Thanks René! Yes, the Brahmavihāras are presented in the early texts as great practices along the path, and traditionally they are closely linked to the jhānas and other concentration practices.

Yes, well said Brian, thanks! 🙏

Thank you kindly, John. You as well. 🙏

Yes the scholasticism may get in the way, but this topic at least theoretically could be critical to our decision to practice one way rather than another.

Yes, thanks! To be fair, Prof. Gombrich is aware of all this, and thinks the later tradition got it wrong. I'm just not sure I see what he sees.

You're very welcome Tee, thanks for the comment!

Well yes, they are closely related.

🙏 🙂

Thanks so much Chris! 🙏

😄Me too, though they can be pretty hard-going sometimes!

No worries, T G. I'll make them when I have a good topic to deal with! 😄

Yes! It's great to get pleasure on the journey as well, though even that is only fleeting.

Yes absolutely! Thanks handy. 🙏😊

Thanks so much, Sunset!

Glad to hear!

You're very welcome! 🙏😊

Yes, I agree Peter! It's hard to practice a completely pure form of virtue or kindness, but that's the aim anyway.

Yes, thanks Gary. To be clear, I really like Prof. Gombrich's work in general, and he seems a very kind and able teacher.

Great, thanks Dunna.

🙏😊

Sure, absolutely. Just because we can harmonize one thing doesn't necessarily mean we can harmonize others equally well.

Could you give an example? I havent read the whole Pali canon but as far as I can tell, it seems pretty consistent to me. I am very interested in hearing things I havent considered or known before. So, what do you mean with different school of thought?

@@senerzen since this is a channel on Secular Buddhism I will point out incongruences related to that, but first I want to provide an example of congruence. The Culamalunkya Sutta and the Kalama Sutta harmonize beautifully. The former has the Buddha saying he will not declare if the vital facility is identical with the body or not, or whether the Perfect One lives on after death or not. These appear to show the Buddha unwilling to make a pronouncement about rebirth. The latter begins each of the consolations related to rebirth with a big IF. This is exactly what we would expect given the former. Likewise, the two are incongruent with all pronouncements of knowledge of what happens after death that appear in too many suttas to name. I suppose you could say the Buddha changed his mind latter, but I would think that somewhere that would be stated given the importance. Note: jiva or vital facility is what is reborn, at least in Jainism. If the jiva is the body it would seem to imply no rebirth. If it did it would seem to imply resurrection. I know that this is controversial, but that is the whole point.

@@stephenrizzo Thanks for the explanation. I agree that it is unlikely that Buddha changed his mind for the reason you mention. It is indeed possible that there were competing schools providing their own suttas. But there is a third possibility: upaya kusala Maybe Buddha was adjusting his teachings according to the understanding of each individual. As an example I would like to point out to the Ananda Sutta. An outsider named Vacchagota asks Buddha if there is a self. He refuses to answer. After that person leaves, Ananda asks Buddha why he didn't answer. He gives four reasons. Each time, starts with "being asked by Vacchagota,..." implying that if he had been asked by someone else, the answer might have been different. Among those reasons, the third reason, is that if he had said there was a self, that would have contradicted his teaching of no-self. So, his teaching is ultimately "No-Self". But he refused to state it that way to that specific person because he would misinterpret it. That is the whole message of that sutta. Even when speaking in English, Christians, musims, atheists, Marxists, capitalists etc are all speaking different languages. They might think they are speaking about the same thing because they are using the same word, without realizing their definitions are different. Or sometimes they use different words, not realizing they mean the same thing. It amazes me to see Buddha having such a sophisticated understanding and adjusting to the person he is talking to. The problem is that, for us coming 2500 years later and looking at things out of context and when compared to other teachings given to different people at different times, they seem contradictory. I believe everything can be harmonized. My interpretation of Buddha's teaching is that; he taught reincarnation but reincarnation is not essential to believe in and he refused to push it on skeptical disciples and outsiders. It is a knowledge that comes through experience, namely through remembering one's past lives. There is no need to believe in it as one would KNOW it when the time comes. There is no need to get obsessed with speculation and get entangled in a trap of views. Enough suffering exists in current life to justify a spiritual life, hence the arrow simile. What would we first do if got shot with an arrow? Certainly we would be looking to eliminate suffering instead of speculation. Lack of believe is the last of the five hindrances but I think this is in reference to the practice and not any dogma. Because believe in any dogma is attachment to that view, one of the four attachments to overcome. One needs to believe in the practice, that it is possible to overcome suffering and believe in himself that he can do it. In some suttas, denying the existence of the next life is counted as wrong view. Technically this might be true but I don't see this as a requirement for practice. This is a very short line vs whole suttas with the message saying don't believe in things just because they are in the texts but rely on your own experience. Remembering past lives is that experience. This way, everything is in line. Sure, maybe there were different schools and I am over-interpreting this. But when I see a contradiction and think about how this might be harmonized with the rest and find a solution, I also find textual references indicating my solution is correct, which gives me confidence that this is not me forcing solutions. In the Ananda sutta mentioned above, the 3rd reason is a clear indication of what the actual teaching is (No-Self) yet Buddha refuses to state it for the reason explained in number 4; that specific person would misinterpret it. How he would misinterpret the answer is also explained in reasons 1 and 2. 1) If Buddha had said there was a self, the person asking the question would have jumped to the conclusion that Buddha was teaching an eternal unchanging soul. 2) If he had said no-self, he would have been misunderstood as being a materialist. So, he chose not to answer. People have preconceived notions and we can't ignore the possibility that our definitions might be different. We need to agree on definitions to be able to communicate. Once I was able to speak many languages (christian/hindu/materialist/anarchist/etc), when speaking with other people, it is usually easier to adapt their terminology while expressing my point rather than trying to teach or impose my definitions. Buddha is the only other person I'm aware of who does this. In one text Buddha says "I don't argue with the world. The world argues with me."

