- This topic has 15 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I think it is important to analyse on the validity of the tipitaka itself to build faith in the dhamma.We have been referencing the tipitaka, and whenever we do so we have the following assumptions:
- Whatever is stated in the tipitaka is factually right, though not for word, the events did happen, and they are words of the Buddha himself, and they are not made up by anyone else.
- The words of the Buddha are true, the Buddha did not make them up
If we reject the concepts that are currently unprovable to us, eg kamma, 31 realms, then we would reject either 1 or 2. Point 2 is unprovable, we cannot historically ensure whether someone is making things up or not and we have to prove through investigation of what he actually says, but 1 is more likely to be proven in the historical sense, and it is good to discuss it. That’s because we can extrapolate from the following reasoning: – If the contents are factually right, then suttas which other disciples discusses “supernatural things” with the Buddha (eg when Mogallana saw pretas on a mountain) shows that it is replicable and can be confirmed by someone else other than the Buddha, providing more validity to this “supernatural worldview”.
Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali has written The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts. For their arguments. I have only done a sweep of it, some arguments that stand out to me are
- Strong consitency and coherence, making it more likely that it comes from a single source, the Buddha
- Being able to convey a picture of India and Indian society at the time that is vivid and realistic
- Leaving in “many quirky details that convey a realistic flavour; despite the awkwardness they were not removed.” for example, the Buddha talking about his back pain and lying down in Sekhasutta, “These episodes, and others, could easily have been edited out, but they were kept despite their awkwardness and their not fitting with later ideas. This indicates that the attitude towards preserving the EBTs (Early Buddhist Texts) was very conservative.
I am not sure of the historical facts that support the construction and authenticity of the Tipitaka. I would like to open up this disussion for those who would like to provide factual evidence/ logical reasoning in favour or against the tipitaka being factually right.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Have you read the following posts? Please bring up specific discussions based on them.
-
Yes, I did! To summarise the points relevant for this discussion:
Tipiṭaka – The Uniqueness of Buddha Dhamma
- The uniqueness of the dhamma
- This I agree, if it is unique, it is less likely to be made up by someone or groups of people
Pāli Canon Is Self-Contained but Requires Detailed Explanation
- Reliability of oral and written transmission
- This I do not doubt. However that still does not prove that the first version of the tipitaka to be factually and historically true, it only means that the tipitaka we have now is very close to the tipitaka they first drafted
Introduction – A Scientific Approach to Buddha Dhamma
- Using Buddha Dhamma as a working hypothesis and theory to explain reality and see if it is true
- Yes, this is what we have been doing to prove point 2, whether the words of the Buddha are true
I first came upon this line of thinking when I did a search and did not find strong evidence pointing to the first arahant council, there is also skepticism among scholars whether it happened (Buddhist councils).
What we have now do not strongly point to whether the contents of the tipitaka are factual or not, eg some would argue if they are made up or exaggerated, especially the mythical phenomenons, eg talking to devas, pretas. Some would also argue if they were made up. Of course, if we were to take the assumption that they were written by arahants, then they should no have lied as well when creating the tipitaka.I would also understand that such factual information would be hard to come by, then we will have to use our own logical reasoning to think and see for ourseleves whether the teachings are true or not. - The uniqueness of the dhamma
-
“This I agree, if it is unique, it is less likely to be made up by someone or groups of people”
Tipitaka contains different layers of detailed and self-consistent explanations of mental phenomena. We must keep in mind that no other religion, philosophy or even modern science describes the conscious experience to such depth.
“I first came upon this line of thinking when I did a search and did not find strong evidence pointing to the first arahant council”
Not sure what counts as “strong evidence” to you, but the description of the first Buddhist Council is in the Tipitaka itself. Read, Pañcasatikakkhandhaka
“What we have now do not strongly point to whether the contents of the tipitaka are factual or not, eg some would argue if they are made up or exaggerated, especially the mythical phenomenons, eg talking to devas, pretas. Some would also argue if they were made up. Of course, if we were to take the assumption that they were written by arahants, then they should no have lied as well when creating the tipitaka.”
