8 ms·

How would these people react if they learned that the Buddha said his teachings were to last only 1000 years* if women were not included in the Sangha? And will

How would these people react if they learned that the Buddha said his teachings were to last only 1000 years* if women were not included in the Sangha? And will only last 500 years after women were included?: > “But, Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. Source: AN 8:51 Gotami Sutta, Pali Canon: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html Curiously, this sutta is left out of accesstoinsight.org, which is the leading source on the Internet for deriving the Buddha's authentic words (translated to English). What's your agenda, Bhikku Ṭhānissaro? Certainly not truth if your way is the way of omission. *Then, what is it that is being practiced today that is called Buddhism? Or are Buddhists unaware of the mentioned sutta of the Buddha... or do they reject it?

bowsamic 4y ago
Sutta central is the main Pali canon English translation source nowadays, also access to insight is mainly home of Thannisaro, not Bodhi Sutta central has it https://suttacentral.net/an8.51/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin https://suttacentral.net/an8.51/en/sujato?layout=plain&refer... As for that sutta, the Pali canon is absolutely huge, the Mahayana sutras even more so, the majority of the latter haven’t been translated into English even. Most Buddhists, even historically, do not follow the sutras to the word, they use them as teaching guidance. There is nothing wrong with not accepting a sutra because you don’t think it is a good teaching or one that is helpful to you EDIT also Buddhists I’ve spoken to generally reject that sutta, Mahayana Buddhists see all Pali suttas as lesser and provisional. The founder of my sect, Dogen, rejected the idea of mappo (age of dharma decline) entirely. It is not historically accurate to think that all Buddhists generally accept all Buddhist texts and concepts, unless you specifically only mean some of the more hardcore Theravada who accept all of the Pali canon. Unfortunately in the west Buddhism is often conflated with just the Theravada, since the Mahayana seems scarier and more difficult to get into, however the latter is more popular and has developed more historically
- guai888 4y ago
  Buddism has always adopt in order to stay relevant. There are many ways to achieve enlightenment. Maybe US Buddhists will find their own unique path forward.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Yes I expect so, but usually it takes a couple centuries to happen in a reliable and organic way
  - blippage 4y ago
    There was a great saying by Ajahn Chah, who always seems to be quotable. He said "How come everyone says Buddhism is old-fashioned and needs to be adapted? No-one ever accuses the defilements as being old-fashioned and outdated; no, they're always up-to-date."
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: can you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in general? It looks like you've been doing that repeatedly, unfortunately. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
yunohn 4y ago
Disclaimer: I’m an atheist. I don’t believe this is the gotcha that you think it is. Every single school of thought, religion or otherwise, has good and bad parts. Taking the overwhelmingly good aspects of Buddhism to understand how to lead a better life, is not invalidated because the Buddha said one thing you dislike. It’s naivety to desire 100% perfection from everyone/thing.
- omarfarooq 4y ago
- eurasiantiger 4y ago
  One of the agreed-upon principles common to the largest Buddhist denominations is that our world was not created and is not ruled by an omnipresent, omniscient God.
- fendy3002 4y ago
  I don't know why this good advice is downvoted, and looks like mine will too. I don't understand why people still consider literature written by human with nowadays language to must be either perfect or it's worthless. Also how they see a form of government that declared they're adopting one religion teaching and using it as argument proof / point. We will spiralling down to whataboutism soon like this. Cherry picks the good ones are fine, and people do that everyday. Just don't cherry pick a bad one to justify your agenda and your bad action.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    It's like people want these things written down in no-holes legalese. While at the same time people will misinterpret what others are saying (see "straw man argument"; people are quick to jump to conclusions about people about what they say and don't say). Here's a religious code people can live by: "Don't be a dick". I'm sure that summarizes all the good parts of organized religions and philosophies. It's also the most difficult one to adhere to for a lot of people.
- lmm 4y ago
nabla9 4y ago
As someone who has spend long time meditating in Buddhist monasteries, I would say they don't care. Sutras are just teachings. You may learn from them and value them, but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You don't have to parse everything Buddha and ponder it endlessly. Sometimes he just wondered about the future of the discipline. He also changed his mind when others presented arguments, just like in this case. Buddhism as a religion is considered just a vehicle for some truth that people can discover, not the goal itself. Requiring perfect gym to practice is not for people who really want to train.
- omarfarooq 4y ago
  > but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You mean modern Buddhists aren't. Early Muslims considered the Buddhists they encountered as "people of the book." Source: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14/shsconf_ichss2018_04001.pdf https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14...
  - nabla9 4y ago
    The earliest Buddhist texts were written down centuries after the death of the Buddha. Buddhism started as an oral tradition.
    - thx2099100 4y ago
      so did islam.
      - omarfarooq 4y ago
        Correct, Quran means lit. recitation.
        JetAlone 4y ago
