedas were working towards and is most clearly presented in the Upanishads. The Rig Veda, in which the Nasadiya Hymn is found, dates back to 3000 BCE and would have been known to the Buddha, though as a Kshatriya rather than a Brahmin I don't know how much he would have been schooled in the ancient scriptures. The Upanishads were being written down over a period that included the Buddha's life, though based on an oral tradition that goes back much earlier.

I think it's the way I delivered (wording) my message.

Isn't reciting his own bizarre creation story teasing or ridiculing the incumbent creation story?

It could be, but I didn't read it that way.

That it was "bizarre" are your words and fit into what I was conveying.

I think others have said, "he is taking the mickey", but Buddhagosa took it as literal.

By "others", do you mean John Peacock, or are there others as well? I suspect Dr Peacock's view is a bit eccentric: not that it should be dismissed on that account, but it needs to be critiqued in light of other scholarship, recent findings, etc. I don't know why the Buddha decided to tell his creation story to the two young monks in the Agganna Sutta - I assume it's a late interpolation - but my reading of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation doesn't reveal any sense of "taking the mickey".

Also by the Buddha demoting Brahman to Deva level instead of head he is also trivialising him to less than his own status.

It seems that way. The Buddha rejected the notion of Brahman as Ground of Being in favour of a radically reductionist view of ungrounded and empty phenomena relating only to each other and only as process. Hence it would serve his purposes to diminish the Brahma- Brahman connection, especially in view of the mythicization and personification of Brahman/Brahma in the popular mind, accepted and promoted by the Brahmin caste of his time.

[Xangsamhua]

Erratum: The translation I used above was by Maurice Walshe (Long Discourses ..., Wisdom Pubs. 1995), not Bhikkhu Bodhi.

[camerata]

That's the very point John Peacock was making.

He indicated that the Buddha was teaching a practice to "make your way" through life and not a religion or path to the metaphysical.

That's just his opinion, but he hasn't proved it and it isn't the opinion of leading (secular) scholars in the field.

Buddhagosa, with his conditioned mind, added a religious flavour to his works/interpretations.

Some of the Buddha's teachings have a religious/supranormal aspect that can't be dismissed whether we like it or not. This has nothing to do with Buddhaghosa.

The Western word Monk brings an image of a holy man, but Bikkhu describes one who devotes himself to the practice of Dhamma, and in return for alms offers his knowledge of Dhamma.

The Western word Monastery brings an image of a holy place, but ............. actually means, the dwelling place of Bikkhus.

I don't see how this is very important. The Buddhist scriptures weren't written in English. I doubt the use of "monk" and "monastery" in English is going to lead anyone down the wrong path.

The Buddha doesn't appear to be getting involved with religion or the metaphysical.

He appears to be sticking to the real world, one in which he is teaching "Awakening"

Using highly selective quotes doesn't prove your point. The scriptures are full of supranormal stuff and no one has yet proven that the Buddha was saying one thing and meaning another throughout his life. A lot of his teaching does apply to the world we know, but not all of it.

Peacock seems to have have got some of his ideas from Gombrich. But whereas Gombrich and his students have "proved" (in the academic sense) that some specific suttas or incidents were allusions, satires or metaphors, Peacock seems to be saying that all the teachings were, but without coming up with any evidence other than his own opinions. It simply isn't possible to prove that the Buddha's teachings were intended to apply only to the present life. Throughout the scriptures he says that nibbana is unconditioned, i.e. that it is a supranormal experience and not merely a state of mind. His key teaching on karma makes no sense if we are talking about just one life. We know that good people often have terrible lives and bad people have good lives. As Gombrich says: "The Buddha's version of the law of karma was entirely his own; but to accept it was the leap of faith he demanded of every follower."

[rockyysdt]

Using highly selective quotes doesn't prove your point. The scriptures are full of supranormal stuff and no one has yet proven that the Buddha was saying one thing and meaning another throughout his life. A lot of his teaching does apply to the world we know, but not all of it.

Peacock seems to have have got some of his ideas from Gombrich. But whereas Gombrich and his students have "proved" (in the academic sense) that some specific suttas or incidents were allusions, satires or metaphors, Peacock seems to be saying that all the teachings were, but without coming up with any evidence other than his own opinions. It simply isn't possible to prove that the Buddha's teachings were intended to apply only to the present life. Throughout the scriptures he says that nibbana is unconditioned, i.e. that it is a supranormal experience and not merely a state of mind. His key teaching on karma makes no sense if we are talking about just one life. We know that good people often have terrible lives and bad people have good lives. As Gombrich says: "The Buddha's version of the law of karma was entirely his own; but to accept it was the leap of faith he demanded of every follower."

Doesn't that leave us at an impasse?

