Comment by metta2uall | Hacker News Reader

Comment by metta2uall | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.th...) and if you change the URL the sutta you mentioned is actually there: 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

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.

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

If modern "Buddhists" are skillful their practice won't be poisoned by a couple of problematic/corrupt passages within the huge Pali cannon..

There's the now-famous Kalama Sutta where the Buddha specifically encourages people to not rely too much on canonical texts: https://suttacentral.net/an3.65/en/sujato

Reminds me of chapter one of the Dao te Ching :

>The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Why use the correct word in the title but the western mispronunciation in the quote.

Dao

The 道德经 was not written in the last century, and the ancient pronunciation is only approximately known. Yes it's written in Modern Standard Chinese/pinyin as "Dào Dé Jīng" but the text has existence in the western world older than the Modern Standard Chinese language, certainly longer than modern Chinese orthography.

Looking at Zhengzhang reconstruction of the title, for instance, we get the pronuciation /l'uːʔ tɯːɡ keːŋ/ (I don't know old Chinese phonology at all, I'm just working from wiktionary - please forgive any errors/take with a grain of salt). I don't see any particular reason for English-speakers to use the Modern Standard Chinese pinyin orthography/pronunciation to write terms that come from a considerably older way of speaking. (I say this as someone learning Classical + Middle Chinese using Middle-Chinese pronunciation).

Okay one possible reason is that it might be seen as good if the main inheritors of the tradition (the modern Chinese state+people) get given 'ownership' of it, and that outsiders speak using their preferred terminology/pronunciation. But I'm not personally on board with that, any more than I'd insist that people pronounce Shakespeare in American English.

[ I apologise for any snark that might be residual in this reply (and acknowledge that the remark is slightly tangential to the topic of this page) - I've tried to keep it constructive. ]

My Daoist teacher doesn’t really mind either way, although his english usage is the “Dao” form. I am assuming that is the more modern/current form.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com