        For that matter, the New Testament wasn't written until long after the life of Jesus, the canon wasn't established until long after many oral traditions were, and some of Old Testament canon the status of "deuterocanon/apocrypha" has been controversial. Religions start with key important figures, events and practices long before they get encoded as text. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that might have gone somewhat in the reverse direction was L. Ron Hubbard writing Dianetics and other books to develop a schema and theory for psychological healing before he officially started Scientology. But I don't know all the details about early Scientology so it's hard to say precisely how much was pre-encoded there. I've heard rumours that Hubbard was involved in Freemasonry before starting Scientology so if it's true, it's likely that some of his experiences in it shaped his writings. I also heard that Paul Twitchell, founder of a lesser-known group called "Eckankar" spent some of his earlier days in Scientology. But I digress. When you strip practices away from dogma in an attempt to further enrich corporations, it's almost like trying to start over with the practices borrowed from some past heritage, the corporation's leadership as the key figures who give advice or select practice consultants to confer with, and with some milestone of success as the promised "awakening event". It definitely runs the risk of turning the corporation into a personality cult where your boss directly or indirectly tells you how to reach a spiritual objective... Of making them money.
metta2uall 4y ago
Well, I don't think there's a conspiracy - accesstoinsight.org is actually an old site that is missing many suttas. It even links to a new updated website (e.g. from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.than.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.th...) and if you change the URL the sutta you mentioned is actually there: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html. But regarding this, and other, anti-women references in the Pali canon, the passages could be corruptions that don't reflect what the Buddha actually said. Or they could be authentic statements the Buddha made due to genuine beliefs and/or wanting better cultural acceptance to help the survival of early Buddhism. In either case it's not a disaster for Buddhism, which emphasizes the need for individual wisdom & compassion, rather than blindly following some real or imagined leaders. Personally I think these are most likely to be corruptions because the suttas contain many more passages that are respectful of women & nuns. For example https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
- omarfarooq 4y ago
  This issue at hand here is not limited to the question of women in the sangha, but of the Teacher's claims as to the potency and longevity of his Teachings. I'm not sure if pointing out there are contradictions in the suttas helps the case. In any case, whether through having contradictions or through rejection via cherry picking, modern Buddhists are eating the fruits of a poisoned tree.
  - lewispollard 4y ago
    The suttas were already cherry picked when they were written down. In fact, they were cherry picked when the oral tradition first developed. See also, Digha Nikaya 16, the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, one of the foremost suttas detailing the Buddha's awakening, in which he refuses to achieve full enlightenment in the presence of Mara unless his monks and nuns, male and female lay followers were fully established in the dhamma. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN16.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN16.html
  - 4y ago
coldtea 4y ago
>Then, what is it that is being practiced today that is called Buddhism? Or are Buddhists unaware of the mentioned sutta of the Buddha... or do they reject it? Well, there are many things the Buddha said that they could not care less about. That would just be one more. A religion is not about precisely what some founder said, but how it was adopted, intepreted, and developed (including what parts were given precedence and which were ignored).
meotimdihia 4y ago
I don't know how to explain it in English. But he didn't say his teachings were to last only 1000 years. Buddha said it is super hard or impossible to achieve Nirvana or became Arahant after 1500-2000 years. But if you never practice, you'll never achieve anything. Even Buddha needs 4 Asaṃkhyeya to become a Buddha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa%E1%B9%83khyeya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa%E1%B9%83khyeya
- omarfarooq 4y ago
  > Buddha said it is super hard or impossible to achieve Nirvana after 1500-2000 years. Well, that I can agree with. Also according to the Buddha, there are signs that an enlightened being can display to prove their enlightenment. A simple one is that fire does not affect them. To prove his enlightenment, "Ānanda performed a supernatural accomplishment by diving into the earth and appearing on his seat at the council (or, according to some sources, by flying through the air.)" This is the only modern evidence of anyone meeting the criteria: https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/thich-quang-duc-burning-monk.jpg https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads...
  - nicky0 4y ago
    You seem to be rather a literalist.
    - omarfarooq 4y ago
      And how should I take those signs of enlightenment then? If not literally then Buddhist scripture is no better than fiction.
      - tiborsaas 4y ago
        All religions are fiction.
      - carapace 4y ago
        Ramana Maharshi got cancer. When the doctor operated to remove the tumor anesthetic was refused. Ramana watched the operation without evident discomfort. He said after that he experienced the sensations of the operation but did not suffer.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
Think you are mixing things. I don't think people are actually "budhists", but instead have found something useful from meditating.
denton-scratch 4y ago
The way I was taught, suttas/sutras were treated as interesting historical documents, and sometimes as useful aids to understanding. They were not considered to be "gospel" truth, because they are not associated with a practice lineage. That is, there is only a text; there is no handing-down of a lived experience from teacher to practitioner. My teachers favoured more "modern" texts, such as Asanga's works, and the Prajnaparamita literature. They have practice lineages that can be traced back to their authors. Statements from the sutras/suttas were met with remarks of the form "Very interesting; it may be true, or it may be not true".
cuteboy19 4y ago
For what its worth Buddhism did die out entirely in India.
cyberpunk 4y ago
It was 2500 years ago. We do not care at all. Buddhism is not a philosophy based on a magic book or some unprovable god; it’s just people. The Buddha was a normal person, and absolutely could and did make the kinds of mistakes common in his time. I don’t think that stops it being useful, personally.
- solardev 4y ago
  I think it depends on your particular fork of Buddhism. It's a pretty open source religion, and some sects and scriptures are more devout to tradition and mysticism than others.