Either the Buddha was teaching a path to the metaphysical or he was saying that this was illusory and pointed to improving life in the real world (present) through practice to awakening.

At this point I should be open to both possibilities, and not one over the other, until I have personal experience.

[camerata]

It's not an either/or situation. According to Ven Payutto (in Good, Evil and Beyond), whenever the Buddha spoke to his monks about rebirth, it was only after he emphasized attaining nibbana in this life (presumably because anything can happen in a future life). But for the monks who don't make it, and for the laity, there is always another chance in another life. Sure, this got corrupted into the idea of making merit over a zillion lifetimes until finally sneaking into some realm called Nibbana, but any Buddhist who takes an interest in the practice can see that this is a misunderstanding.

The Buddha was teaching a path that starts in this life (as far as the current "I" is concerned) and ends either - and preferably - in this life, or in a future life.

[Jawnie]

Acts of praising and honoring the Buddhas, making offerings, and purifying the obscurations generate merit.

How?

The same way any other merit making activity does...

[rockyysdt]

Acts of praising and honoring the Buddhas, making offerings, and purifying the obscurations generate merit.

How?

The same way any other merit making activity does...

I can see merit in being compassionate towards others.

One way one can view being compassionate (roots of metta - boundless friendliness), is that we must turn outwards towards an other, and in doing so, our ego is diminished.

Diminishing ones ego is essential in the path/process to awakening.

The Dalai Lama is a good example of the opposite of being desirous of adoration.

He is humble and would distance himself from praise or adoration.

A dhamma speaker spoke of an experience with the Dalai Lama who was visiting a British University to give a talk.

During the initial meeting with the faculty he was lead into a hall where a thrown like chair had been positioned for him to sit in.

To their surprise he took off into the hall and located a bench which he repositioned.

He then held the hands of the two faculty members and sat them on either side of him on the bench.

He then commenced their interaction on an equal basis whilst holding their hands.

The Dalai Lama's demeanor was/is with considerable humbleness.

Wouldn't the Buddha also be humble and not wish people to praise him as one would a God or deity?

How does purifying the obscurations or praising/honoring specifically generate merit?

Edited May 2, 2012 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

i get a niggling feeling you asked this question to make a point

[fabianfred]

In Theravada it is respect for the Dhamma which is why monks are placed upon higher seats than the lay-followers when teaching....and why generally monks are seated higher too.... respect for the higher precepts a monk is keeping.

Honoring, praising the Teacher and his teachings shows respect and shows to others that we have such respect, and consider the teacher and his teachings worthy and of great value.

Humbling ourselves is a good thing to do, especially if trying for Nibanna...all a part of destroying the ego.

[rockyysdt]

In Theravada it is respect for the Dhamma which is why monks are placed upon higher seats than the lay-followers when teaching....and why generally monks are seated higher too.... respect for the higher precepts a monk is keeping.

Honoring, praising the Teacher and his teachings shows respect and shows to others that we have such respect, and consider the teacher and his teachings worthy and of great value.

Humbling ourselves is a good thing to do, especially if trying for Nibanna...all a part of destroying the ego.

I can relate to being humble and respectful.

My feeling is that we should be respectful of all, as everyone has the potential to become awakened (eventually).

I'm also very respectful of those who dedicate their lives to authentic practice (Monks).

I had a quick google about obscurations and accumulations.

This is what I found.

A beginner should start out with practices for gathering the accumulation of conceptual merit. He should practice going for refuge, developing relative bodhicitta, practicing visualization, as well as the practice of the seven branches. The seven branches are: offering prostrations, presenting offerings, making confessions, rejoicing in merit, requesting the Buddhas not to pass into nirvana, supplicating the Buddhas to turn the wheel of Dharma, and dedicating the merit. Once these teachings have been received, a beginner has the perfect tools for generating great conceptual merit without needing to undergo any hardships.

Apparently it can take an eaon of merit.

I'm not to sure about obscurations!

PS: Requesting Buddhas not passing into nirvana sounds awfully like Nirvana the place rather than the state of being.

Edited May 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

In Theravada it is respect for the Dhamma which is why monks are placed upon higher seats than the lay-followers when teaching....and why generally monks are seated higher too.... respect for the higher precepts a monk is keeping.

Honoring, praising the Teacher and his teachings shows respect and shows to others that we have such respect, and consider the teacher and his teachings worthy and of great value.

Humbling ourselves is a good thing to do, especially if trying for Nibanna...all a part of destroying the ego.

I can relate to being humble and respectful.

My feeling is that we should be respectful of all, as everyone has the potential to become awakened (eventually).

I'm also very respectful of those who dedicate their lives to authentic practice (Monks).

I had a quick google about obscurations and accumulations.

This is what I found.

