Message Boards Message Boards

Terminology

Original teaching

Toggle
Original teaching Stick Man 6/17/15 4:31 PM
RE: Original teaching Nikolai . 6/17/15 4:49 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/17/15 6:02 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/19/15 7:20 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/19/15 9:09 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/21/15 10:16 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/21/15 11:52 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/23/15 4:28 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/21/15 5:43 AM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/21/15 10:28 PM
RE: Original teaching Gunnar Johansson 6/22/15 12:45 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/22/15 12:50 AM
RE: Original teaching Ian And 6/17/15 6:23 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/17/15 8:43 PM
RE: Original teaching Ian And 6/17/15 10:40 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/18/15 12:20 AM
RE: Original teaching CJMacie 6/18/15 2:36 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/18/15 10:20 AM
RE: Original teaching CJMacie 6/18/15 10:35 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/18/15 6:44 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/19/15 7:27 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/21/15 5:12 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/21/15 10:33 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/22/15 12:48 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/22/15 11:38 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/23/15 4:02 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/24/15 9:20 AM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/21/15 10:45 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/22/15 12:25 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/22/15 12:31 AM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/23/15 3:58 PM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/23/15 4:10 PM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/22/15 12:05 AM
RE: Original teaching Nicky 6/23/15 4:15 PM
RE: Original teaching Richard Zen 6/22/15 11:51 PM
RE: Original teaching CJMacie 6/24/15 7:54 AM
RE: Original teaching Richard Zen 6/24/15 8:18 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/17/15 9:00 PM
RE: Original teaching Mark 6/18/15 1:13 AM
RE: Original teaching CJMacie 6/18/15 2:24 AM
RE: Original teaching CJMacie 6/18/15 2:45 AM
RE: Original teaching Stick Man 6/18/15 8:12 AM
Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 4:31 PM
What, in your opinion, is the version of buddhism which most closely accords with the original teachings of Gautama ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 4:49 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
What, in your opinion, is the version of buddhism which most closely accords with the original teachings of Gautama ?

Any practice or approach which eventuates in the following outcome/s?

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" Bija Sutta


"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" Upaya Sutta


"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair." Atthi Raga Sutta


"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." Cetana Sutta

???

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 6:23 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
In addition to the quotations provided by Nicholai (of which you should take note of their source), you would do well to answer this question based upon your own personal research into the history of the recorded discourses of Gotama. 

There are a few historically based biographies which should help carry weight on this matter in addition to the fact that the Pali Canon of the Theravada and the Chinese Agamas, the latter of which is the only translation of the original Ekottara Āgama of the early Indian Buddhist texts. The title Ekottara Āgama literally means "Numbered Discourses," referring to its organizational principle. It is one of the four Āgamas of the Sanskritic Sūtra Piṭaka located in the Chinese Buddhist Canon

By and large, the Pali Canon and the Chinese Agamas mirror one another in composition and subject matter discussed. Whereas the Sanskrit texts of the Mahayana school can differ in certain critical points regarding the teaching and doctrine. My impression is that most Buddhist scholars tend to agree that the Pali Canon and the Chinese Agamas have the greatest probability of containing the teachings in something akin to its original format and form.

In Buddhism, an āgama (Sanskrit and Pāli for "sacred work"[1] or "scripture"[2]) is a collection of Early Buddhist scriptures. The five āgamas together comprise the Suttapiṭaka of the early Buddhist schools, which had different recensions of each āgama. In the Pali Canon of the Theravada, the term nikāya is used in place of āgama.

Of the historical biographies available, I would recommend two that I have read and use in my research, Hans W. Schumann's The Historical Buddha (publ. in German 1982; English translation publ. 1989) and Vishvapani Blomfield's Gautama Buddha, The Life and Teachings of the Awakened One (2011). Another volume I've heard good things about but haven't read yet is one written by Hakjime Nakamura (trans. Gaynor Sekimori), Gotama Buddha, A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts (Tokyo, 2000 and 2005). 

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 6:02 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
OK thanks, but i really meant which scripture is the closest to original words ? I understand that as with christianity buddhist scripture came quite a while after Gautama's death.

And what is the origin of the Buddha's teaching on rebirth ?

