Re: Facts are stubborn things. Concerning the historicity of Guru Sakyamuni Buddha and the Mahayana Buddhist Canon. . . and Right Speech Generally.
Concerning the historicity of Guru Sakyamuni Buddha and the Mahayana Buddhist Canon
( And also historicity of other persons in ancient times, such as Socrates and Confucius, and related attacks by Swarm on the Dalai Lama and various Buddhist "controversies" )
Re Swarm (1) on Tribe Crossroads of Religion:
"On the mahayana canon...
the accounts of the texts specific to the Mahayana school (the Mahayana Sutras) are seen by scholars to not represent a true historic account of the life and teachings of the Buddha.[15] The traditional account of why these accounts are not preserved in the older Tripitaka texts (the Pali Canon and the Agamas) of Early Buddhism asserts that the Mahayana teachings were given to, and preserved by, beings in other realms (either supernatural beings or Buddhas and Bodhisattvas on other planes of being). The teachings were not generally taught in this realm. . . "
This is of course false. Guru Sakyamuni taught and entrusted many teachings to his direct disciple Shariputra, and emphasized that Shariputra was an important holder of his direct teachings. These teachings include a lot of Mahayana teaching. Thus the Mahayana teaching is historically established directly from Guru Sakyamuni to a first generation immediate student, and no can can effectively refute this.
Thus Swarm's assertion fails completely on the first point.
Re Swarm (2), same thread:
"The Pali Mahaparinibbana Sutta is biographical; it gives an account of the events surrounding the end of the Buddha's life, of which scholars have said that it displays attention to detail and has been resorted to as the principal source of reference in most standard studies of the Buddha's life. "
Yes, this and many other accounts of the historical life of Guru Sakyamuni Buddha are well established and accepted by all Buddhist traditions and all academic institutions, including University of Oxford, Harvard University, University of California Berkeley and Tokyo University.
In particular, everyone accepts that Guru Sakyamuni taught the Dhammapada, which gives very clear and definite teachings on philosophy, moral conduct and ethics, karma and dharma. No one in academia nor in any of hundreds of Buddhist groups or among millions of Buddhist practitioners rejects the Dhammapada as being inaccurate or a fabrication.
This disproves two key ( and entirely bizarre ) assertions Swarm has attempted to make on tribe Buddhism. There Swarm asserts that
(1) "There was never a historical Buddha Shakyamuni."
(2) "Buddhist refuge is a mistake."
Clearly this is a syllogism, and in particular a false syllogism, specifically of the following form:
"Since there was never a historical Buddha Shakyamuni, Buddhism is fundamentally a fabrication and therefore to be rejected."
Clearly now we see that Swarm has contradicted himself ( between these posts ). He made it clear that there was never a historical Buddha, but now admits that early scriptures such as Mahaparinirvana etc. ARE completely historical, and these of course establish the life and times of the historical Buddha, in his interaction with students and others.
So now we all see that even from his own arguments Swarm has completely contradicted himself. "No there never was a Sakyamuni Buddha", and "Yes, there was a Sakyamuni Buddha." At this point it is not even necessary to "prove" the historical existence of Sakyamuni, but only to point out that Swarms assertions fail through complete self-contradition, and thus are false in all respects.
Case closed on Swarm! What a profound self humiliation in public he has made.
Swarm has made many attempts to attack Buddhism generally, in particular against Guru Sakyamuni and against the Dalai Lama. His attack against the Dalai Lama is equally weak and lacks concrete specfics. Swarm asserts that the Dalai Lama "doesn't let people practice [ Buddhism ] the way they want" but that of course is simply not true.
The opposite is true. The Dalai Lama is quite aware that there are different lineages and perspectives and historical currents in Tibetan Buddhism, and his restriction is basically that those who practice the deity "Shugdan", as some Gelugpas do, are not to take teachings from him as well. This is reasonable, and every Buddhist teacher has the right to exclude those who follow a path contradictory to the path they teach.
For example, there are Buddhist teachers who exclude Hindu students. This is not to prevent Hindus from being Hindus, but only a definition of who is accepted into a specific school of Buddhist teaching.
It should be pointed out that exclusion of Shugdan practitioners in very common in the Four Schools of Tibetan Buddhism:
(1) Shugdan practice is completely against the practice of Nyingma Tibetan Buddhism.
(2) Shugdan practice is completely incompatible with the historical lineage of Karma Kagyu Tibetan Buddhism, which makes much use of Nyingma practices such as Padmasambhava, Vajrakilaya, and Great Perfection / Dzogchen.
(3) Shugdan practice is rejected by major current teachers of the Sakya School of Tibetan Buddhism for the same reason. HH Sakya Trizin and other primary Sakya teachers have received Nyingma teachings and also hold ancient Nyingma lineage through a Sakya predecessor who was a DIRECT student of Guru Padmasambhava. This is true even though some Sakyas have practiced Shugdan.
(4) Shugdan practice is greatly marginalized and rejected by many modern Gelugpas, both Tibetan-born and the global Gelugpa communities worldwide. A major example is the global Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Trust, which accepts the guidance of the Dalai Lama.
(5) Many or most Tibetan-born Buddhists ( in exile or in Tibet ) follow the explicit guidance of the Dalai Lama, and have therefore marginalized Shugdan practitioners.
I am not saying this to play politics, or to cause further difficulties for the Shugdan people. I am simply stating the facts on a political / theological issue which have been brought up. I personally do not wish any ill to Shugdan people, who have in fact some effect in North American and Europe.
