🚀 go-pugleaf

X-Orig-MsgId: <386BBBBD.83A4921F@bu.edu>



Lee Dillion wrote: <<My mind is slowing down in anticipation of rolling the
counters over for the new year, so forgive me if I seem a little dense
lately.  But where exactly is the Buddha using speech that is untrue?

From what you have presented, the Buddha is simply using the stated
assumptions and wordlview of his opponent to bring the opponent's views in
line with Buddhist teachings, nothing more.  That he reorients the opponent's
wordlview by using such wordlview is hardly untrue speech. In fact, what is
more honest than using the "truths" of your opponent to secure victory in
speech?

And now I find that my fingers have stopped connecting to my brain. Please
substitute world view in the above where necessary.>>

The Buddha followed convention (Brahmanical and otherwise) to turn it into his
own teaching, so the part where he followed convention was untrue.

 "Friend Gotama! Where is the earth supported?"
 "The earth is supported by water."
 "Friend Gotama! Where is water supported?"
 "Water is supported by the wind."
 "Friend Gotama! Where is wind supported?"
 "Wind is supported by space."
 "Friend Gotama! Where is space supported?"
 "You go too far, great brahman. Space is un-supported (a-pratisthita). It is
only because of the sun and moon that there is space!"

He didn't believe that the earth was supported by water, etc., as he opposed
all such metaphysical speculation, but adopted it temporarily to turn it into
his own teaching. He didn't stop the brahman right away to say: "My friend, I
oppose all metaphysical speculation, so it is not the case that earth is
supported by water, etc." He followed convention, which he knew to be untrue,
just to transmute it into his teaching.

Where he found that convention (Brahmanical, Jaina, or whatever) was too far
gone to be transmutable into his Law, he refuted it directly, without
tolerance, and we have lots of that in the early canon.

Or he could simply invent another fiction (i. e., untruth) to counter a
conventional untruth, tit for tat, as when brahmans told him that the brahman
caste was the topmost, he said baldly that the warrior caste was topmost.
Neither assertion could be supported by any evidence other than who was more
powerful, and on that basis the Buddha was the clear loser. I. e., the warrior
caste was never factually topmost in Indian society.

The whole background to Buddhism is that language and thought can never catch
reality (sensible reality) to the full, and the Buddha's teaching was like a
blind man's description of the elephant, except that it was more accurate, but
nothing within language and thought is ever fully accurate, adequate to what
it describes. That is why the Law is like a raft, to be used for crossing over
but to be relinquished when the other side is reached. Therefore, the Law is
also illusory (i. e., untrue), from the point of view of the awakened, who has
already relinquished it as garbage. It is like medicine, which you take and
then shit or piss out.

It is quite different with religions of revelation, where what is revealed is
true literally, not a mere temporary means and never to be relinquished. The
Christian elected (very few according to Augustine, the Doctor of Grace),
after being saved and already living in heaven forever, still believe the Word
of God and his history of salvation forever and evermore.

Tang Huyen