"There is no word corresponding exactly to the English terms "rebirth", "metempsychosis", "transmigration" or "reincarnation" in the traditional languages of Pāli and Sanskrit. The entire universal process that gives rise to the cycle of death and rebirth, governed by karma, is referred to as Samsara[10]"

So, what is the real meaning of the words being used in the passages you quoted ?

If transmigration and rebirth have their origin in indian culture of the time, would that not mean that the people who originally came up with that philosophy were as wise as Gautama or had clairvoyant sight of the other realms ?

Does buddhism as a religion claim Gautama to be unique ? If not, why would the religion start from him and not for some other similarly wise person ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 8:43 PM as a reply to Ian And.
Thanks Ian I will look them up. I'm just checking out the Oxford Uni Buddhist Studies site, but they assume some previous knowledge I think for their commentary. Gombrich any good ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 9:00 PM as a reply to Ian And.
Regarding the meaning of reincarnation - that comes from the Vedas I believe, which in turn is from an Aryan culture originating around the Black Sea area - if my memory serves. Would that give it a common ancestor to  the Greek view of reincarnation ?

Problem is for all the people who say they have clairvoyantly seen reincarnation and past lives, there are also people who claim a similar oracular insight that tells them there is only one life and what heaven looks like etc.

What happens to buddhism if you take away the need to overcome rebirth, when the founder says explicitly that is what it is for ? Does it make a difference ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/17/15 10:40 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
Gombrich any good ?

Richard Gombrich, as an academic from a practitioner's standpoint (this latter position being mine), presents a goldmine of insight about the Dhamma that Gotama taught. So, yes, he is very good. I could say that he agrees with me, and that would be true. Or I could say that I agree with him, which would be equally true. He provides the historical background material of which I've had intuitive insight into and is, as far as I'm concerned, so necessary in order to make the attempt to piece together a view of the authentic teaching.

If you're looking for more good reading to help you out, a few years ago I posted a thread titled Essential Books from Theravadin Resources. I especially recommend Gombrich's book What the Buddha Thought. But both books on that list by him are well worth reading and considering. Also, don't bypass anything by Bhikkhu Nanananda. The two books listed by him played a key role in my own training.

You should be able to find Gombrich's book What the Buddha Thought in PDF form on the Internet if you search for it. Many of these resources can be obtained for free. You just have to make the effort to find them.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 12:20 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Excellent, thank you.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 1:13 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
There is no requirement to believe in reincarnation to follow the buddha's instruction, I think that is made pretty clear in suttas like the kalama.

However I think if you claim 4th path, awakening, enlightenment and don't draw the same conclusions as the buddha regarding reincarnation then you've followed a different path.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 2:24 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:

...
What happens to buddhism if you take away the need to overcome rebirth, when the founder says explicitly that is what it is for ? Does it make a difference ?
If you're inclined to that direction of belief, you'll enjoy the writings / talks of Stephen Batchelor.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 2:36 AM as a reply to Ian And.
John:  Gombrich any good ?
Ian And: ... Gombrich's book What the Buddha Thought... Bhikkhu Nanananda.

Younger-generation scholars include also Alexander Wynne ('The Origin of Buddhist Meditation' and several papers available on-line) and Joanna Jurewicz (several papers on-line, on Vedic origins of the paticcasamuppada).

Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 2:45 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
John: What, in your opinion, is the version of buddhism which most closely accords with the original teachings of Gautama ?

Well put (" …in your opinion… "). There being no direct historical evidence, there can be NO definitive answer to this question. There are many 'answers' to be found – books, teachings, etc. -- on a continuum from well-argued interpretations of the various kinds of indirect evidence, to not so carefully reasoned belief systems that somehow are privy to 'the Truth'.

For instance, there's a concept agreed upon by many interpreters, that there's a 'pre-sectarian' version of the recorded teachings, which is not cut-and-dried, remains a matter of interpretation (again, indirect evidence) when trying to specify what those teachings are, and why there 'pre-sectarian'. In historical perspective, any modern interpretation as to real, pre-sectarian, 'early', etc. Buddhism is itself, at one level, just another sectarian belief system.

For instance, I ran across an interpretation recently claiming that the Buddha really can't even have been a member of the Gautama / Gotama clan, for this and that reason from some (indirect) evidence.

