[Buddha-l] Back to the core values? -- and origins

[Piya Tan]

The topic of early or original Buddhism (defs vary) is fascinating, but
history being
what it is (past and gone), it is not easy at all to reconstruct the past,
especially
without any palpable artefacts from that time.

However, as regards early Buddhism, we have enough conceptual materials to
work with where moral training and mindfulness training are concerned. This
reconstructibility of early
Buddhist practice is further facilitated with intra-Buddhist and comparative
Buddhist
studies, like
(1) the Pali and the Chinese Agamas (also in Sanskrit, Gandhari, etc),
(2) translating the terminology of living traditions into clear contemporary
language.

BA Wallace is doing this esp well, eg "Vacuum States of Consciousness" (
http://www.alanwallace.org/Vacuum%20States%20Essay.pdf), where we can
see how the alayavijana concept of Sanskrit Buddhism and the bhavanga of
Pali
Abhidhamma and their related concepts are so closely related.

All this help us in a conceptual reconstruction of the early practice. In
fact, I think
the reconstruction of the early practice is very helpful for the
practitioner. This is
especially so with discussion with living practitioners and practising
oneself.

best wishes

Piya Tan




On 5/28/07, Isidoros <ioniccentre at hol.gr> wrote:
>
> Greetings everyone.
>
> If I may focus on Bob Zeuschner initial question(s), and
> after noting the many references so far in the discussion
> to "early Buddhism" and the "early texts", I should like to
> say that I am often left wanting, not to say perplexed,
> whenever I have tried to approach the Buddha material
> culture and literary evidence, and date it to my basic,
> critical satisfaction.
>
> I realize that like most all religions -- that is all traditions
> that were promulgated on the oral, alongside the mythical
> -- Buddhism is weighed, too, by fundamental (mis)conceptions,
> as also by superstitions, and by cultural prejudices. Yet, surely
> given the advanced application of scientific methodologies
> and material techniques, a more reliable answer should
> exist to questions surrounding the Buddha origins.
>
> When is now considered for Buddha to had been born?
> I have read a varied number of dates, that most all seem,
> to me, to be more or less arbitrarily set. Even the more
> historically conservative ones appear to be still seriously
> skewed by exaggerated beliefs, bowing essentially to them.
>
> For the sake of facilitating the discussion, yet without really
> wanting to proscribe and influence responses, may I ask,
> along historical lines: how many years before Ashoka's reign
> may be said for Buddha to had been really born, and how is
> this determined today? I certainly do not ask for any detailed
> treatment here for the matter, but for years, for example,
> I have been reading various general accounts related to
> the issue (even) in this list, most alluding to an early (6th?
> or 5th century?) birth date, without any references to it.
> So, I wonder what is the bases for all this.
>
> Put more directly, when and on what scientific evidence
> is the Buddha thought to had been born in 560 BCE or
> whenever? what is the earliest secure attestation to this
> event, and of what date?
>
> And, in regard to the discussed core values, when, and
> how many years after Buddha's birth, is the earliest
> literary evidence of his birth and teachings?
>
> I have, again, read wide varying accounts to these, and
> I should be thankful to have the List's learned members
> opinions and responses.
>
> A fine good day to all -- from a (thankfully) rainy Athens!
>
> Isidoros
>
>
> >I was suggesting that what the sutras say may or may not be
> >identical to the original teachings of the Buddha, the founder (as
> >the four gospels may or may not be identical to the teachings of the
> >founder). Are the Buddhist sutras more historically accurate than
> >the Christian gospels?
> >
> >Buddhologists date sutras and stick to those most likely to be
> >earliest in our attempt to reconstruct the founder's words.
> >Then we stress certain aspects and minimize others when we write
> >books, or teach the ideas to students.
> >
> >Certainly each and every school of Buddhism, past and present,
> >claims to be the teachings of the founder; but they are not all
> >compatible. Theravada, Madhyamika, Pure Land, Vajrayana, Ch'an.
> >My personal belief is that I doubt that it is possible to
> >reconstruct precisely and exactly what the founder taught.
> >Some teachings are pretty obviously traceable back. Did he teach
> >Dukkha? Of course. Pratityasamutpada? I certainly think so. Did he
> >teach the Four Noble Truths? I believe this is more controversial.
> >Did he teach anicca? Sure. Did he teach momentariness? Not so sure.
> >Bob
> >
> >
> >Jackhat1 at aol.com wrote:
> >>In a message dated 5/27/2007 1:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> >>rbzeuschner at adelphia.net writes:
> >>
> >>    However, when Christians say "what would Jesus do?" they are asking
> >>    what
> >>    their idealized vision of their founder would do (seen through 21st
> >>    century eyes and expectations).
> >>    I think Buddhists do the same when they want to "de-evolve" back to
> the
> >>    teachings of the founder.
> >>
> >>====
> >>I don't think that sticking close to what the suttas say results in
> >>an idealized vision of what the Buddha taught.
> >> Jack
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >buddha-l mailing list
> >buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> > http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>



-- 
The Minding Centre
Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
Singapore 650644
Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20070529/6ac2b860/attachment.htm