This talk really touched the core of my belief as a Buddhist. I really cherish plurality of Buddhism. His mindfulness approach of how to see different traditions as they are is excellent.
All the Buddhist traditions have the Vinaya as the roots, that's all that matters. I spent years trying to understand through Mahayana and could not understand, then I found Ajahn Chah, Thai Forest Tradition, Theravada and Pali, and wow, the Dhamma came alive. I could see what the Buddha was finally. And I'm Western with zero Asian or Indian influences at all.
Love this. It totally resonates with how I like to view the different Buddhist traditions, that they all have value and can stand alongside each other as they are. I've also spent a lot of time in Asia and studied/practiced in different traditions, mostly Theravada and Tibetan. As I see it, any later development of the teachings in whatever form can have value and is to be respected. Just what I've found is that almost no teacher of these traditions accepts them as a later development. They are always presented as being a direct transmission from Shakyamuni himself appearing in one form or another at a later date to transmit the teachings. Either that, or they are the higher teachings that the "foundational" practicitions at the time of the Buddha weren't ready to hear which is why they didn't appear in the earlier texts, which makes no sense at all and makes me question the crediblity of someone saying this.
I understand why you would have this view, but thats just the same as saying Christianity has value.. yeh, in some ways it does, but you wont get odf the wheel os Samsara worshiping Jesus, its quite simple... in the same way, anything added after The Buddha entered Parinibanna is NOT the real Dhamma... its the leaves of the forest, not the handful The Buddha was holding. I dont know about you, but id rather follow The Buddhas medicine for thisnailment than that of those who followed Him. Just my 2 cents...
@@anthonybrown4890 Hi Anthony, thanks for your reply. There's a lot that could be said here and it could easily be a long discussion but I'll say a few things in response. When you analyse, trying to pin down "real dhamma" or "authentic dhamma" is pretty much impossible. The pali suttas were written down 300 years after the Buddha died which automatically throws into doubt what was transmitted, and the very few practice texts that exist (satipatthana sutta, anapanasati sutta and one or 2 others) are incredibly vague with regards to actual practice technique. Scholars can and have debated over the years what the Buddha actually taught. And I've heard various Theravada teachers (Sayadaw U Pandita and Goenka as 2 examples) claiming their way is the true and authentic way (even though they are both different). Then I've found "later teachings" such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen to be very much in line with the view texts in the pali canon (on shunyata for example). And also found it personally very helpful to my own practice. As I've met various Tibetan Lamas who clearly embody the teachings, it clearly works as a path to liberation therefore has value for me. I've also read various reports from Christian Mystics whose experience of non-separation seem to be the same experience of liberation as described by Buddhist meditators. In general, I think that any time you try and hold up one thing as being "the truth" the result is always problematic.
@@olliec1319 ollie, Thankyou for your well thought out response. I am blessed as i have a teacher who understands that EVERY Sutta is a daily life practise one... if following it couldnt lead to liberation here and now, then The Buddha would not have taught it. Hopefully the spirit of that comes across as kind, i just have the view it is not worth wasting time as The Dhamma is very much being misinterpreted these days. An example here is, you are not the first buddhist i have heard say the christian type awakening sounds similar to buddhist schools versions. When in The Dhamma, only penetrating the 4 Noble Truths can lead to Nibanna and for that we need a Buddha. Unfortunately many schools have fell into the trap of thinking unbound conciousness is Nibanna, when infact that is the Brahmin view... and worse than that it is the very ground of becoming, not the cessation of it... infact, conciousness is stated in The Suttas as dependent upon Formations (as in dependent origination)..yet schools teach as if conciousness is some ever lasting entity. I also have an admition to make, i live in exceptionally close proximity to a first stage attainer (a path attained Sotapanna ) and thankfully the experience has made an impact on my life and knowledge of what is right and what is being taught wrongly. I hope these truths help you find the Truth, if not please do carry on seeking in with faith in The Triple Gem being your guide :) i also agree in part with what you said about The Suttas, The Buddha did say the True Dhamma would be ariund for 500 years after His death... and within 300 or so years, The Suttas were written on on the stones in Pali via Emperror Ashoka.. so it is only the interpretations that could be wrong, and for that we can overcome it by practising and then comparing back to The Suttas. When we do that under a wise and skillfull teacher, we can enter the stream ourselves. I can guarantee, the doors to the deahtless are still open now, they are closing under false views however :)
@@anthonybrown7964 Thanks Anthony, I like what you say about every sutta being a practice one. I'm glad you have found a teacher you feel inspired by and that you have strong faith in the dhamma. Very best wishes on your path :-)