bowsamic 4y ago

Sutta central is the main Pali canon English translation source nowadays, also access to insight is mainly home of Thannisaro, not Bodhi Sutta central has it https://suttacentral.net/an8.51/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin https://suttacentral.net/an8.51/en/sujato?layout=plain&refer... As for that sutta, the Pali canon is absolutely huge, the Mahayana sutras even more so, the majority of the latter haven’t been translated into English even. Most Buddhists, even historically, do not follow the sutras to the word, they use them as teaching guidance. There is nothing wrong with not accepting a sutra because you don’t think it is a good teaching or one that is helpful to you EDIT also Buddhists I’ve spoken to generally reject that sutta, Mahayana Buddhists see all Pali suttas as lesser and provisional. The founder of my sect, Dogen, rejected the idea of mappo (age of dharma decline) entirely. It is not historically accurate to think that all Buddhists generally accept all Buddhist texts and concepts, unless you specifically only mean some of the more hardcore Theravada who accept all of the Pali canon. Unfortunately in the west Buddhism is often conflated with just the Theravada, since the Mahayana seems scarier and more difficult to get into, however the latter is more popular and has developed more historically

guai888 4y ago
Buddism has always adopt in order to stay relevant. There are many ways to achieve enlightenment. Maybe US Buddhists will find their own unique path forward.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Yes I expect so, but usually it takes a couple centuries to happen in a reliable and organic way
- blippage 4y ago
  There was a great saying by Ajahn Chah, who always seems to be quotable. He said "How come everyone says Buddhism is old-fashioned and needs to be adapted? No-one ever accuses the defilements as being old-fashioned and outdated; no, they're always up-to-date."
InCityDreams 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: can you please not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments in general? It looks like you've been doing that repeatedly, unfortunately. If you wouldn't mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

yunohn 4y ago

Disclaimer: I’m an atheist. I don’t believe this is the gotcha that you think it is. Every single school of thought, religion or otherwise, has good and bad parts. Taking the overwhelmingly good aspects of Buddhism to understand how to lead a better life, is not invalidated because the Buddha said one thing you dislike. It’s naivety to desire 100% perfection from everyone/thing.