Note that there can be this or that kind of indirect historical evidence, all of which implies certain assumptions as to the nature of evidence, and as to the proper methodology with which to interpret it. I would suggest, as a rule of thumb, that any version of claim as to what the 'original teachings' are/were, which does not explicitly and self-critically (presenting and analyzing various sides pro and con) discuss the indirectness of the evidence it chooses to use, and the rationale for the interpretative methodology it uses – such an interpretation reflects more an a-priori (biased) belief system, and is appealing to the reader to share that faith.

Not that there can't be fruitfull discussions on theoretical and/or pragmatic issues related to various attempted answers to the OP question.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 8:12 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
This is why it's vauable to cross refer it to other religions - perrenial philosophy style - find the common elements of higher meditative states between sufism, shamanism, pre-Socratic, whatever - and you should end up with something basically human but contextualised by varying cosmologies. Seems to me. And after dropping the cosmologies you probably end up with something fairly hedonistic or therapeutic - with no need to sacrifice or suffer for a higher cause such as admission to heaven or ending rebirth, rather to overcome the trials and tribulations of this life and to explore potentials.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 10:20 AM as a reply to CJMacie.

Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Just listened to Blanchard's podcast in which she says that the rebirth doctrine is a metaphor used by Buddha for psycho/spiritual death and rebirth within a person's lifespan. Hmm. So really he's using the terms in the way a born again christian would ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 10:35 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
John

Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Just listened to Blanchard's podcast in which she says that the rebirth doctrine is a metaphor used by Buddha for psycho/spiritual death and rebirth within a person's lifespan. Hmm. So really he's using the terms in the way a born again christian would ?

So goes an interpretation ... that "... really he's using the terms in the way ..."

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/18/15 6:44 PM as a reply to CJMacie.

an interpretation ... that "... reallyhe's using the terms in this way
Indeed, hence the question mark.

And yet some of the experiences of meditation, principally the one of being in union with everything in an ecstatic way, will make some people claim they have found something immortal beneath the apparent changes of life and death.

Hmm..

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/19/15 7:27 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:

Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Just listened to Blanchard's podcast in which she says that the rebirth doctrine is a metaphor used by Buddha for psycho/spiritual death and rebirth within a person's lifespan. Hmm. So really he's using the terms in the way a born again christian would ?

The Buddha taught two levels of teaching: mundane (moral) & supramundane (liberation).

'Rebirth' is not included in his supramundane teachings. In other words, Blanchard is incorrect.

'Rebirth' is a mundane or moral teaching about karma & its results. Rebirth is a teaching for those that have not yet realised "I-less-ness"

Where as 'birth' and 'death' refer to the psycho-spiritual ideas that "I" am born & "I" will die. Since enlightened beings are free from ideas of "I", they are free from "birth" & "death'.

When the Buddha taught on the supramundane pyscho-spiritual level, he used the term "birth" rather than "rebirth".

Since on the enlightened level every momentary phenomena is impermanent, rebirth cannot occur. Only birth & death occur but never rebirth.

For example, the sense of "I" that is born in the mind of a 50 year old is not the same sense of "I" born in the mind of when he was 4 years old. The "I" in the 50 year old is not "reborn" from the 4 year old. It is simply a new or different "I".

As for the Buddha, since he came before Christianity, he did not use the word in the same way as a Christian (however Jesus may have used the word in the same way as the Buddha).

Regards


~~He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

~~Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.

MN 140

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/19/15 7:20 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:


Does buddhism as a religion claim Gautama to be unique ? If not, why would the religion start from him and not for some other similarly wise person ?

The unique teachings the Buddha declared he taught were:

1. Life composed of six elements (which are all empty of self).

2. 18 kinds of feeling based on 6 sense bases which are objects of mindfulness so craving does not arise from them.

3. The Four Noble Truths

4. The Three Characteristics - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self 

5. Dependent Origination

6. Emptiness (sunnata)

7. Here & now Nibbana with feeling ('fuel') that is when greed, hatred & delusion end in the mind.

8. The 8-fold path as the way to end karma.

None of these teachings are about 'rebirth' or 'reincarnation'.

You will not find any record of any wise man before the Buddha teaching these things.

There are no similar wise persons, which is why the Buddha explained only one Self-Enlightened Buddha can arise in a world-system.