About the Mahāyāna Sūtras, you first need to understand that Mahāyāna Buddhists don't say that all of the Sūtras go back to the first council, some do, and this actually may be possible historically speaking, but most of the Mahāyāna Sūtras were understood to be of a later date within the tradition and there's a doctrinal reason for this. An important doctrine in Mahāyāna is the idea that the teachings weren't given until there was a suitable climate for the reception of them, which is why they appeared at a later date. The basic idea in this doctrine is inherent in Buddhism. All traditions say that the Buddha took birth in that time and place in ancient India because there were suitable conditions for the teachings, a foundation of renunciation, belief in karma, and appreciating the value of self-analysis. So the idea that the teachings on Mahāyāna were given only when there was a suitable foundation of śravakayāna should not be so surprising. As for how these teachings were revealed, like I said it's possible some of the material always was in the early Buddhist community, but the later material was revealed through the insight of learned teachers who received these teachings from Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and other beings. This claim is obviously a religious one, not a historical one. Just like the claims in the early texts that the Buddha was able to see his past lives, read the minds of others, or emanated a light when he was born that shone all throughout the universe. As for why you should believe religious ideas, like the early text's claims that the Buddha had extraordinary powers or that the Mahāyāna Sūtras were revealed this way, well, you don't have to. Just believe whatever you think is likely, obviously.
It’s very nice to hear this sort of acceptance from a leading figure in the EBT field. What would be equally nice would be to hear similar understanding coming from students of the later traditions. The main issue is, leading figures in the Mahayana and Vajrayana still continue perpetuating the view that their traditions are far superior to the EBTs and that the Hinayana is contradictory or even harmful to their practice.
Thanks, enjoyed this. Though I'm troubled / perplexed by the notion that one could practice Dzogchen with an 'adapted' view in which crucial fundamentals of Dzogchen are changed in order to bring Dzogchen in line with one's preferred understanding of Theravada. That imho is very much a Food Blender Yana. I'd also question some of the related assertions made concerning early Buddhist teachings. Permanence is certainly taught in early material: 'Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ.' In other words, 'There is, monks, that which is unborn, unarisen, unmade, unconditioned.' I feel that the historical perspective offered here would benefit from an important nuancing, namely that not only texts but living traditions, sites, and institutions held the continuity between the branches of northern and southern Buddhist traditions and their common original roots. Apparent incompatibilities between traditions such as Indo-Tibetan Tantra and Theravada are near invariably a question of the limited understanding of those passing judgment. A little familiarity with the painstaking doxographies and path structures of Tibetan traditions is arguably the better treatment for those inclined to judge 'late' traditions than a historical academic perspective imo.
Is permanence taught, or is non-impermanence taught? Outside of perception and non-perception, what permanence would there be to perceive or not-perceive?
I appreciate Bhikkhu Analayo's point that we should be respectful and tolerant of all traditions, not least because if we don't we are likely to be get caught up in unwholesome mind states- the very same thing could be said of our attitudes to other religions. The problem is, though, that traditions often make truth claims that are clearly false or at best partly true, e.g. that the Buddha taught a certain technique and this is the only technique which will liberate us or that 'we' all have a Buddha nature and that this is unchanging. There are no grounds for views such as these if we examine the early teachings. It is dishonest of us to pretend that there are and, thus, while we ought to be respectful and tolerant of those who subscribe to other traditions, I don't see why we should accept claims, which we know are false as being equally valid as other claims. Those Sri Lankan guys who were unhappy when the protruberance was taken off the head of the statue may have been in the majority but that doesn't mean that their conception of the Buddha is necessarily the right one or is equally as valid as Bhikku Analayo's - not if they are claiming that their conception of the Buddha is the more historically accurate one. Sometimes you should call a spade a spade. They are wrong and we are entitled to respectfully disagree and hold that they are wrong, whilst at the same time taking care not to antagonise them or ourselves. Metta!
"or that 'we' all have a Buddha nature and that this is unchanging. There are no grounds for views such as these if we examine the early teachings. It is dishonest of us to pretend that there are and, thus, while" Wrong.
@memesmojo5622 You clearly are unfamiliar with the early teachings then. There is no mention of Buddha nature there.. Buddha nature may or may or not be a reality, but the concept of this first appeared in the Mahayanan teachings, the earliest form of which emerged 500 years after the Buddha is believed to have lived. The very idea that there is an intrinsic part of ourselves(I.e. the Buddha nature).flies in the face of the early teachings. So does the notion that anything could be unchanging. It contradicts the law of anicca (impermance) which everything is subject to. I can only assume you are viewing the teachings through a Mahayana lens.
