Love this, Arram. I'm not a Buddhist scholar either, though I'm very curious what a Buddhist scholar would say. It seems so plausible, I'm wondering why haven't I heard this idea before. Such a great take—very glad to have found your writing.
Isn't the Pali cannon 16,000+ pages? Impressive. Is there a specific translation you like?
1. It doesn't seem correct to say the Buddha was trying to give people meaning. "What I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering".
2."The Buddha definitely believes in Gods and spirits." I tried to gesture at this with "and no one, including you, understands much of anything about how the natural, physical world works".
"spirits are a phenomenological reality" I'm not certain what you mean by this, but if you mean something like that they are an 'experiential reality', then sure.
3. The way I think about this is that before Darwin theism actually was the best explanation for the world. Again, what I meant by saying no one understood how the physical world worked.
4. I don't think even I would claim that rites and rituals have no power. They just don't have power the way most of the people practicing them in the day would have thought (through magical action-at-a-distance). The mind states mattering versus the cargo cult practice of rituals is what I was trying to refer to.
I suppose I may have overstated depending on what you consider the Pali Cannon. I've read the Digha Nikaya ("the long discourses", tr Maurice Walshe), and am starting the Samyutta Nikaya (short discourses). These are all part of division 2 of the Pali Cannon. The first is largely about procedure and moral behavior for monastics explicitly. They range in interest to the modern reader. Even the Digha Nikaya has long sections describing the hierarchy of different sorts of spirits, which I admit to skimming XD. The Digha Nikaya covers a ton though, I think it's a good place to start!
1. Yes, that is a great quote--and that is the end of the teachings. However, a yoke to meaning is part of the end of suffering. (And "skeptical doubt" is also said to be one of the fetters which is defeated by stream entry -- though a number of later traditions separate themselves somewhat from a progression attached to the fetters) In addition, the Buddha teaches the Brahma-viharas as a method of union with Brahma, and recommends them as practice for householders. He just also says that there are things higher still than union with Brahma (i.e. Arahatship). God (though not separate Abrahamic sky daddy God) exists in the Buddha's teachings...God is just a bit more of a footnote.
3. Mmmm...I think it's closer to...the idea of a separate independent objective physical world wasn't even popular and most people didn't care about it. The Buddha is concerned with the experiential (yes, phenomenological), not the theoretical external "objective universe" that western metaphysics concerns itself with. It was a popular insult of the time to say "such and such ascetic merely _believes_ their Dhamma", meaning that their Dhamma (here, way of teaching about the world) was just an explanation instead of a direct experience.
Love this, Arram. I'm not a Buddhist scholar either, though I'm very curious what a Buddhist scholar would say. It seems so plausible, I'm wondering why haven't I heard this idea before. Such a great take—very glad to have found your writing.
Let me know if you learn anything. :)
This is great!
All the more important that we have writing like yours, to cast the real experience again in your unique voice
Isn't the Pali cannon 16,000+ pages? Impressive. Is there a specific translation you like?
1. It doesn't seem correct to say the Buddha was trying to give people meaning. "What I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering".
2."The Buddha definitely believes in Gods and spirits." I tried to gesture at this with "and no one, including you, understands much of anything about how the natural, physical world works".
"spirits are a phenomenological reality" I'm not certain what you mean by this, but if you mean something like that they are an 'experiential reality', then sure.
3. The way I think about this is that before Darwin theism actually was the best explanation for the world. Again, what I meant by saying no one understood how the physical world worked.
4. I don't think even I would claim that rites and rituals have no power. They just don't have power the way most of the people practicing them in the day would have thought (through magical action-at-a-distance). The mind states mattering versus the cargo cult practice of rituals is what I was trying to refer to.
I suppose I may have overstated depending on what you consider the Pali Cannon. I've read the Digha Nikaya ("the long discourses", tr Maurice Walshe), and am starting the Samyutta Nikaya (short discourses). These are all part of division 2 of the Pali Cannon. The first is largely about procedure and moral behavior for monastics explicitly. They range in interest to the modern reader. Even the Digha Nikaya has long sections describing the hierarchy of different sorts of spirits, which I admit to skimming XD. The Digha Nikaya covers a ton though, I think it's a good place to start!
1. Yes, that is a great quote--and that is the end of the teachings. However, a yoke to meaning is part of the end of suffering. (And "skeptical doubt" is also said to be one of the fetters which is defeated by stream entry -- though a number of later traditions separate themselves somewhat from a progression attached to the fetters) In addition, the Buddha teaches the Brahma-viharas as a method of union with Brahma, and recommends them as practice for householders. He just also says that there are things higher still than union with Brahma (i.e. Arahatship). God (though not separate Abrahamic sky daddy God) exists in the Buddha's teachings...God is just a bit more of a footnote.
3. Mmmm...I think it's closer to...the idea of a separate independent objective physical world wasn't even popular and most people didn't care about it. The Buddha is concerned with the experiential (yes, phenomenological), not the theoretical external "objective universe" that western metaphysics concerns itself with. It was a popular insult of the time to say "such and such ascetic merely _believes_ their Dhamma", meaning that their Dhamma (here, way of teaching about the world) was just an explanation instead of a direct experience.
4. Ya, kk, agreed.