things the buddha didn't say

Some interesting points from this article:

http://www.dharmafacilitators.org/index.php/welcome/eng/whatthebuddhadidnotteach

"Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta are the true reality of existence.
The Buddha
has never made such a claim about impermanence,
unsatisfactoriness and
non-self. He said that these are three
characteristics of existence.
If they were the true reality, there
would no release, no liberation.
The Unconditioned is anatta but not
anicca or dukkha."

"Life is suffering. This is a common misstatement of the first
noble
truth Again, there is no such statement from the Buddha. If
this was
reality, then there would be no escape. When suffering
arises in life,
it is due to the conditions. When the conditions for
suffering are not
present, then suffering does not arise."

"The view that we are always free to make a choice
does not accord with
experience. We did not choose to be born, to
stop growing old, to get
sick or to suffer pain. We can’t choose
to live for ever. We can’t
choose to be happy in every moment of
the day. We can’t choose the
outcomes of events that effect our
life. .. In clarity, we naturally cultivate ethics,
samadhi
and wisdoml. It is a natural priority. Wisdom says that
there doesn’t
feel to be any choice about it. It is simply
conducive to a liberated
way of life. Deep down, there is really no
choice."

Thoughts?

I just read the entire article.
I don't have any specific opinions on specific points just yet I guess.
However, I think this article is a good way (a kind of blue print) to sort of challenge my assumptions about dharma theory and practice.

For me just one read showed me how little I really know about what the Buddha did or didn't teach, and how little I know about all the source material (if there really is any of that) vs. commentaries that came later. Theravada, Zen, Tibetan, Pure Land, etc. How are they the same? How are they different?

Now I think there are two parallel things happening:
1. Our own practice experience/investigation which produces original insights that are not necessarily something that can be codified and conceptualized and explained.
2. All the technical, detailed teachings of Buddhism.

One can inform and assist in the progress and development of knowledge of the other. Of course, I favor number 1., but I think more open investigation into number 2. could help me work with number one.

First of all, there will be a lot of people who would quibble with that first line: 'The Pali Discourses (Suttas) are the original body of texts of the words of the Buddha.' And while I take the Pali Canon as my personal authority, I think that's a simplistic and ahistorical claim.

Then again, Theravadan that I am, I appreciate much of the rest of the article—though often it seems like Mr. Titmuss has a very specific (false) doctrine in mind, which makes the thing rather opaque if you're not familiar with all the things he's arguing against.

It reminds me of a relatively bomb-throwing talk that my teacher Josh gave a little while ago: http://dharmapunxnyc.podbean.com/2011/05/20/the-punk-dharma/

I enjoyed that punk talk.

It agree it did seem like Titmuss might be writing that in response to a particular teacher, group or incident I am not aware of.

Yes, thanks Zach.

At first I was pissed because even though I was 21 in 1977 and at that point hated "corporate rock" and loved Sex Pistols, Ramones and actually went to the shows in LA/Hollywood -- nowadays I LOVE listening to old Journey and Chicago and Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, etc. records.

But, the meat of the talk was really provocative in a good. I'm going to listen to it again right now.

Yeah, it hurts me a little bit when he makes fun of Fleetwood Mac

I'm listening to this one now:

http://dharmapunxnyc.podbean.com/2011/06/11/how-to-create-the-world/

Nice.

Does it seems like there is an assumption here, that whatever it is found that the Buddha actually taught, equals "the truth?" Or, is this just an argument strictly on what the Buddha did or didn't write say or teach?

See what I mean? I read the assumption into such essays, but I could be wrong.

The idea seems to be, if we dharma practitioners find and then stick to what the historical Buddha ACTUALLY said, then we are on the right and correct path. If an idea or a teaching or a practice is found to be contrary to the buddha's real and original teachings then it must be wrong, incorrect, and, basically, ineffective.

What do you think? Am I wrong about this? I'm really not sure.

So, this is just to make one aware of when a teaching is additional or new?