Buddhism Thread: Bitch I just told you about kshitigarbha

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Buddhism Thread: Bitch I just told you about kshitigarbha

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Josef bugman posted:

Each one begins from a place of utter poverty and eventually becomes a stupidly powerful and wealthy temporal society. Does that happen a lot in Buddhism as well?

The part with the armies, at least within Indian Buddhism no not really as far as I know. Buddhist monasteries (viharas) did however become banking and lending institutions. There is extensive monastic code in the vinaya dedicated to procedures for giving out loans, managing documents, insuring that there are monk witnesses to the signing of loan documents, etc etc. The viharas also curiously served as a sort of retirement community because they had codes and standards for caring for monks. We have vinaya code discussing individuals donating their wealth to the vinaya at the end of their lives in exchange for ordination and the assignment of a younger caretaker monk. Particularly in middle and late Buddhism we see the development of complex societal roles for monasteries that typically conflict with conventional notions of what we think of as the idealized monk/monastery. One of the main reasons that Buddhist temples were targeted by invading Muslim armies wasn�t necessarily because they were branded as idolaters though this was often a convenient story but also in large part due to the fact that they were easy to loot stores of wealth and treasure.

For more info on this check out Buddhist Monks and Business Matters by Gregory Schopen

Yiggy fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Feb 18, 2020

# ¿ Feb 18, 2020 01:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:19

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

It can be easy/convenient to take the certainty we feel in an interpretation after our own readings and assurances from contemporary teachers and then project that backwards on the Buddhist tradition as a whole, but this is often problematic. It is not just westerners informed by science that have struggled with this question, they even find themselves in good company with luminaries of the buddhist tradition such as Vasubandhu.

Indian schools argued both sides and dug deep into the weeds on interpretation and understanding. This is often frustrated by the fact that literal readings of even the Pali cannon evince frequent contradictions because the buddha was not a deontologist philosopher consistently opining metaphysical certainties as much as he was a renunciant ministering to suffering individuals within a particular context. And even then, he was ministering to individuals with differing and inconsistent views on the world around them, sometimes teaching something to one individual that seemed to contradict something he would tell to another.

Here because others have said it better I generously excerpt Etienne Lamotte from an essay of his, Textual Interpretation in Buddhism.

quote:

The letter indicates the spirit just as the fingertip indicates an object, but since the spirit is alien to syllables, the letter is unable to express it in full. Purely literal exegesis is therefore bound to fail. The theme of the letter which kills and the spirit which enlivens is elaborated several times in the Lankavatarasutra, of which we will merely quote a page here:

quote:
O Mahamati, the son and daughter of good family should not interpret the spirit according to the letter since reality is not connected with syllables. One should not act like those who look at the finger: it is as if someone pointed out something with his finger to someone else and the latter persisted in staring at the fingertip [instead of looking at the object indicated]; similarly, just like children, foolish worldlings end their lives as attached to that fingertip which consists of the literal translation and, by neglecting the meaning indicated by the fingertip of literal interpretation, they never reach the higher meaning.

...

If scholars counseled the search for the spirit with so much insistence, it is because the meaning of the texts often lacks clarity and needs to be interpreted. This led to the imposition of the third rule.

The sutra of precise meaning (nitharta) is the refuge, not (the sutra) the meaning of which requires interpretation (neyartha). This distinction is not accepted by the Mahasamghika school, which is of the opinion that �in all that the Blessed One expounded, there is nothing which does not conform to the meaning, and that all the sutras propounded by the Buddha are precise in meaning.� However, that position is not easy to defend, since many sutras contradict each other. Thus, to take just one example, the text of the Bimbisarasutra states: �Foolish worldlings who have not learned anything take the self for their self and are attached to the self. But there is no self (atman) or anything pertaining to the self; the self is empty and anything pertaining to the self is empty.� This text, which denies the existence of a soul, is contradicted by another canonical passage, in the words of which: �An individual (ekapudgala) born in the world is born for the welfare of many.� If those two texts are taken literally, one if forced to conclude that the Buddha contradicted himself. For fear of maligning the omniscient one, the Sarvastivadins, followed by the scholars of the Mahayana, preferred to accept that certain sutras should be taken literally while others should be interpreted. According to Vasumitra and Bhavya, theses 49 and 50 of the Sarvastivadins state that the Blessed One uttered words which were not in accordance with the meaning, that sutras spoken by the Buddha were not all precise in meaning and that the Buddha himself said that certain sutras were indeterminate in meaning.

...

In general, it is considerations of a doctrinal type which enable a decision to be reached as to whether a sutra is precise in meaning or with a meaning to be determined. The Hinayana and Mahayana are in agreement in rejecting the belief in the self and proclaim the non-existence of the individual. However, we find texts in both vehicles in which the Buddha, in order to place himself within his listeners� range, speaks of a soul, a living being, a man, an individual, and so on. Scholars consider such texts to be neyartha and requiring explanation, if not correction. Conversely, they regard as nithartha and literal the Hinayana texts in which there is a question of impermanence (anitya), suffering (dukkha), and impersonality (anatman) as well as Mahayana passages which deal with universal emptiness (sunyata).

...

The subjective nature of this criterion is immediately apparent and explains the frequent disagreement between scholars: each school tends to take literally the doctrinal texts which conform to its theses and to consider those which cause dilemmas as being of provisional meaning. These are some of the texts which have been disputed over:

...