This is why Jesus came to reform Judaism with teachings of unconditional love, forgiveness, non-violence, etc, after the Buddha rather than before.

The has never been any teacher comparable to the Buddha however because you do not yet understand his teachings you cannot know this.

Regards

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/19/15 9:09 PM as a reply to Nicky.
Thing is, when I consider claims of teachers being unique, I take a very broad view that there have been a lot of people coming and going in this world, billions of which have left no intellectual trace after death, so I think it would be unwise to believe that nobody before Gotama shared any of his insight.
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.

Hmm...

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 5:43 AM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
John:


Does buddhism as a religion claim Gautama to be unique ? If not, why would the religion start from him and not for some other similarly wise person ?

There are no similar wise persons, which is why the Buddha explained only one Self-Enlightened Buddha can arise in a world-system.

This is why Jesus came to reform Judaism with teachings of unconditional love, forgiveness, non-violence, etc, after the Buddha rather than before.

The has never been any teacher comparable to the Buddha however because you do not yet understand his teachings you cannot know this.

Regards

And yet these are the same things I've heard about Jesus, Mohammed, a bunch of Western gurus.....

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 5:12 PM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
John:

Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Just listened to Blanchard's podcast in which she says that the rebirth doctrine is a metaphor used by Buddha for psycho/spiritual death and rebirth within a person's lifespan. Hmm. So really he's using the terms in the way a born again christian would ?

The Buddha taught two levels of teaching: mundane (moral) & supramundane (liberation).

'Rebirth' is not included in his supramundane teachings. In other words, Blanchard is incorrect.

'Rebirth' is a mundane or moral teaching about karma & its results. Rebirth is a teaching for those that have not yet realised "I-less-ness"

Where as 'birth' and 'death' refer to the psycho-spiritual ideas that "I" am born & "I" will die. Since enlightened beings are free from ideas of "I", they are free from "birth" & "death'.

When the Buddha taught on the supramundane pyscho-spiritual level, he used the term "birth" rather than "rebirth".

Since on the enlightened level every momentary phenomena is impermanent, rebirth cannot occur. Only birth & death occur but never rebirth.

For example, the sense of "I" that is born in the mind of a 50 year old is not the same sense of "I" born in the mind of when he was 4 years old. The "I" in the 50 year old is not "reborn" from the 4 year old. It is simply a new or different "I".

Regards

But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.
It will also say, in common with buddhism, that there is no soul to be transmigrating and reincarnating between god realms, animal realms etc etc
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated by that religion is a rather confused affair. If there is no self to reincarnate, then what is he doing there apart from being the embodiment of ignorance ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 10:16 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
Thing is, when I consider claims of teachers being unique, I take a very broad view that there have been a lot of people coming and going in this world, billions of which have left no intellectual trace after death, so I think it would be unwise to believe that nobody before Gotama shared any of his insight.
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.

Hmm...

The above post is based on zero evidence. It is not real. Archeology supports evolutionary theory. In other words, we have no evidence of any teachings that match the Buddha before the Buddha. This is the only factual evidence we have. 

You seem to be imagining so many things in your post but if we merely think about the social & technological change that occured only over the last 100 years we can witness how fast evolution occurs and thus how primitive life was hundreds of years before the Buddha. 

Great intelligence obviously has not occured billions of years before the Buddha, as you seem to be asserting. 

Just as your life will be very short, so human evolution is something very short. 

For example, a man can live for 100 years. Therefore, only 25 lifetimes from the Buddha until now.

Funny how we can acknowledge great inventors & discoverers like Edison, Einstein, Steve Jobs, Newton, etc, but we struggle to acknowledge the unsurpassed acheivement & discovery of the Buddha.

But then, how can we, if we have zero understanding of what he discovered & explained. emoticon

Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion



RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 10:28 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
Nicky:
John:


Does buddhism as a religion claim Gautama to be unique ? If not, why would the religion start from him and not for some other similarly wise person ?



And yet these are the same things I've heard about Jesus, Mohammed, a bunch of Western gurus.....

Actually, what you wrote again is without evidence. To make your post something both true & substantiated, please provide some quotes from Jesus or Mohammed where they claimed to have revealed something completely original. 