However, since their approach is against the practice of Guru Padmasambhava and Nyingma practice in general, they have effectively excluded themselves from association with the Nyingma and Kagyu schools altogether, the modern Sakya school, the Dalai Lama and other Gelugpas.
Further, Guru Padmasambhava is practiced by millions of Chinese on a daily or weekly basis. This Nyingma practice is in fact one of the main Kagyu and Sakya and tantric Chinese Buddhist practices, not just Nyingma Tibetan per se. And furthermore, the current Dalai Lama himself inherits a major Padmasambhava practice lineage from his predecessor, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, and he has repetedly given this transmission in the West.
Thus the attack on the Dalai Lama as somehow causing problems and dividing Buddhist practitioners is quite false. Swarm is not a Buddhist, does not accept any Buddhist teaching, and is not familiar with the issues or histories of anything in Buddhism.
An ignorant or biased person might also claim that the Dalai Lama is also "interfering" with the current controversy concerning the inheritance of the Karmapa lineage, but this is also not true. The Dalai Lama personally supports one inheritor of the lineage, but does not oppose the other claimant. This is not divisive, and does not attempt to control or oppress any Kagyu school activities. Just so you know.
As we can ALL see from the above detailed discussion, Swarm's attempted criticisms are ignorant and unfounded and on a fundamental level, completely self-contradictory.
The fact is that some persons from ancient time, such as Socrates, Confucius, and Sakyamuni, are very well attested in their lives and social interactions. Sakyamuni lived for eighty years, and taught for fifty. We all know and agree on essentially all the particulars of his biography ( except dates ) from life to desth, from his family of origin to his marriage and fatherhood to his renunciation of the lay life and so forth, his entire progress as a person for eighty years.
This is in profound contrast to the "histories" of Jesus the Nazarene, of whom many basic questions remain, such as the huge gap in the middle of his rather short life.
Nevertheless, it has be conclusively shown that there are some people from ancient times, such as Socrates, Jesus the Nazarene, Confucius, and Sakayamuni, whose historical lives are well attested in the social domain and who are anything but fictional. It is absurd and laughable to deny the historical facts. Facts are stubborn things. To reject historical factual lives is merely a delusion, in psychological terms a "negative hallucination".
The clear and definite and historical account of the Buddha's teaching in Dhammapada is accepted by all, by all academics and all Buddhists worldwide. To reject this and similar foundational accounts and teachings is merely a psychological disorder, not evidence based reasoning.
The basic foundational teachings of Guru Sakyamuni stand as they always have. . . and there are other layers or developments of this foundational teaching. All Buddhist schools accept the classical early teachings given by Sakyamuni on the karma and ethics of Body Speech and Mind.
For a book reference and general introduction to Buddhist teaching, I offer
"The Dharma That Illuminates"
by Kalu Rinpoche,
a great modern master of the twentieth century, and holder of the three sets of vows, including the basic vows of monastic ethics ( Vinaya ) as taught by Sakyamuni Buddha, as well as the Mahayana and Tantric Vows.
The Dalai Lama is also capable of teaching the Three Sets of Vows. And he does.
These are universal Buddhist teachings. They are clear and direct and well understood and well communicated to all. There is no controversy. It's not like what you find in the Middle East, nor in the various theological controversies of monotheism, which are typically severe and intractable.
It's nothing like Swarm says. He has no understanding nor teaching of basic Mahayana Buddhist texts such as the Heart Scripture, the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra. We all know this. That's simply because he is not in any way Buddhist, nor does he use any historically valid arguments. This has been obvious for years through our ongoing discussions.
This has been shown. Q.E.D. I rest my case.
You have been helped. Sarva mangalam.
KT
SOMEBODY has to know how this stuff works.
From M on tribe Crossroads of Religion:
The moral discipline portion of the Buddhist Eightfold Path is Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood. This essay explores the meaning of "Right Speech."
In Pali, Right Speech is "samma vaca." The word "samma" has a sense of being perfected or completed, and "vaca" refers to words or speech. "Right speech" is more than just "correct" speech. It is the wholehearted expression of our Buddhist practice, and with Action and Livelihood it is interconnected to the other parts of the Eightfold Path -- Right Mindfulness, Right Intention, Right View, Right Concentration, Right Effort.
Right Speech is not just a personal virtue. Modern communication technology has given us a culture that seems saturated with "wrong" speech -- communication that is hateful and deceptive. This engenders disharmony, acrimony, and physical violence.
We tend to think of violent, hateful words as being less wrong than violent action. We may even think of violent words as being justified sometimes. But violent words, thoughts and actions arise together and support each other. So to do peaceful words, thoughts and actions.
Beyond cultivating beneficial or harmful karma, Right Speech is essential to personal practice. Abbess Taitaku Patricia Phelan of the Chapel Hill Zen Group says "Right Speech means using communication as a way to further our understanding of ourselves and others and as a way to develop insight."
The Basics of Right Speech
As recorded in the Pali Canon, the historical Buddha taught that Right Speech had four parts:
Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive.
Do not slander others or speak in a way that causes disharmony or enmity.
Abstain from rude, impolite or abusive language.
Do not indulge in idle talk or gossip.
Practice of these four aspects of Right Speech goes beyond simple "thou shalt nots." It means speaking truthfully and honestly; speaking in a way to promote harmony and good will; using language to reduce anger and ease tensions; using language in a way that is useful.
If your speech is not useful and beneficial, teachers say, it is better to keep silent.
posted in
Tibetan Buddhism
- 10 replies