@@senerzen I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. That is okay as I don’t mean to change your mind. I am just pointing out an incongruity. I think there is a difference between remaining silent because one individual will be confused and saying “I do not declare” which implies for everyone. I think “I do not disagree with the world” could mean I don’t know, you may be right and others were unwilling to accept his unwillingness to declare a side like as was the case in the Culamalunkya-sutta.

😄Yes it can be fun to learn!

Yes, though we have to also resist the temptation to decide that material with which we are not in agreement, or which is not well accepted nowadays, must be a later accretion, particularly if it is attested in all early recensions.

That's right Uli. Each of us has our own perspective.

I don't think I've read that one. It sounds a little like the Oxherding Pictures in Zen. I think though that if he's writing from his own experience, he's probably not discussing enlightenment per se, but rather something more like stream-entry. That is, he's discussing a temporary glimpse of enlightenment rather than full enlightenment.

True!

Well yes, the Buddha did have a notion of nirvana as liberation from samsara, though in this-life terms he saw it as the ending of greed, hatred, and delusion.

@@DougsDharma all necessary to free ones essence, but loving kindness can lead directly to those things. Showing kindness can lead to openness, openness leads to understanding, leads to compassion, dispels delusion. You may have made an argument for the professor’s view 😉

It's wonderful you did such a good deed. I'd say that any meditation that is selfish isn't worth a moment of our time, much less ten hours.

🙏

It could well be Harsha, though to be fair to Prof. Gombrich, he is familiar with the Satipaṭṭhāna suttas you mention.

Yes that's right. It's part of the path.

I think that's a different quote.

Ah yes, very true. The enlightened person is beyond practicing. It is through practice that one gets beyond practice.

😄Thanks Paul, glad to hear it!

How is that?

@@DougsDharma at the end you mention talking about the counter arguments to an argument during your discussion. It is my understanding that this method of responding to your critics.in the text was by in large invented by Aquinas. And I feel like it is the right way to go about philosophy as do you.

The complete and permanent cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion.

@@DougsDharma ho ,, some one told to me nirvana means awakening or enlightment , can explain to me ,, please sir

Interesting, I'm not sure how to understand that idea.

@@DougsDharma Dogen similarly said that sitting in Zazen is not a method to enlightenment, but rather enlightenment itself if practiced sincerely.

Isn't that a much later development within Buddhism though?

@@Giantcrabz Perhaps, but Zen often traces it's lineage as a continuous interpersonal transmission from the Buddha himself. Some recognize the precursors of an 'objectless' meditation from themes in the Satipatthana sutra.

@@DougsDharma Nor I. But I'm not enlightened, so I wouldn't.

You seem to be enlightened.😀

🙏😊

🙏🙂