The Vatsuputriyas, who believed in the existence of an ineffable pudgala, based their authority on the Bharaharasutra, in which it is said: �The bearer of the burden [of existence] is such-and-such a venerable one, with such-and-such a name, from such-and-such a family, such-and-such a clan, etc.,� and other similar sutras which they took literally. The other Buddhist schools, while not rejecting such texts, only accepted that they have a provisional meaning and are not authoritative; they resorted to sutras which are explicit in meaning and formally taught that, within that supposed pudgala, �there are merely things which are impermanent, conditioned, arisen from causes and conditions, and are created by action.�

...

The Treatise by Nagarjuna lists four points of view, only the last of which is absolute; the other three pertain to relative or conventional truth. The buddha did not restrict himself to exactness of wording when expressing himself: (1) From the worldly point of view, he often adopted the current idiom and did not hesitate to speak in terms of beings who die and go to be reborn in the five destinies; he extolled the role of the single person (ekapudgala) who is born into the world for the joy, happiness and benefit of the many. (2) From the personal point of view, the Buddha often tried to adapt his teaching to the intellectual and moral dispositions of his listeners. To those who did not believe in the afterlife {note from yiggy: its often assumed that conventional notions of literal rebirth were universally accepted by the Buddha�s contemporaries and that he too merely accepted the conventions of his time and this is not strictly true} but believed everything disappears at death, he discoursed on immortality and predicted a fruition in different universes; to Phalguna, who believed in the eternity of the self, he taught the nonexistence of a person as a thinking and fruition-incurring being. This might be said to be a contradiction; it is, however, not the least so but merely skillful means (upaya). (3) From the remedial point of view, the Buddha who is the healer of universal suffering varied the remedies according to the diseases to be cured; to the sensuous, he taught the contemplation of a decomposing corpse; to vindictive and hate-filled men, he recommended thoughts of goodwill regarding those close to one; to the deluded, he advised study on the subject of dependent origination. We should never forget that the omniscient Buddha is less a teacher of philosophy and more a healer of universal suffering: he imparts to every person the teaching which suits them best.

To summarize my thoughts on the excerpts in response to the thread discussion:

*Not accepting literal rebirth has almost no bearing on accepting the dharma and its insights on samsara and nirvana. Furthermore, that numerous luminaries from the history of Buddhism have noted that one should meditate on and attempt to approach the spirit of what the dharma is saying, and that an attachment to the literal interpretation is an impediment to insight and development along the path.

*Rather than merely being a hang up of westerners member to certain demographic categories, that this is a perennial concern going back thousands of years, which should give anyone comfortable in their own interpretations some measure of pause. Some Buddhists clung to notions of literal rebirth tenaciously, and it can be easy to understand why. The pudgalavadins needed an entity which carried the karma and merit from one birth to the next because that was in no small part the edifice which the entire monastic institution rested on. You don�t have lay Buddhists paying for donative inscriptions dedicating merit to certain individuals without that. You don�t have the development of viharas and later mahaviharas without that. And yet curiously you have large parts of the tradition reacting against just that. It�s a complex issue, and should be approached with nuance.

Yiggy fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Feb 19, 2020

# ¿ Feb 19, 2020 00:09

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

I�m interested.

# ¿ Feb 29, 2020 03:06

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

The closet you get to �an end� or an eschatology of any sort, particularly as recognized by old Indian schools and later Buddhist movements, is really just the next beginning; the next Buddha, Maitreya. You�ll see certain texts describe how right before the coming of maitreya that the Buddha�s bone relics and some of his artifacts such as his alms bowl will all come together at the end right before the coming of Maitreya the prophesied next Buddha.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2020 04:07

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

It�s a non fiction book more than a text on dogma or practice etc but I found my last read Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West by Donald S Lopez to be a very engaging read. It discusses the history of the West�s discovery and understanding of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism, highlighting some of the ideas, concepts and in some cases misconceptions that westerners find salient and their relevance and provenance etc. Lopez is an excellent scholar and writer and I�ve found some of his other works (From Stone to Flesh is another good one) fascinating. Definitely gives me lots to think about whenever I read his stuff.

Currently working through a volume he edited titled Buddhist Hermeneutics. That essay I quoted from earlier in the thread was out of that.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2020 03:06

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Paramemetic posted:

I don't know of anyone firing shots at Ananda but it's not impossible.

I would need to dig for citations but from my fuzzy recollection (hey, we�re all getting older) In the Pali cannon it�s noted that Ananda had his arhantship granted just before the first council essentially as a justification for his presence since a lot of the sangha-agreed-upon teachings were based on his recollection and his longstanding relationship with the Buddha as his personal attendant. It is sort of implied that he remembers and can speak the dharma but his deep understanding of the dharma is questioned. Essentially that he has the letter of the dharma down but not the spirit.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2020 07:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:19

Yiggy: Sep 12, 2004; "Imagination is not enough. You have to have knowledge too, and an experience of the oddity of life."

Hiro Protagonist posted:

I saw a post online recently, and couldn't come up with a good response: why do English speaking Buddhists (generally) chant in the language of their tradition instead of English? Isn't it important to understand what you're chanting, not just in a "someone told me it means X" way, but through your own language?

Because traditionally the praxis is not about reciting and reaffirming a confessed belief or doctrine, per se. It is generally a merit making exercise whereby reciting and spreading buddhavacana one accumulates merit for a better rebirth. The understanding is secondary to the creation of merit. For instance, in the Thai forest tradition it is not uncommon to see monastics remember and recite large stretches of sutras in the Pali even though the reciters don�t understand a lick of it.

It�s a sort of ceremonial technology for insuring a better birth, rather than any sort of reaffirmation of ones knowledge. In practice this makes it different from, say, a catechism.

Yiggy fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Apr 17, 2020

# ¿ Apr 17, 2020 03:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Buddhism Thread: Bitch I just told you about kshitigarbha