For example, Jesus said what he taught was taught to him by his Father in heaven therefore it was not original to him. Further, evidence shows Jesus taught nothing that is totally original. Mohammed extensively refers to the old Biblical teachings and, similarly, teaches nothing profoundly unique. As for old Moses, his commandments are common to many morality systems in many old cultures. 

Therefore, you would need to provide evidence to refute the claims of the Lord Buddha, who declared his core revelations were 100% unique & profoundly special. 

emoticon

In this world with its devas (gods), Maras (devils) & Brahmas (angels), in this generation with its brahmans and contemplatives, its royalty and common-folk, I do not see another brahman or contemplative more consummate in knowledge and vision of release than I, on whom I could dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him.


Garava Sutta: Reverence


RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 10:33 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:

]But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.


Again, you seem to be lost in respect to time. Physics is maybe 200 years old. Buddha is 2,600 years old. Did the old physicists like Newton (who was a Christian believer is "self") discuss the impermanence of 'self'. Or is it only the physicists of the last 50 years after learning about esoteric Indian teachings? emoticon

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 10:45 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
[quote=
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated
]

No, this is wrong. Many cults & sects may claim these ideas to be true but not the Buddha himself. The Buddha was not Tibetan & what became Buddhism found its way to Tibet hundreds of years after Buddha. 

You asked about the Original Teachings but show zero interest in them when they are mentioned to you. Instead, you post about the children's fairy tale versions of Buddhism and Tibet ideas that are many 100s years after the orignal teachings. Seems like you head is full of ideas and can't take in anything new. All the best. emoticon


In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.


Ani Sutta: The Peg


RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/21/15 11:52 PM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
John:
Thing is, when I consider claims of teachers being unique, I take a very broad view that there have been a lot of people coming and going in this world, billions of which have left no intellectual trace after death, so I think it would be unwise to believe that nobody before Gotama shared any of his insight.
Why would you believe that the universe would reliably inform you of it's finest inhabitants, or that the wise would only ever manifest in a society that is coincidentally literate and has developed ink ? The only way through that is if you see the universe as a part of yourself, and you are merely informing yourself about yourself through another's mouth when you have a teacher - which is what many of them say - in which case the teacher is something akin to your own creation.
I suppose then that you believe the universe works according to a law which guarantees you will be informed of the wisest teacher and his/her teachings, should they arise on Earth ?
On the other hand it takes a certain level of insight to grasp that the universe can be just a self reflection, rather than a seperate entity from one's own mind, which removes the element of chance as you are taking part in the creation process.

Hmm...

The above post is based on zero evidence. It is not real. Archeology supports evolutionary theory. In other words, we have no evidence of any teachings that match the Buddha before the Buddha. This is the only factual evidence we have. 

You seem to be imagining so many things in your post but if we merely think about the social & technological change that occured only over the last 100 years we can witness how fast evolution occurs and thus how primitive life was hundreds of years before the Buddha. 

Great intelligence obviously has not occured billions of years before the Buddha, as you seem to be asserting. 

Just as your life will be very short, so human evolution is something very short. 

For example, a man can live for 100 years. Therefore, only 25 lifetimes from the Buddha until now.

Funny how we can acknowledge great inventors & discoverers like Edison, Einstein, Steve Jobs, Newton, etc, but we struggle to acknowledge the unsurpassed acheivement & discovery of the Buddha.

But then, how can we, if we have zero understanding of what he discovered & explained. emoticon

Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion



I'm afraid i still don't agree with you.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There being no known record of comparable teaching doesn't mean there has not been one. Do you know what went up in flames in the Library of Alexandria ? What the Mongols destroyed in decades of war ? What the church destroyed in South America ? Which oral traditions have come and gone in the jungles, deserts and mountains of the world ? You are making an assumption that you know what is going to be unearthed in the future, or what may be stashed away in a collection somewhere. How do you know who did or didn't keep quiet about what they found in meditation and contemplation ?

I have not asserted at all that great intelligence arose billions of years ago, merely that our record of civilisation (and intelligence) is incomplete - a record which is constantly being found to be older than we thought.

The parallel with science is valid, simultaneous discoveries occur, people get credit for discoveries which they were not the first to make. This is much easier to do in a non-technical field, of something which is only dependent upon brains which rot after death, on which we have no record or only fragments.

