The Dull Monk in the Third Row Theory of the Evolution of Buddhist Doctrine

I subscribe to the speculation of the evolution of Buddhist didactic discourse which I think of as the lifeless priest in the third quarrel theory. It goes something similar to this.

First let us imagine the Buddha if zero else the master teller of tales standing in the centre of the little village, as good as spinning the yarn. This story, similar to any great story, is filled to ripping with jokes, ironies, witty asides, stand in meanings. The assembly have been lapping it up. They have been relishing his funny turns of phrase, delighting in his images. And they have been saying the world, as good as themselves, with uninformed eyes upon account of it.

But there, somewhere in the audience, around the third row, is the priest of the particularly divine cast of mind. This lifeless priest in the third quarrel is positively sincere. He is aspiring in his intentions. He believes himself to be the great as good as true disciple. He will not the single word slip past unrecorded. He is pious, extremely so. Whilst the rest of the assembly chuckle, he does not. His brows have been knit in deep thought. He has no time to laugh: his whole appearance speaks of deep as good as critical insights. As the Buddha speaks, he hangs upon each word, or almost each word withdrawal out the some-more ribald jokes, if there be any, for they offend his sense of propriety. He is tone-deaf to stand in meanings, the quips, the asides. Even as he listens, his is weaving everything he hears in to the make up of pleasing proportions, the cathedral of doctrine, with an imposing extraneous and, when the single steps by the door, mountainous as good as grand vaults.

Here is the basic axiom, which I think binds true not usually for Buddhism, though additionally some-more generally: the single lifeless priest in the third quarrel makes uninspiring company; multiform generations of lifeless monks make the religion.

A great example of how bizarre doctrinal frameworks can movement out of the literalistic perplexi! ty of jo kes, parodies as good as satires can be found in the Aggaa Sutta (this is the long the single the link to the downloadable version is here). The Aggaa Sutta is infrequently referred to as the Buddhist cosmogony, or even the Buddhist book of Genesis, the tale which explains how the universe, tellurian beings, the multiplication of land, as good as social strife have arisen. (Incidentally, I do not know if anyone has beheld the extraneous similarities between the Aggaa Suttas cosmology as good as which of the miller in Carlo Ginzburgs smashing book The Cheese as good as the Worms: whether these similarities have been accidental or not I do not know.) But there is the problem. The Buddha tended to equivocate metaphysical speculation, particularly upon so grand as good as extravagant the scale. So what is he doing setting out the extravagantly suppositional perspective of the origins of the universe?

It has long been known, however, which this content is not all it seems. The Pali academician Rhys-Davids wrote which the continual note of good-humoured irony runs by the whole story as good as the aroma of it would be mislaid upon the hearer who took it au grand serieux. More recently, Richard Gombrich, in his How Buddhism Began, has demonstrated I hold convincingly which the Buddha never dictated to propound the cosmogony. Rather, the whole story is an try to make fun of brahminical cosmogonies, particularly the so-called Hymn of Creation in the Rig Veda, whilst during the same time setting out the Buddha own really particular perspective of the tellurian weaknesses of greed, hatred as good as delusion. There is no doubt which this was not an idle parody: it had the critical intent. But it was the parody nonetheless.

The idea which eremite texts could embody figurative or surreptitious countenance (pariyaya in Pali the way round or the way of putting things), satire, parody, even dare it be said? jokes, is the single which does not sit good with the lifeless priest in the third row. Whilst h! e believ es which his over-pious celebration of the mass of texts is the usually way of doing these texts justice, in fact does utterly the opposite: it corrupts them.

Having pronounced all this, maybe you should not judge the lifeless priest in the third quarrel as well harshly. His earnestness as good as plodding industry have had definite advantages: maybe it is since of him as good as his successors which you have the convention during all. The aspiring copying, the receiving of each word as literal as good as weighty, might have helped to preserve these really texts as good as teachings.

However, when it comes to our celebration of the mass of these very old works, to move them behind to hold up you might need to resist the temptation to join the lifeless priest in his loyalty as good as seriousness, his extreme reverence. We might need to recognise which however true he believes himself to be, he might have longed for most which is nuanced as good as pointed as good as humorous. Ridding ourselves of the oppressive as good as uninspired spirit of loyalty which accompanies the celebration of the mass of eremite functions as good as which constantly stifles all genuine creativity, celebration of the mass with half an eye open to jokes both actual as good as possible to ironies as good as to stand in meanings, you might find which you have been liberated to read these very old functions afresh, with humour as good as delight, finding in them brand new as good as unexpected meanings.

Have the look during Wikipedia
How Buddhism Began Richard Gombrich. Munshiram Manoharlal 2002.
or Why Humans Have Cultures Michael Carrithers. OUP 1992. Chapter 7 dedicated to this sutta.