A beginner should start out with practices for gathering the accumulation of conceptual merit. He should practice going for refuge, developing relative bodhicitta, practicing visualization, as well as the practice of the seven branches. The seven branches are: offering prostrations, presenting offerings, making confessions, rejoicing in merit, requesting the Buddhas not to pass into nirvana, supplicating the Buddhas to turn the wheel of Dharma, and dedicating the merit. Once these teachings have been received, a beginner has the perfect tools for generating great conceptual merit without needing to undergo any hardships.

Apparently it can take an eaon of merit.

I'm not to sure about obscurations!

PS: Requesting Buddhas not passing into nirvana sounds awfully like Nirvana the place rather than the state of being.

Obscurations is merely a word that can be defined like any other word, ditto for accumulations. Basically, something obscure, or something accumulated. All that stuff in italics is someone's idea that should not be accepted as true, unless you see it to be true, or trust the source to that extent as to believe it on faith. Just because you googled it, come on.....

[Xangsamhua]

In Theravada it is respect for the Dhamma which is why monks are placed upon higher seats than the lay-followers when teaching....and why generally monks are seated higher too.... respect for the higher precepts a monk is keeping.

Honoring, praising the Teacher and his teachings shows respect and shows to others that we have such respect, and consider the teacher and his teachings worthy and of great value.

Humbling ourselves is a good thing to do, especially if trying for Nibanna...all a part of destroying the ego.

A beginner should start out with practices for gathering the accumulation of conceptual merit. He should practice going for refuge, developing relative bodhicitta, practicing visualization, as well as the practice of the seven branches. The seven branches are: offering prostrations, presenting offerings, making confessions, rejoicing in merit, requesting the Buddhas not to pass into nirvana, supplicating the Buddhas to turn the wheel of Dharma, and dedicating the merit. Once these teachings have been received, a beginner has the perfect tools for generating great conceptual merit without needing to undergo any hardships.

This passage is from a Dzogchen site, introducing Shantideva's Bodhisattvacaryavatara, an 8th century text from Nalanda. I think Dzogchen is heterodox from the Theravada perspective. A Vajrayana school, it looks to me to be closer to Advaita Vedanta than the Southern school, but that's from a passing acquaintance so I may be wrong.

Certainly the passage reflects the Bodhisattva focus of Mahayana Buddhism, in contrast to that of the Arahant in Theravada, and assumes it will be many aeons before the Bodhisattvas will pass in to Nirvana, as they have to usher everyone else in first!

I'm not sure that Fred would warm to the passage, or the text it's introducing.

[fabianfred]

not really....as you say it is looking from the Mahayana perspective on Boddhisatvas...

To me personally that sounds a bit like reaching nibbana and not going in but standing there holding the door open for everyone else to go first. Sounds good.....but not when you consider that to have all beings reach Nibbana is a virtual impossibility.

We have to consider the idea that the human realm is the smallest of all. The number of beings in the higher realms collectively are vast compared to this realm, but compared to the number of beings in the four lower realms they disappear into nothing. How many beings in this realm are sincerely aiming for nibbana?...a tiny amount....

The infinity of the future is as vast and probable as the past. The kilesa which bind ordinary beings are many and hard to shake off without great effort...

No chance of it all coming to an end......no chance at all.

[rockyysdt]

not really....as you say it is looking from the Mahayana perspective on Boddhisatvas...

To me personally that sounds a bit like reaching nibbana and not going in but standing there holding the door open for everyone else to go first. Sounds good.....but not when you consider that to have all beings reach Nibbana is a virtual impossibility.

We have to consider the idea that the human realm is the smallest of all. The number of beings in the higher realms collectively are vast compared to this realm, but compared to the number of beings in the four lower realms they disappear into nothing. How many beings in this realm are sincerely aiming for nibbana?...a tiny amount....

The infinity of the future is as vast and probable as the past. The kilesa which bind ordinary beings are many and hard to shake off without great effort...

No chance of it all coming to an end......no chance at all.

This thread is shaking out many interesting points.

Up until now, I never really considered numbers within relms to any degree.

In fact, if there were Deva relms, I thought these would be sparsely populated in comparison to the human relm.

What would explain vast numbers in the higher relms?

I can understand the vast numbers in the lower relms ( )

[fabianfred]

There are beings creating good karma all the time, of any or no religion, and the results are a better rebirth, either in the human or higher realms. In the higher realms lifetimes are vast, starting from approx. a million years to thousands of aeons.

One comparison I heard was... if you take all the beings in the human realm and stand them upon the head of a pin...then the surface of the Earth would be covered in beings from the higher realms; but if you took all the beings from the higher realms and stood them upon the head of a pin...then the surface of the Earth would be covered in beings from the lower realms.

Human realm is the tinyest of all, and the most difficult to achieve rebirth in.