OK, here’s how I approach it. There are essentially 3 ways of determining whether something is “factual” or not:
- Analyzing the self-consistency
- Examining the consistency with observed facts
- Using one’s direct experience
To gain confidence in a teaching, we can use #1 and 2. For example, scientists can’t “see” electrons directly but we are confident that they exist. This is because those models are consistent with observations. Using the same approach in Dhamma, even though we can’t directly see the 29 other realms, we can be confident that they exist. The goal is to treat the fundamental concepts like Rebirth, Laws of Kamma, etc. like foundations/axioms and go through the explanations (based on those axioms) and see if they lead to logical conclusions.
But of course, an even better (the most reliable) way of being confident is by seeing the truth for yourself (#3). Before the sotapanna anugami stage, one experiences the cooling down effect (Niramisa Sukha). An anagami does not crave anything in the sensual realms (kama loka). You can make them watch adult movies, but they won’t generate a trace of lust. Someone with 4th Jhana can willfully come out of their bodies. If they have abhinna powers, they can recall past lives too. Tipitaka recommends walking the path in stages, so until one develops such abilities like seeing beings in other realms (for example), we must rely on #1 and 2 and continue our practice.
-
“Not sure what counts as “strong evidence” to you, but the description of the first Buddhist Council is in the Tipitaka itself. Read, Pañcasatikakkhandhaka”
What I mean is evidence outside the tipitaka to corroborate its validity, eg external accounts, archeological evidence that the first Buddhist council did occur.
Perhaps I can give the following simile to illustrate my point.
Let’s say in the Russian-Ukraine war, in the Russian media they would promote the narrative that the Ukrainians started the war, they attacked first. As a Russian, if I only have access to Russian media, I would believe this to be true. It is also possible that the media can try to make everything internally consistent. Given access to limited information, the Russians themseleves may find it hard to prove against this.
However, if I were to watch it from the outside, we have other means of corroborating and discovering the truth, eg looking at satellite images, looking at accounts from both russian and ukraine side, accessing military documents.
Another simple illustration: there are accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in the Bible, would you take that to be true? How will you investigate it? You will try to see if there are non-christian sightings of Jesus after his crucification etc.
Likewise, we now only have one source, the tipitaka, and from the tipitaka we try to figure out whether it is true based on its consistency and based on whether it corroborates with what we know today. However, we do not have aracheologic, third party evidence to say that what they wrote were indeed, factual and words of the Buddha. For example, a strong evidence would be texts or inscriptions of non-buddhist saying “this indeed happened, this conversation indeed took place, the tipitaka does include factual accounts”. Now we have a non-biased source to improve its validity. In history, to prove the validity of an event, it is good to have multiple, non-biased sources.
—
- Analyzing the self-consistency
- Examining the consistency with observed facts
- Using one’s direct experience
This is what we have been doing so far, and I agree that it is helpful. But if we know of these unbiased, third party evidence outside the tipitaka, it would be immensely helpful in building credibility as well. Otherwise we can only use logic and deduction from looking at the tipitaka for its validity. Of course, such evidence could well be impossible to find.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Archaeological evidence isn’t crucial for cleansing my mind. I can distinguish between morally worthwhile pursuits without it, and choose the better option. So I’ve moved past the “seeing is believing” mentality because I’ve found that seeing isn’t always necessary. What we need is the power to understand through wisdom(panna), despite not being able to see.
However, reaching this point of sufficiency took me a long time. I’m naturally inquisitive and curious, always questioning things. Through studying Buddha Dhamma, I learned to discern what makes a good question. The right questions liberated me from san, while the wrong ones left it unresolved. Eventually, I began consistently choosing the better path.
I think if I had the attitude “I will only believe what everyone can believe,” I would end up achieving nothing. This is because there will always be people with different beliefs. So one must learn to take responsibility for one’s own mind and beliefs. In fact, I think this is the beginning of vipassana meditation.
Evidence itself isn’t the decisive factor. Let’s imagine that the evidence you’ve been seeking has finally emerged. The nature of evidence is such that (i) it eliminates other interpretations of the past that don’t align with it, but (ii) it can’t pinpoint a single, definitive interpretation. As a result, the demand for evidence can be endless. You could endlessly demand evidence to prove that the evidence is valid. You could keep asking for more and more, but this approach will never lead to a conclusive answer.1 user thanked author for this post.
