Did Sri Lankans understand the Dhamma better than the Buddha?
 

What do you think?

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/green.gif

Metta,
Retro. :)

Hi Retro,

What makes you think that?

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Hi Retro,

Did Buddhagosa and Bhikkhu Bodhi study in Sri Lanka?


Could you elaborate, please ? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

I would like a little more to go on, please. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Generalised question, so appropriate answer, likewise: NO!

Greetings,

Yes, it was quite a generalised question... perhaps I could rephrase it and make it even more general...

Has anyone understood the Dhamma better than the Buddha?

Metta,
Retro. :)

Umm... surely not... how would that be possible, Retro ?

Forgive me if I'm "a bit thick" as we say in the north UK - but I'm still not at all clear about the purpose of your question .... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/bunny.gif

No one I know of. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif Albeit without being able to inhabit their skin, however, I would say that there are some who have penetrated the Dhamma deeply enough that I respect them as teachers. Ajahn Chah is one and some of his students. I particularly admire those who penetrate through to the heart of the matter and do not spend significant time or effort on irrelevancies, of which there are a great deal in what some see as Buddhism (e.g., amulets). Witness the simplicity of Ajahn Chah's practice!

The heart of the Path is so simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice. Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing. There are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. When I encounter a teacher like that, the question of whether he surpasses the Buddha in understanding the Dhamma never arises. He has what I want, bears none of the marks of a false teacher, and that is enough.

And will it not be a joy to those who come to us with little or no knowledge of the Dhamma, when we can point out such a simple expression of the Path. Such a thing can only give them heart, I think.

Do you yourself think that there is anyone who has implied that they or someone else understands the Dhamma better than the Buddha, Retro ?


I suspect that a lot that's labelled 'Buddhism' today might possibly not be very close to what the historical Buddha actually taught.

It is often said that pre-Buddhist religions in various nations were not abandoned in favour of Buddhism, but that Buddhism was incorporated into them at its advent, forming hybrid religions nonetheless referred to as "Buddhism". If this had not happened, perhaps Buddhism would long ago have died out or become a historical oddity known only to a handful of scholars. Buddhism seems to have become a world religion that is available to the general populace to this day by virtue of being adulterated. Go figure!http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/zonked.gif If this is true, and I believe it is, then I guess it is in a sense ungrateful to rail against the process, though it is still incumbent upon us to penetrate "Buddhism" as deeply and trenchantly as possible in order to come as close as possible to the Dhamma purveyed by the Buddha himself.

.

It has come to be my private view that much of what is popularly called "Buddhism" today should be called something else completely - and I am, in fact, grateful that I've woken up to that fact at last .


However I'll refrain from going into further detail because its not my intention to offend anyone.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

Attempting to penetrate the Dhamma is the most rewarding pursuit I have discovered. So many pursuits, so many life paths, are presented to us as worthy of commitment, and I have found many rewarding, but in the end, none but the Dhamma has held the promise of complete cessation of suffering, and so none is as worthy of commitment.

Well, there is only so much Dhamma, isn't there? I think the Buddha would tell you that many, many understood the Dhamma as well as he did, and practiced the Dhamma to the end just as well as he did. What he is recorded to have said (see MN 108) is that the only difference between him and any other arahant, is that he was just the one who discovered the path, who originated the path, who proclaimed and made known the path, and they are followers in the path.

But not "better than". :)

But not "better than". :) Exactly. And they didn't need to add anything extraneous to it, either is perfect just as it is. ;-), as it

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

The whole thing just keeps getting clearer. I am happy.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4118/...127c14f3_m.jpg

no

The Buddha did not teach the "Matreyya" superstition.

The Dhamma of the Buddha is already being revived, particularly in places like this forum. With the advent of mass communication via the internet, the Dhamma-ending age of superstition and blind traditionalism is now coming to a close.

The Buddha pointed out that other arahants "match" his knowledge of the Dhamma, he simply is the one who came up with it.