Ong Peng:
I have read that it is possible that the literature body that now
known as the Tipitaka was not formed at the First Council. I think it is
possible that certain suttas were put to writings earlier than others...
There are also suttas scattered throughout the Nikayas which are not
expounded by the Buddha but his disciples, chiefly Sariputta. Such
suttas are however orthodox and so became part of the canon. Most of
these findings we can accept, the tricky part is that of Jataka.
Orthodox it may be, but many may find certain things hard to accept on
face values.
Nina [About the Jataka ]:
Is this just light reading, just for children? I like to give one
example [Nina gives insightful examples.] I would like to invite the
reader to consider for himself whether this message is the same as what
he can find in the Suttas It does not matter to me whether old folk
tales are used, the Buddha gave an unique meaning to them. We also find
this in the Diigha Nikaaya. For example the three Vedas. The Buddha used
notions people had at that time, but made these into something new,
quite unique.
I would like to ask the readers whether this is the same as what is
stated in the suttas, or different?
Rene:
Isnt it frustrating... Some people accept the Abhidhamma, and the
Tikas, and now are in danger of even accepting the Jatakas as the word
of the Buddha!!? Then again, I can see that its equally frustrating to
certain people that there are others who deny the Abhidhamma as the word
of the Buddha, as well as the Tikas, and also the Jatakas-- and deny
even that they were inspired by the Buddha.
So what are we to do? It seems to me, its maybe a question of
perspective. Its the elephant simile. One person feels the trunk, the
other one feels the leg, and both quarrel because they say the others
wrong. But actually, theyre both right. They both are correct from
their own perspective. The problem is, that the one who feels the trunk
has no knowledge of the leg-- or he would not quarrel. And vice-versa.
Its only by standing back, and seeing both people, that one is able to
see both are correct. Then one is able to see the whole elephant. So,
my interpretation of the Elephant simile is that people conflict because
of narrow vision. If they would broaden their vision, broaden their
horizon, they would see no reason to conflict.
So, in a sense, one can agree with all views that have been expressed
recently on this list-- Nina, Ong Peng, Robert, Jhu, mine, and those who
have given a view on their perception and the value of various
scriptures, be they the Jatakas, the Abhidhamma, Suttas, Tikas, etc...
Because everyone is always correct FROM HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW. How could
it be otherwise? One cant argue with anothers point of view! And yet,
thats the hopeless activity that so often overtakes us.
An artist knows that there are infinite number of perspectives on an
object. How silly it would be for that artist to say, This is the only
true perspective! All that artist has to do is move a little to see
that such a statement is wrong.
The global point of view is, I believe, at the heart of the elephant
simile. And it is a difficult point of view for us to have, because we
are all coming from our individual, unique perspectives that are narrow
due to avijja. But from the global perspective, opposite views can both
be correct when it comes to questions of assessment, which is what we
are dealing with in religion. The view that the Jatakas ARE the word of
the Buddha, and the view that the Jatakas are NOT the word of the
Buddha, these two views are BOTH correct. How so? Because one view comes
from where that person is, and the other view is correct from where this
person is. They are different, but these views are both truthful and
both valid. These two people are simply seeing the subject (the object)
from different places.
This discussion of pushing in different directions over the dhamma
reminds me of a football (soccer) game I once played. This was in
college when, as a beginning player, I took a class just to get the PE
requirement. The teacher began with fifteen minutes of instruction (on
heading, passing, etc.), and then we divided into two teams and played
for half an hour. Well, in one game that I remember clearly, about six
players, including the instructor, all came to the ball at once and were
kicking at it. But the ball couldnt go anywhere because they had
surrounded it and were energetically trying to gain possession, kicking
at the ball and kicking each other in the legs, too, because they were
so close. These six people were very concerned with each other and with
which of them would win the battle over the ball.
Well, one clever young man (hint, hint) saw the situation clearly. He
ran to the group, not noticed by them (for they were all looking at
their feet), and gave the ball a big kick which sent it with maximum
velocity right into the goal thirty meters away. This was one of my only
goals, so thats why I can remember it. Anyway, I observed that
everyone in the small group (that was fighting for the ball) looked at
each other with shock. Suddenly their ball, that they had been fighting
over so furiously, had disappeared. They saw that it was now not at
their feet, but in the goal, and that it somehow got there because of a
player who wasnt even fighting over it. They even looked at me as if I
had broken the rules.
In other words, I think we have to be careful about getting stuck on
secondary matters. In a sense, Pali is secondary to enlightenment. So is
our view of the Jataka, Sutta, Abhidhamma, etc. I think one would have
to agree that its possible to become enlightened without ever having
heard of the Buddha, because enlightenment has to do with universal
truths. Its something direct between the person and the goal.
To end this long post Id like to give one last analogy that might or
might not be from the suttas I dont know. Each one of us is like a
person in a desert of avijja, parched and thirsty for the water of truth
= peace = fulfillment = happiness. If such a person comes to a mud
puddle, hell drink from it, even if its slightly contaminated. So to
me the Jataka is worthy for many reasons, but that doesnt mean to say
that I think its the purest expression of the dhamma. Imagine that
someone comes through the desert with provisions and plenty of pure
water. Hell look at that mud puddle and not stop at it, and not drink
from it.
The point is, the Jataka (or Abhidhamma, Sutta, Tika, etc.) can be
precious to one person and not to another. Its just not precious to
everybody. It has no ABSOLUTE preciousness of its own, no absolute
value that all can agree on. Its value is given to it by the people who
esteem it. Its like the elephants trunk-- not everyone is at that
place, feeling that part of the body. So struggling to get agreement on
such questions is useless. Its like fighting over the football... Keep
your eye on the goal.