-
You’re right, what matters ultimately is the effectiveness of the teaching itself. We could get trapped and waste too much time finding evidence. To know the effectiveness of the doctor, it is not the clinic, the nurse, the awards that are most important but the effectiveness of the treatment itself.
Of course, these evidence would still be helpful to build faith which makes it easier to absorb the teachings, and I still welcome the rest to share and discuss such evidences if they come across it.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
At the beginning of this thread Pathfinder wrote the following:
“I think it is important to analyse on the validity of the tipitaka itself to build faith in the dhamma.We have been referencing the tipitaka, and whenever we do so we have the following assumptions:
- Whatever is stated in the tipitaka is factually right, though not for word, the events did happen, and they are words of the Buddha himself, and they are not made up by anyone else.
- The words of the Buddha are true, the Buddha did not make them up.”
_____
1. Using that approach, one will NEVER make any progress toward verifying the validity of the Tipitaka (i.e., Buddha’s teachings).
- The reason is simple: Buddha’s teachings cannot be verified within any theories or arguments based on human knowledge.
- Understanding Buddha Dhamma requires a “paradigm change.”
2. The Buddha stated the above using the verse, “adhigato kho myāyaṁ dhammo gambhīro duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkāvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍitavedanīyo.”
- Soon after attaining the Buddhahood, the Buddha uttered that verse: “Brahmāyācana Sutta (SN 6.1).”
- The translation is that link: “This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.”
- There, “adhigato kho myāyaṁ dhammo” means “This Dhamma that I uncovered.” “gambhīro” means “profound.” The rest of the translations are good, but “atakkāvacaro” does not mean “beyond the scope of logic.”
- “Atakkāvacaro” means “beyond the scope of the logic of the humans or the world in general.”
3. That is why Pathfinder’s proposed scheme will not work.
- The validity of Buddha Dhamma cannot be tested within the theories or logic known to humans. It requires a paradigm change in thinking.
- All philosophies and religions are based on the assumption that happiness can be achieved somewhere within this world, whether in this life or a “heavenly realm.”
- Buddha taught that the above assumption is wrong. One can eliminate sakkaya ditthi only by seeing that it is indeed true.
4. That verse “adhigato kho myāyaṁ dhammo gambhīro duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkāvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍitavedanīyo” appears in many suttas, including DN 1, DN 14, MN 26, MN 72, MN 95.
- In the “Brahmāyācana Sutta (SN 6.1)” the Buddha explained why it is difficult for average humans (puthujjana) to see the validity of his teachings.
- starting at marker 1.5, he explains why. That verse is better translated as, “But people like clinging to sensory pleasures, they love it and enjoy it.”
- @ marker 1.6: “It’s hard for them to see the truth, i.e., idappaccayatā paṭicca samuppāda.
- @ marker 4.1; “And as the Buddha reflected like this, his mind inclined not to teach the Dhamma to the world.” Of course, that was not going to happen. He strived for the Buddhahood for the sake of himself and others. Even though the sutta states he accepted Brahmā Sahampati’s invitation to teach Dhamma, that was a formality. He had an obligation to help others, which he started doing soon afterward: “Animisa Lōcana Bōdhi Poojā – A Prelude to Acts of Gratitude.”
5. This is why engaging in debates with those with wrong views is futile.
- The only way to eliminate wrong views is to examine Buddha’s teachings with an open mind.
- Each individual must decide whether or not to take that approach.
- Engaging in debates on this issue is a waste of time.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
What I meant was not on the teachings itself, but rather the historicity, whether such events did happen, and whether the tipitaka is faithful to historic events. I believe that sharing of such evidence will be helpful for building faith. For example, if we hypothetically have someone come up to us and say “I indeed heard and saw the Buddha speak to Mogallana on pretas”, will it not help build confidence about the 31 realms? Again I reiterate that this may be impossible to find, but nice to have.
Also we have some scientific discussions that we share to build faith in the dhamma and science forum, such as discussion about humans living much further in the past, evidence of rebirth etc. These are helpful to build faith too. For example with the post on “Evidence of Rebirth”, it becomes easier to believe the wider world view which includes rebirths. If I am a materialist who believes that nothing happens after death, then posts like this can be helpful for developing a more open mind towards rebirths, we no longer have to accept it by faith alone, and we can see for ourselves that rebirth is indeed possible.