omarfarooq 4y ago
eurasiantiger 4y ago
One of the agreed-upon principles common to the largest Buddhist denominations is that our world was not created and is not ruled by an omnipresent, omniscient God.
fendy3002 4y ago
I don't know why this good advice is downvoted, and looks like mine will too. I don't understand why people still consider literature written by human with nowadays language to must be either perfect or it's worthless. Also how they see a form of government that declared they're adopting one religion teaching and using it as argument proof / point. We will spiralling down to whataboutism soon like this. Cherry picks the good ones are fine, and people do that everyday. Just don't cherry pick a bad one to justify your agenda and your bad action.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  It's like people want these things written down in no-holes legalese. While at the same time people will misinterpret what others are saying (see "straw man argument"; people are quick to jump to conclusions about people about what they say and don't say). Here's a religious code people can live by: "Don't be a dick". I'm sure that summarizes all the good parts of organized religions and philosophies. It's also the most difficult one to adhere to for a lot of people.
lmm 4y ago

nabla9 4y ago

As someone who has spend long time meditating in Buddhist monasteries, I would say they don't care. Sutras are just teachings. You may learn from them and value them, but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You don't have to parse everything Buddha and ponder it endlessly. Sometimes he just wondered about the future of the discipline. He also changed his mind when others presented arguments, just like in this case. Buddhism as a religion is considered just a vehicle for some truth that people can discover, not the goal itself. Requiring perfect gym to practice is not for people who really want to train.

omarfarooq 4y ago
> but Buddhists are not "people of the book" like Abrahamic religions are. You mean modern Buddhists aren't. Early Muslims considered the Buddhists they encountered as "people of the book." Source: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14/shsconf_ichss2018_04001.pdf https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/14...
- nabla9 4y ago
  The earliest Buddhist texts were written down centuries after the death of the Buddha. Buddhism started as an oral tradition.
  - thx2099100 4y ago
    so did islam.
    - omarfarooq 4y ago
      Correct, Quran means lit. recitation.
      - JetAlone 4y ago
        For that matter, the New Testament wasn't written until long after the life of Jesus, the canon wasn't established until long after many oral traditions were, and some of Old Testament canon the status of "deuterocanon/apocrypha" has been controversial. Religions start with key important figures, events and practices long before they get encoded as text. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that might have gone somewhat in the reverse direction was L. Ron Hubbard writing Dianetics and other books to develop a schema and theory for psychological healing before he officially started Scientology. But I don't know all the details about early Scientology so it's hard to say precisely how much was pre-encoded there. I've heard rumours that Hubbard was involved in Freemasonry before starting Scientology so if it's true, it's likely that some of his experiences in it shaped his writings. I also heard that Paul Twitchell, founder of a lesser-known group called "Eckankar" spent some of his earlier days in Scientology. But I digress. When you strip practices away from dogma in an attempt to further enrich corporations, it's almost like trying to start over with the practices borrowed from some past heritage, the corporation's leadership as the key figures who give advice or select practice consultants to confer with, and with some milestone of success as the promised "awakening event". It definitely runs the risk of turning the corporation into a personality cult where your boss directly or indirectly tells you how to reach a spiritual objective... Of making them money.

