Dear Bhante,

Thank you for taking the time to try to clarify this issue.

> If it is admitted that the Buddha 'knew', it would be sheer
> foolishness to discard his teachings. And yet, as conceptual
> knowledge, the teachings can only ever approach the truth,
> and must forever fall short of the truth itself.
>
> The ancient schools equivocated on precisely this point: some
> of them included the testimony of reliable tradition under
> anumaana, some had it as a separate and distinctive pramana itself.
>
> The traditions debated vigorously over which texts are to be
> considered authentic, for precisely this reason. If a text
> can be believed to stem for the Buddha himself, then we, as
> followers of the Buddha, may rely on these teachings, not as
> absolute truth in themselves, but as a guide leading us to
> the truth. If, however, they do not come from the Buddha, we
> would have to raise the question as to whether the teachings
> are really liberating.

I think it is the danger of this that I am thinking of. It is very easy to
doubt something, and as one of the venerables said earlier, it is better to
let ten guilty men go free than execute one innocent.

> The important thing is to cite appropriate authorities who are
> experts in their field. Since the traditions generally assume that
> all their particular texts are early, they have not been interested
> in such matters and hance have little to say beyond repeating the
> traditional accounts.

Does this mean that the "experts in their field" are not those experts how
"have not been interested in such matters and hence have little to say..."?
I think this is important, because many people might fall into this problem.
I think it is amazing how many meditation masters have spent their lives
memorizing the whole of the tipitaka and finding nothing much to create
doubt for their meditation.

> But for others it comes from speaking several Asian languages. When
> we are able to look at the Buddhist and other scriptures in many
> languages, it becomes increasingly obvious that the Dhamma is not
> exclusive to any one tradition.

No, I'm sorry, I mean that sometimes people might choose the PTS
introductions, or Western Ph.Ds simply because it is all in English. My
background is all in Thai, and it has much less speculating about the
authenticity of the tipitaka. This may be seen as a flaw, I'm not trying to
debate that.

> if I wanted to learn more about sati,
> > I would go and find a meditation master who practices it.
>
> Of course! If you want to learn how to meditate, go see a meditation
> teacher. But if you are interested in examining the meaning of the
> Suttas in historical context, you will have to look elsewhere. There
> are plenty of meditation teachers who, through not being grounded in
> the Suttas, teach interpretations of particular texts that are
> kooky, if not positively dangerous.

Okay, I fell into that one... the meditation teachers I was referring to:

The Lord Buddha
Sariputta
Buddhaghosa
Mahasi Sayadaw
Somdet Aj Buddhajaan
Phra Dhammatirarajamahamuni (Jodok), P.D. 9
Bhaddanta Aj Asabha Mahathera
Phra Rajaprommajaan

Only the last two are still alive, and Venerable Aj Asabha is quite ill now.
Tragic, but all of these monks are well versed in the Pali canon and
commentaries, and their teachings can still be found for me in volumous
amounts. What is enchanting to me is the internal consistancy of the
teachings of this group of teachers. I am sure there are many such lineages
that can be traced, and I'm sure few are "kooky" :)

> No scholar can offer 'proof' as to such questions, all we can do is
> present evidence and draw inferences. But these scholars have done
> valuable work, which sometimes we rely on without realizing it. For
> example, i assume that many of the people om this list would agree
> that the Mahayana Sutras, or even more so the tantras, are not
> Buddhavacana: but how do we know this? Really, only by faith in a
> tradition or by use of historical criticism. Faith may be fine for
> those who have it, but not very useful for persuading those who do
> not.

Sure. But still, I don't have to argue whether the Mahayana Sutras are
valid or not, they are outside of the "Pali".

It seems that there may be three kinds of debate, as the venerable on
mentioned in his last post:

1) debate between different religions - all they can agree on is things like
"where there is smoke, there is fire". And they set up rules for debate,
like they did in India, and they debate. The Paayaasi Sutta is an example,
I think.

2) debate between different schools of the same religion - they agree on
basic tenants, but cannot agree on the whole body of teachings - the
kathuvatthu, might fit here, or not?

3) debate between the same school of the same religion - they agree on a set
group of teachings, and debate what is the meaning of these texts, citing
various sources for their arguments, both agreeing on these sources as more
or less valid. There are many texts here, like the sutta with Ananda
arguing with someone over how many kinds of vedana there are (can't remember
the source...)

So where does the actual debate over which texts are valid lie? Is it
between Buddhists of different schools? Even that seems difficult to
imagine, since there is such a vast array of texts to choose from and
discuss. We would all die before we got to the bottom of it (and new
teachings would arise in the meantime). I probably don't have enough time
in this life to get to the bottom of the Pali tipitaka, but since it is so
internally consistant, and more importantly consistant with actual practice
and realisation of the insights taught therein, I don't see why I would be
inticed into comparing it with other groups of texts.