But you’re right that we may never be able to prove his teachings to everyone.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
“What I meant was not on the teachings itself, but rather the historicity, whether such events did happen, and whether the tipitaka is faithful to historic events.”
- I understood what you meant. However, that is covered if one can see the truth in the current version of the Tipitaka.
- There is no other way to check the “validity of the teachings” in Tipitaka.
- Of course, I have written posts showing the consistency and inconsistencies of modern science with Buddha Dhamma. That is to point out that science is always “catching up” with Buddha Dhamma in the long term. I have also made predictions about which “scientific theories” will be proven incorrect, possibly within our lifetimes: “Dhamma and Science” and “Quantum Mechanics and Dhamma.”
-
-
Of course. What else?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
There is a method that can be verified by yourself, Pathfinder: The Jhanas. It is a technique that requires purifying one’s mind of all sensual thoughts and the truth will be revealed. It is accessible to anyone regardless of their religion. Some people have achieved jhanas without knowing it. I remember Dipa Ma (1911-1989) a great anagarika woman who had developed all the jhanas, arupavacara samapatti and iddhi powers. However, she said she sometimes lost them. With practice, she redeveloped them in a few days. That means they are anariyas jhanas. One of her students said that Dipa Ma developed the ability to travel to the past to listen to sermons that Lord Buddha gave on various occasions. It strengthened his faith in Lord Buddha. Of course, we may doubt this, but let us not forget that the abilities of the jhanas are impossible to know in full, for those who are not Lord Buddhas. This is to say that there are Iddhis that certain practitioners develop that we were unaware of. Jhanas are some excellent means of verification.
Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.
“Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, acinteyyāni, na cintetabbāni; yāni cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.
What four?
Katamāni cattāri?
The scope of the Buddhas …
Buddhānaṁ, bhikkhave, buddhavisayo acinteyyo, na cintetabbo;
yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.
The scope of one in absorption (jhanas or arupavacara samapatti)…
Jhāyissa, bhikkhave, jhānavisayo acinteyyo, na cintetabbo;
yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.
The results of deeds …
Kammavipāko, bhikkhave, acinteyyo, na cintetabbo;
yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.
Speculation about the world …
Lokacintā, bhikkhave, acinteyyā, na cintetabbā;
yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.”
Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri acinteyyāni, na cintetabbāni; yāni cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assā”ti.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
First, let’s reiterate something obvious that everyone already knows: When one makes an effort in understanding and living Buddha Dhamma one will get many “Aha!” moments, which lead to real, unshakable saddhā.
pathfinder brought up how historical evidence can also help build faith (saddhā), and there is no question that they do — up to a point. However, they can potentially lead to more time wasting as dosakkhayo pointed out concerning the nature of evidence.
Let’s use as example the first Buddhist Council from pathfinder, and let’s suppose that an Ashoka pillar has just been discovered with some inscription that suggests that there was some kind of a gathering at the location mentioned in the tipitaka. Will that settle it? Not necessarily, as the pillar may spawn more interpretation — just like dosakkhayo pointed out — such as:
The inscription is vague
It may be about a gathering of some other sects
Disagreements among scholars as to the meaning of parts of the inscription
ad infinitumSo, do we then spend more time, potential endlessly, discussing the evidence?
I brought up Ashoka pillars because I personally find them convincing, and that may be the only kind of “evidence” available to us in modern times, along with stupas.
I remember reading about the Ashoka pillar at Lumbini, with the inscription that King Ashoka visited the site to honor the birthplace of the Buddha. And then many, many years back I saw the news about an ancient Buddhist shrine discovered there. With that, I was convinced that the Buddha was born in the area of Lumbini, like the tipitaka said.
Are all of my Buddhist friends convinced of the birthplace of the Buddha as I am? No. Some say that what I call “evidence” is still inconclusive; do I then spend more time to debate with them that it is conclusive, or do I just spend that time studying Dhamma? We all know what the right answer is.
Best,
Lang2 users thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.