Jesus did claim to be unique, as did Mohammed. I don't recall Jesus claiming there was another guy that was sent to fulfill his role. He was pretty clear about that - according to what records we have. It's entirely possible there were others lost to us.

Claims of past primitiveness are constantly being revised. You have heard of Gobekli Tepe and Blombos Cave, Benin ?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 12:05 AM as a reply to Nicky.


As for the Buddha, since he came before Christianity, he did not use the word in the same way as a Christian (however Jesus may have used the word in the same way as the Buddha).

Regards

Nicky

In as much as it does not refer to a physical death and rebirth in the afterlife, but rather a psychological one. Granted the Buddhist view is different philosophically.

Regards.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 12:25 AM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
John:
[quote=
You don't have to dissolve the ego to lose belief in reincarnation, simple scepticism about the idea will serve that purpose - one could simply ask for proof of previous existence, and not place trust in memory.
To meditate in order to stop a cycle of rebirths in that way would seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist - that only existed in the minds of those who believe.
The buddhist view seems to be more like modern common sense than mystic schmystic revelations of the Great One. Perhaps it's the glamour of the spectacle of religions like Tibetan Buddhism that casts it in that light, with it's emphasis on reincarnations. I mean, it would seem that choosing a Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of a buddist religion on the basis of something which is supposed to be negated
]

No, this is wrong. Many cults & sects may claim these ideas to be true but not the Buddha himself. The Buddha was not Tibetan & what became Buddhism found its way to Tibet hundreds of years after Buddha. 

You asked about the Original Teachings but show zero interest in them when they are mentioned to you. Instead, you post about the children's fairy tale versions of Buddhism and Tibet ideas that are many 100s years after the orignal teachings. Seems like you head is full of ideas and can't take in anything new. All the best. emoticon


In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.


Ani Sutta: The Peg


Nicky

I'm not saying the Buddha did believe in reincarnation - at least after enlightenment.
What are the original teachings ?
All we have are writings taken down, edited, altered, added to hundreds of years after the events. It would seem quite a lot to ask of me to refer to the original teachings when all we have are secondary sources.

Regards.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 12:31 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when
discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
mastering.


Ani Sutta: The Peg

Nicky, there's a lot of it about.

Jeremiah 23:16
This
is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are
prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions
from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 12:45 AM as a reply to Stick Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DgASaxsws

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 12:48 AM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
John:

]But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.


Again, you seem to be lost in respect to time. Physics is maybe 200 years old. Buddha is 2,600 years old. Did the old physicists like Newton (who was a Christian believer is "self") discuss the impermanence of 'self'. Or is it only the physicists of the last 50 years after learning about esoteric Indian teachings? emoticon

That's not modern physics, that's old physics - Newtonian mechanics.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 12:50 AM as a reply to Gunnar Johansson.
Gunnar Johansson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DgASaxsws


Too late mate, I already saw it emoticon

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 11:38 PM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
John:

]But there's more to it than that isn't there ? Impermanance of a self isn't just a buddhist idea, modern physics will say that too - everything is being broken down and reformed constantly.


Again, you seem to be lost in respect to time. Physics is maybe 200 years old. Buddha is 2,600 years old. Did the old physicists like Newton (who was a Christian believer is "self") discuss the impermanence of 'self'. Or is it only the physicists of the last 50 years after learning about esoteric Indian teachings? emoticon
Nicky

This is really bad. Physics - predates buddha, for a start. The interlink between science and atheist disbelief in the soul - belief in a perpetual self - developed in the European enlightenment period hundreds of years ago. The observation that matter in the body is continually changing, reforming and replacing itself - impermanent - is neither a development of the last 50 years, or a consequence of eastern teachings. Records of the idea of constant change go back to Heraclitus at least. Who knows what has been lost or not recorded ?

Why go to all the trouble of adopting a belief in reincarnation for the purposes of being buddhist, only to have to drop it again upon progressing on the buddhist path ? Why not just keep the starting point of modern science which is disbelief in afterlives and pre-lives ?

regards

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/22/15 11:51 PM as a reply to CJMacie.
Chris J Macie:
Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Thanks for the book tip. I'm enjoying it like Buddhescence. They both look at dependent arising from the context of childhood development. Good stuff!