metta2uall 4y ago

Well, I don't think there's a conspiracy - accesstoinsight.org is actually an old site that is missing many suttas. It even links to a new updated website (e.g. from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.than.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.053.th...) and if you change the URL the sutta you mentioned is actually there: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html. But regarding this, and other, anti-women references in the Pali canon, the passages could be corruptions that don't reflect what the Buddha actually said. Or they could be authentic statements the Buddha made due to genuine beliefs and/or wanting better cultural acceptance to help the survival of early Buddhism. In either case it's not a disaster for Buddhism, which emphasizes the need for individual wisdom & compassion, rather than blindly following some real or imagined leaders. Personally I think these are most likely to be corruptions because the suttas contain many more passages that are respectful of women & nuns. For example https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html

omarfarooq 4y ago
This issue at hand here is not limited to the question of women in the sangha, but of the Teacher's claims as to the potency and longevity of his Teachings. I'm not sure if pointing out there are contradictions in the suttas helps the case. In any case, whether through having contradictions or through rejection via cherry picking, modern Buddhists are eating the fruits of a poisoned tree.
- lewispollard 4y ago
  The suttas were already cherry picked when they were written down. In fact, they were cherry picked when the oral tradition first developed. See also, Digha Nikaya 16, the Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, one of the foremost suttas detailing the Buddha's awakening, in which he refuses to achieve full enlightenment in the presence of Mara unless his monks and nuns, male and female lay followers were fully established in the dhamma. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN16.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN16.html
- 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago

>Then, what is it that is being practiced today that is called Buddhism? Or are Buddhists unaware of the mentioned sutta of the Buddha... or do they reject it? Well, there are many things the Buddha said that they could not care less about. That would just be one more. A religion is not about precisely what some founder said, but how it was adopted, intepreted, and developed (including what parts were given precedence and which were ignored).

meotimdihia 4y ago

I don't know how to explain it in English. But he didn't say his teachings were to last only 1000 years. Buddha said it is super hard or impossible to achieve Nirvana or became Arahant after 1500-2000 years. But if you never practice, you'll never achieve anything. Even Buddha needs 4 Asaṃkhyeya to become a Buddha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa%E1%B9%83khyeya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa%E1%B9%83khyeya

omarfarooq 4y ago
> Buddha said it is super hard or impossible to achieve Nirvana after 1500-2000 years. Well, that I can agree with. Also according to the Buddha, there are signs that an enlightened being can display to prove their enlightenment. A simple one is that fire does not affect them. To prove his enlightenment, "Ānanda performed a supernatural accomplishment by diving into the earth and appearing on his seat at the council (or, according to some sources, by flying through the air.)" This is the only modern evidence of anyone meeting the criteria: https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/thich-quang-duc-burning-monk.jpg https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads...
- nicky0 4y ago
  You seem to be rather a literalist.
  - omarfarooq 4y ago
    And how should I take those signs of enlightenment then? If not literally then Buddhist scripture is no better than fiction.
    - tiborsaas 4y ago
      All religions are fiction.
    - carapace 4y ago
      Ramana Maharshi got cancer. When the doctor operated to remove the tumor anesthetic was refused. Ramana watched the operation without evident discomfort. He said after that he experienced the sensations of the operation but did not suffer.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

Think you are mixing things. I don't think people are actually "budhists", but instead have found something useful from meditating.

denton-scratch 4y ago

The way I was taught, suttas/sutras were treated as interesting historical documents, and sometimes as useful aids to understanding. They were not considered to be "gospel" truth, because they are not associated with a practice lineage. That is, there is only a text; there is no handing-down of a lived experience from teacher to practitioner. My teachers favoured more "modern" texts, such as Asanga's works, and the Prajnaparamita literature. They have practice lineages that can be traced back to their authors. Statements from the sutras/suttas were met with remarks of the form "Very interesting; it may be true, or it may be not true".

cuteboy19 4y ago

For what its worth Buddhism did die out entirely in India.

cyberpunk 4y ago

It was 2500 years ago. We do not care at all. Buddhism is not a philosophy based on a magic book or some unprovable god; it’s just people. The Buddha was a normal person, and absolutely could and did make the kinds of mistakes common in his time. I don’t think that stops it being useful, personally.

solardev 4y ago
I think it depends on your particular fork of Buddhism. It's a pretty open source religion, and some sects and scriptures are more devout to tradition and mysticism than others.