@@chrisparkin9947 About the Mahāyāna Sūtras, you first need to understand that Mahāyāna Buddhists don't say that all of the Sūtras go back to the first council, some do, and this actually may be possible historically speaking, but most of the Mahāyāna Sūtras were understood to be of a later date within the tradition and there's a doctrinal reason for this. An important doctrine in Mahāyāna is the idea that the teachings weren't given until there was a suitable climate for the reception of them, which is why they appeared at a later date. The basic idea in this doctrine is inherent in Buddhism. All traditions say that the Buddha took birth in that time and place in ancient India because there were suitable conditions for the teachings, a foundation of renunciation, belief in karma, and appreciating the value of self-analysis. So the idea that the teachings on Mahāyāna were given only when there was a suitable foundation of śravakayāna should not be so surprising. As for how these teachings were revealed, like I said it's possible some of the material always was in the early Buddhist community, but the later material was revealed through the insight of learned teachers who received these teachings from Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and other beings. This claim is obviously a religious one, not a historical one. Just like the claims in the early texts that the Buddha was able to see his past lives, read the minds of others, or emanated a light when he was born that shone all throughout the universe. As for why you should believe religious ideas, like the early text's claims that the Buddha had extraordinary powers or that the Mahāyāna Sūtras were revealed this way, well, you don't have to. Just believe whatever you think is likely, obviously. Talk on Buddhavacana from Mahayana perspective: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xYtwghyR1Ok.html Also, Buddha nature isnt some inherently existing thing "Buddhahood is emptiness, yet emptiness does not mean non-existence. Emptiness means that all things lack permanence. There is objective existence, but nothing is unchanging and eternal; everything that exists changes constantly. This ever-changing nature is Buddha-nature. Enlightenment is realizing the empty and impermanent nature of ourselves and the world. If you can live in emptiness without attaching to it, it is called "neither abiding in existence nor emptiness." Although everything continues to exist, there is no self that attaches to anything. Not abiding in existence and not abiding in emptiness is enlightenment." Sheng-yen "Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for emptiness (Sunyata), Sugatagarbha and Brahman cannot be the same. The confusion is often created by the statement that the Sugatagarbha or the Buddha nature exists in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator of confusion here. The ‘exists’ is only for conventional usage, or giving way to conventional usage. Without its use here, one cannot express the fact that this is the mode of abiding of the true nature of mind of all sentient beings. ‘Exists’ here is a synonym of ‘is the mode of abiding’, so ‘exists’ here does not mean ‘abide’ (skt. sthita) but rather ‘non abidingness’ (skt. asthita). This is the mode of abiding, or the sugatagarbha present in all sentient beings. Even in the last sentence, the word ‘present’ can create the same confusion. ‘Present’ here would mean presence of the absence of self-existingness or self-characteristicness, etc. What is positively named ‘Sugatagarbha’ is that it is said to exist in all sentient beings. This ‘exists’ is qualitative rather than existential. It is also more epistemological, whereas the Brahman is more ontologically truly existing. The Brahman is not non-abiding but rather ‘kutastha’, which mean self-abiding." Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
@chrisparkin9947 About the Mahāyāna Sūtras, you first need to understand that Mahāyāna Buddhists don't say that all of the Sūtras go back to the first council, some do, and this actually may be possible historically speaking, but most of the Mahāyāna Sūtras were understood to be of a later date within the tradition and there's a doctrinal reason for this. An important doctrine in Mahāyāna is the idea that the teachings weren't given until there was a suitable climate for the reception of them, which is why they appeared at a later date. The basic idea in this doctrine is inherent in Buddhism. All traditions say that the Buddha took birth in that time and place in ancient India because there were suitable conditions for the teachings, a foundation of renunciation, belief in karma, and appreciating the value of self-analysis. So the idea that the teachings on Mahāyāna were given only when there was a suitable foundation of śravakayāna should not be so surprising. As for how these teachings were revealed, like I said it's possible some of the material always was in the early Buddhist community, but the later material was revealed through the insight of learned teachers who received these teachings from Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and other beings. This claim is obviously a religious one, not a historical one. Just like the claims in the early texts that the Buddha was able to see his past lives, read the minds of others, or emanated a light when he was born that shone all throughout the universe. As for why you should believe religious