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/23/15 4:02 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
[quote=John


This is really bad. Physics - predates buddha, for a start. The interlink between science and atheist disbelief in the soul - belief in a perpetual self - developed in the European enlightenment period hundreds of years ago. The observation that matter in the body is continually changing, reforming and replacing itself - impermanent - is neither a development of the last 50 years, or a consequence of eastern teachings. Records of the idea of constant change go back to Heraclitus at least. Who knows what has been lost or not recorded ?

Why go to all the trouble of adopting a belief in reincarnation for the purposes of being buddhist, only to have to drop it again upon progressing on the buddhist path ? Why not just keep the starting point of modern science which is disbelief in afterlives and pre-lives ?

regards

What I wrote is not 'bad'. What I wrote is correct & good. Buddha predates Heraclitus. Heraclitus had an impression into impermanence but did not realise not-self (anatta). Buddha established his systematic dharma that has been preserved for 2,600 years because his mind was fully enlightened & skilled. Heraclitus established nothing much because his mind was not fully enlightened. I already said to you there is no documented evidence in history of a systemic teaching about "not-self" (anatta) apart from Buddha.

Also, I already explained that in the original teachings there are two levels of teachings for two levels of people. The original teachings clearly state any belief in reincarnation is for the development of morality but is not a factor of the noble path.


~~And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:

[1] There is right view with effluents, siding with merit  , resulting in acquisitions [of ego-becoming];

[2] there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

~~Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/23/15 3:58 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when
discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
mastering.


Ani Sutta: The Peg

Nicky, there's a lot of it about.

Jeremiah 23:16
This
is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are
prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions
from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.

The above quote from Jeremiah is irrelevent because the quote by the Buddha is about a certain subject matter.

The quote from Buddha is referring to EMPTINESS (SUNNATA) as the core original & unique teaching of the Buddhas.

Where as Jeremiah is only referring to morality, which is found in many religions.

Regards emoticon

Let the Blessed One exhort & instruct us in a way that may lead to our welfare & happiness for a long time.

You should train yourself thus: "From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathagata that are deep, deep in their meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness". In such a way you should train yourselves.

SN 55.53

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/23/15 4:10 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
Nicky:

Nicky

I'm not saying the Buddha did believe in reincarnation - at least after enlightenment.
What are the original teachings ?
All we have are writings taken down, edited, altered, added to hundreds of years after the events. It would seem quite a lot to ask of me to refer to the original teachings when all we have are secondary sources.

Regards.

The original teachings are what bring liberation from suffering. But because your mind is not enlightened, it has doubt about the teachings. The teachings clearly explain an unenlightened person, called a 'puthajjana', has doubts about the teachings.

emoticon

~~There are these ten fetters. Which ten? Five lower fetters & five higher fetters. And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. And these are the ten fetters.

~~Sanyojana Sutta: Fetters

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/23/15 4:15 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:


As for the Buddha, since he came before Christianity, he did not use the word in the same way as a Christian (however Jesus may have used the word in the same way as the Buddha).

Regards

Nicky

In as much as it does not refer to a physical death and rebirth in the afterlife, but rather a psychological one. Granted the Buddhist view is different philosophically.

Regards.

The Buddhist view is not different. When Buddha referred to the word "birth", he referred to something psychological. emoticon

Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.

Angulimala Sutta: About Angulimala


There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person assumes form to be 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

Parileyyaka Sutta: At Parileyyaka

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/23/15 4:28 PM as a reply to Stick Man.
John:
Nicky:


Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion



I'm afraid i still don't agree with you.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There being no known record of comparable teaching doesn't mean there has not been one. Do you know what went up in flames in the Library of Alexandria ? What the Mongols destroyed in decades of war ? What the church destroyed in South America ? Which oral traditions have come and gone in the jungles, deserts and mountains of the world ? You are making an assumption that you know what is going to be unearthed in the future, or what may be stashed away in a collection somewhere. How do you know who did or didn't keep quiet about what they found in meditation and contemplation ?

I have not asserted at all that great intelligence arose billions of years ago, merely that our record of civilisation (and intelligence) is incomplete - a record which is constantly being found to be older than we thought.