> I might further comment that it is sometimes objected that
> historical studies are just a 'western' thing. While it is true that
> Western methods have informed and influenced such studies, it must
> be remembered that the traditions since India have had some
> awareness of historical context. I recent times, it was a Japanese
> scholar (i forget his name but will try to find it, for his is an
> interesting story) who, several centuries ago, attempted the first
> comprehensive chronological stratification of the Chinese canon, and
> his results were generally accurate. And in the 20th Century, more
> Buddhist studies have been produced in Japan than in the rest of the
> world combined. Recently i was at a Global Buddhist Conference in
> Singapore, where the Chinese Mahayana speaker admitted that the
> Mahayana sutras cannot be regarded as literal Buddhavacana; but an
> American monk later objected to me that this was just a Western idea!
> Or again, in 20th century Thailand, many monks have raised issues of
> authenticity in scriptures, such as Buddhadasa, Pra Dhammapitaka,
> Luang Ta Maha Bua, etc.

One very large group of "Buddhists" in Thailand has come out and proclaimed
publicly that "Nibbana is Atta." Even in Thailand there are many schools,
even many religions.

> Indeed, the tipitaka is such a jewel, I
> > would not wish anyone to denegrate of any part of it.
>
> But which Tripitaka? Why do you make your choice? Most people in
> traditional countries do so because of the accidents of birth and
> culture. Others do so from encountering a charismatic teacher.
> Others do so through an undefined affinity. And there are some who
> do so through, or aided by, a careful study of the texts in
> historical and comparative context. If is for these that historical
> argument is undertaken.

But could one rely on such study? It seems the result is, as I think you
mention, creating a group of texts that fit with one's own views, and
unsurprisingly so.

> Generally, i think it is obvious
> that the Nikayas present a remarkably uniform doctrine. Yet we still
> use what analytical tools we have, in order to be able to ask the
> question. Once we can meaningfully, and with due caution,
> distinguish between various strata on text-historical grounds, we
> can then evaluate possible differences in meaning and doctrine. If
> there aren't any, great!

:) But does it really serve the purpose to spend the time doing so? When we
have such a living dhamma present, we meet a teacher, spend years getting to
know if he or she is a good one, practice their teaching, study their
teachings (a set group of teachings, surely), and we reach the goal through
practice, and we teach it to others through study. What do we teach through
doubting about or stratifying the texts? We teach people to doubt and
stratify.

> So we must try to be doctrine-neutral, and rely as much as possible
> on textual criteria. I have recently found structural analysis very
> useful, and believe that this reveals a more clearly organized
> scriptural collection, which turns out to be focussed around the
> four noble truths.

Your meaning is not quite clear to me in the first part, but I think I
disagree that we must "be doctrine-neutral". Suppose one were a sotapanna.
One has no doubt about the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. Should one
then still be doctrine-neutral? When Mara comes and says "sorry, I taught
wrong just a moment ago. The five aggregates are really permanent, happy,
and self" (more humour from the commentaries), should the sotapanna stop and
consider, "well, which doctrine came first, the doctrine of impermanence,
suffering and non-self, or the doctrine of permanence, happiness and self?"

> In some cases, conclusions about the scriptures are made that can
> clearly be disproven. On example of this is the view that the
> Mahayana was a primarily lay-based movement. This view, long
> influential, has now been discarded among scholars. Another popular
> theory was that 'original Buddhism' was about ascetics living in the
> forest, and monastic life - and with it the Vinaya - was a much
> later invention. I think this idea is both wrong and pernicious, and
> think that it can be clearly disproven by a re-evaluation of the
> evidence. Since text-historical arguments are, in fact, influential,
> we must become skilled in how to use them to make sure that they are
> not misused to damage the Dhamma.

Or how to encourage people not to rely on them at all...

> Maybe, but why then the strong emphasis on debate, doctrine, and
> authenticity among Indian Buddhism? Even within one strand, say, the
> Theravada Atthakathas, there is abundant evidence of ongoing debate,
> variety of interpretations, and so on. Surely this is a wholesome
> sign of interest and vitality in a religion.

Or doubt and distraction... didn't the Lord Buddha say that a dispute about
the Vinaya would be a small matter, no real problem, but a dispute over the
Dhamma is something to take really seriously. It should be seen as a scary
power that we have to present opinions of what is and what is not
Buddhavacana, especially with the advent of the Internet.

> The Buddha encouraged discussion on the teachings. He strongly
> condemmed those who present what is not Buddhavacana as
> Buddhavacana. He gave guidelines for interpretation.

Okay, I agree. But this seems more to relate to actual teachings. Is there
so many dubious teachings in the various parts of the tipitaka? To say a
whole nikaya is "later" is most definitely not valid if it means that that
whole nikaya is not Buddhavacana.

> And then, he also said, don't waste your time on endless talk, get
> out to the forest and jhaayatha bhikkhave!

Okay, now we agree fully :)

Namasakara,

Yuttadhammo