ideas, like the early text's claims that the Buddha had extraordinary powers or that the Mahāyāna Sūtras were revealed this way, well, you don't have to. Just believe whatever you think is likely, obviously. Talk on Buddhavacana from Mahayana perspective: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xYtwghyR1Ok.html Also, Buddha nature isnt some inherently existing thing "Buddhahood is emptiness, yet emptiness does not mean non-existence. Emptiness means that all things lack permanence. There is objective existence, but nothing is unchanging and eternal; everything that exists changes constantly. This ever-changing nature is Buddha-nature. Enlightenment is realizing the empty and impermanent nature of ourselves and the world. If you can live in emptiness without attaching to it, it is called "neither abiding in existence nor emptiness." Although everything continues to exist, there is no self that attaches to anything. Not abiding in existence and not abiding in emptiness is enlightenment." Sheng-yen "Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for emptiness (Sunyata), Sugatagarbha and Brahman cannot be the same. The confusion is often created by the statement that the Sugatagarbha or the Buddha nature exists in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator of confusion here. The ‘exists’ is only for conventional usage, or giving way to conventional usage. Without its use here, one cannot express the fact that this is the mode of abiding of the true nature of mind of all sentient beings. ‘Exists’ here is a synonym of ‘is the mode of abiding’, so ‘exists’ here does not mean ‘abide’ (skt. sthita) but rather ‘non abidingness’ (skt. asthita). This is the mode of abiding, or the sugatagarbha present in all sentient beings. Even in the last sentence, the word ‘present’ can create the same confusion. ‘Present’ here would mean presence of the absence of self-existingness or self-characteristicness, etc. What is positively named ‘Sugatagarbha’ is that it is said to exist in all sentient beings. This ‘exists’ is qualitative rather than existential. It is also more epistemological, whereas the Brahman is more ontologically truly existing. The Brahman is not non-abiding but rather ‘kutastha’, which mean self-abiding." Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
@memesmojo5622 Thanks for your long and considered response I am not debating whether or not we have a Buddha nature, what this denotes or its ontological status. Neither am I taking a stance on the authenticity and validity of the Mahayana and its teachings. I was just pointing out that Buddha nature (to the best of my knowledge) is not mentioned in the Pali Canon, the canon of teaching generally considered, some later interpolations aside, to contain the earliest known Buddhist teachings. While there may have been teachings clandestinely passed down to a later generation of Buddhists, there is no, as far as I am aware, evidence for this. I understand, however, it is an article of faith for Mahayanan Buddhists. While it may be true that this transmission occurred, the fact remains there is no mention of Buddha nature in the Pali Canon/Early Buddhist teachings. Metta
'...its not pretending that everything is the same. it is allowing that space...' Yes. Very needed in todays world where the 'liberal' view is that all religions / philosophies are the same.
Analyo used the flower analogy. I like to use the airplane one. Five flights to Hawaii. Each airline is slightly different, all going to the same place. Just pick an airline you enjoy and give it your full awareness. No use complaining about or ridiculing the other planes. That's silly, in the same way it is to criticize another tradition.
@@capitalistcommie6846 Tbh I don't know too much about his tradition. But I heard that he teach about Vipassana. Well, It's good, but you also need Samatha. I'm prefer Satipatthana, based on Suttas for practicing meditation. And it's not just about starts your meditation. You must learn and practice gradually before you starts to meditate.
@@fbflowerblower Thats nice....if you do three 10 day retreats and serve 1 course...then you can do a Satipatthana course...in that Goenkaji tells his interpretation and simultaneously you practice...strictly in accordance to the suttas..like literally...you should give it a try someday Lot of Metta
Namo Buddho🙏 Dear bhante, or dear brothers and sisters in Sasana, can u tell me how to practice in alone lay followed life-anapanasati or satipatthana practice according with bhante Analaos books? I mean Mindfulness of breathing and Satipatthana meditation.
Skillful means in action, the yoniso manasekara, unites of course all those in true Buddhist traditions, and makes them living bodies of knowledge, practice and fruition. It would be easy to include Islam. We should look at the large picture of heart-based traditions. The wisdom of the heart recognizes itself in any of these traditions! And in any of the heart-based traditions what is oldest has precedence! Inclined for liberation, make your mind very simple. Oneness has natural precedence over divisiveness
Meanwhile you attack Daniel Ingram 🤪 practice what you preach sir. PS. Daniel Ingram made a great video with Guru Viking that refutes all your points. Listen to it, or don't since you can't do an actual debate with real practicing Buddhists. As has been said by Atisha's spirit guide "many Buddhist scholars have been reborn in hell." Up your game.