The parallel with science is valid, simultaneous discoveries occur, people get credit for discoveries which they were not the first to make. This is much easier to do in a non-technical field, of something which is only dependent upon brains which rot after death, on which we have no record or only fragments.

Jesus did claim to be unique, as did Mohammed. I don't recall Jesus claiming there was another guy that was sent to fulfill his role. He was pretty clear about that - according to what records we have. It's entirely possible there were others lost to us.

Claims of past primitiveness are constantly being revised. You have heard of Gobekli Tepe and Blombos Cave, Benin ?

There are no lost records. You are imagining things. Religious culture & doctines were preserved in communities by word & book. For example, many Christian sects were destroyed yet knowledge of these sects remain.

Jesus did not teach anything unique but did claim he was from the one true god.

The fact u are unable to accept is only the Buddha systematically taught the doctrine of NOT-SELF & EMPTINESS, which are the original teachings. emoticon

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/24/15 7:54 AM as a reply to Richard Zen.
Richard Zen:
Chris J Macie:
Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Thanks for the book tip. I'm enjoying it like Buddhescence. They both look at dependent arising from the context of childhood development. Good stuff!

Can't find "Buddhescence" via google. Perhaps "Buddha Essence"? Or even 'The
Buddha Nature
' by one Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, which I've been able to download a PDF of?

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/24/15 8:18 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
Chris J Macie:
Richard Zen:
Chris J Macie:
Linda Blanchard, taught by Gombrich, has used Jurewicz writings as basis for her 'Dependent Arising in Context', which is highly regarded in Secular Buddhism circles; she's an active poster at the SBA website / discussion groups.

Thanks for the book tip. I'm enjoying it like Buddhescence. They both look at dependent arising from the context of childhood development. Good stuff!

Can't find "Buddhescence" via google. Perhaps "Buddha Essence"? Or even 'The
Buddha Nature
' by one Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, which I've been able to download a PDF of?

This is a book by Darryl Bailey that you have to buy paperback. He even signs it. The only thing that's disappointing was seeing him on goodreads.com and rating himself 5/5 stars. LOL! The contents of the book are good but you always wonder about people.

The main thrust is as always with dependent arising is trying to predict what mental movements will give stress and environmental situations that will make it easier to go into stress. We have to stop resisting what we have no power to control.

Dependent arising in context focuses on the reptilian brain and it's over-compensation in trying to dominate the environment. Again we are trying to control what we can't control.

RE: Original teaching
Answer
6/24/15 9:20 AM as a reply to Nicky.
Nicky:
[quote=John


This is really bad. Physics - predates buddha, for a start. The interlink between science and atheist disbelief in the soul - belief in a perpetual self - developed in the European enlightenment period hundreds of years ago. The observation that matter in the body is continually changing, reforming and replacing itself - impermanent - is neither a development of the last 50 years, or a consequence of eastern teachings. Records of the idea of constant change go back to Heraclitus at least. Who knows what has been lost or not recorded ?

Why go to all the trouble of adopting a belief in reincarnation for the purposes of being buddhist, only to have to drop it again upon progressing on the buddhist path ? Why not just keep the starting point of modern science which is disbelief in afterlives and pre-lives ?

regards

What I wrote is not 'bad'. What I wrote is correct & good. Buddha predates Heraclitus. Heraclitus had an impression into impermanence but did not realise not-self (anatta). Buddha established his systematic dharma that has been preserved for 2,600 years because his mind was fully enlightened & skilled. Heraclitus established nothing much because his mind was not fully enlightened. I already said to you there is no documented evidence in history of a systemic teaching about "not-self" (anatta) apart from Buddha.

Also, I already explained that in the original teachings there are two levels of teachings for two levels of people. The original teachings clearly state any belief in reincarnation is for the development of morality but is not a factor of the noble path.


~~And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:

[1] There is right view with effluents, siding with merit  , resulting in acquisitions [of ego-becoming];

[2] there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

~~Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty

Well, buddha established his dharma but you're not getting buddha's dharma, you're getting his follower's version - secondary sources.

Even less evidence exists as to what Heraclitus said - so how you judge and summate his entire philosophy is anyone's guess - and indeed you are guessing, though you don't seem to realise it.

Heraclitus - and Cratulus raising his finger which sounds rather buddha-ish to me
https://youtu.be/pOnWGj5NfoY?t=16m45s