Bhikkhu Anālayo on Respecting the Different Buddhist Traditions

[Javi]

Four days ago the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies youtube channel posted this video of an interview with the venerable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-blp_r2rKOk


In which he discusses this article he wrote:
https://www.bcbsdharma.org/article/mind ... raditions/

I definitely agree with the venerable about the importance of being ok with pluralism and being understanding and open to different views. There is ultimately the issue of what one is to do when one tradition contradicts the other. I think that even though the ven. Analayo does not come out and say it, I think he would agree that ultimately one (or least, he personally) has to refer to the early Buddhist texts (as his discussion about how to view the Dzogchen concept of rigpa shows) to guide one's practice. He seems to be very careful to try to be pluralistic and not to attempt to say that one view is better than the other.

The middle way approach that emerges from all this is one that does not dogmatically assert the correctness of one tradition over another, be this a form of Western Buddhism or any particular Asian tradition. Such an assertion would be one extreme. Nor does such a middle way approach try to amalgamate all traditions indiscriminately into a single form of practice without sufficient sensitivity to their historical origins. This would be the other extreme. Instead, various practices can, if employed with sensitivity to their original historical contexts and purposes, inform the evolving Western Buddhisms (plural). This can have its basis in the understanding that each tradition has its own rightness and correctness when and as long as it is employed within the philosophical and practical context out of which it arose. In relation to the various constructs of mindfulness the question to be asked would then not be “Who is right?” but rather “What is right for me?”

While I agree with his statement, I think that ultimately one has to accept that this is slightly evading the issue, for I do not think that Analayo is promoting a kind of postmodern relativism with regards to truth. If Analayo is not promoting relativism, then he must hold that ultimately, there are practices and views which are skillful and practices which are unskillful in leading to the ultimate goal of nibbana. And herein lies the rub, because if certain Buddhist traditions today promote practices which while being right "when and as long as it is employed within the philosophical and practical context out of which it arose" at the same time are actually unhelpful in leading to nibbana (which would not be some relative concept, but total unbinding) then it is our duty to point that out - however skillfully and delicately.

The only other option would be a form of relativism, which sees that each tradition has its own nibbana (Zen nibbana, Dzogchen nibbana, Theravada nibbana, early Buddhist nibbana, etc) and that no one is wrong, but all are equally right. I do not think that Analayo is arguing this, but he does not make it clear.

This is definitely a very difficult issue, because clearly, each tradition thinks it has "The Truth" and can cite scripture and so forth, they have their own view of what nibbana is and this just pushes the question back. This is when we have to be totally honest with ourselves and admit that we have views and assumptions and understand the reasons why we have those assumptions about what nibbana is. While some of the views which come from the different Buddhist traditions might be compatible with each other, others might not and when this conflict arises - and it will - we have to be ready to be intellectually honest instead of ignoring it.

I think the best attitude is one of a humble and pragmatic way of seeing one's own views, a way which sees them as merely a raft and sees discussions about these views as an exercise among friends trying to build an effective raft. There is nothing wrong in attempting to point out the defects of your friend's raft, as long as you are ok with him doing the same and you both do it a spirit of non-attachment and metta. This is often difficult, but I do think that it is better than not discussing it at all or just assuming that all views are just as good (which, again, I do not think that Analayo is saying this, just that it could be misinterpreted that way).

[Polar Bear]

Venerable Anālayo basically knows that from the perspective of early buddhism, using our best standards in epistemic rigor, all these traditions are wrong on some point or another (if you are working from the view of what the historical Buddha actually taught). But he is at pains to avoid quarreling and the creation of dukkha around views so he tries to navigate as carefully as possible. The level of value in going out of your way to accord respect to the tenets of various buddhisms is questionable, but certainly being non-quarrelsome is generally good, and being quarrelsome is often pointless.

[SEC201482]

Venerable Anālayo basically knows that from the perspective of early buddhism, using our best standards in epistemic rigor, all these traditions are wrong on some point or another (if you are working from the view of what the historical Buddha actually taught). But he is at pains to avoid quarreling and the creation of dukkha around views so he tries to navigate as carefully as possible. The level of value in going out of your way to accord respect to the tenets of various buddhisms is questionable, but certainly being non-quarrelsome is generally good, and being quarrelsome is often pointless.

I think that is the best attitude one can have nowadays. The Buddha seemed to foresee this with the prediction of the coming age of "counterfeit Dhamma." IMO, this is why the early suttas seem to have the orientation towards the "be a lamp unto yourself" attitude. A collectivist mindset when faced with such a wide variety of views and teachings will impede you significantly on the path. It's better for each person to improve their discerning abilities and acumen to determine what is valid and invalid.

[binocular]

The epistemology of disagreement has as of recently been a hot topic among Western philosophers.

What Should We Do When We Disagree?

[Javi]

Interesting article binocular, thanks for posting.

Interesting that there is no skeptical view presented in it, which for example would allow for a kind of epistemic epoche - ie setting aside one's belief in absolute truth and simply deciding while at the same time allowing for the possibility that one might be wrong.

[justindesilva]

I whole heartedly agree with this buddhist priest Analayo.
And my gratitude and greetings.
The way I understand is he wants us to follow the Kalama sutta and then how to do it in this conflicting modern situation of splitting buddhism.
Except for commercialised buddhism one can understand why certain theories has been put forward.
As an example it is not a secret that certain people are there to warp buddhism to propagate other religions and these had been divulged.
There are certain other famous bikkus who had taken up mahayana buddhism in sri Lanka to be wealthier. A very sad situation.
But then as well said respect and understanding is the only way to safe guard buddhism.
When the kings from India were throned in sri Lanka they brought their wives who were Hindus and made a room for their practise in buddhist temples. Buddhists today in sri Lanka is mixed up in worshipping Hindu deities as a result.
It is up to us who seek budda dharma to seperate our methods of worship at a time when the Hindu kovils is a part of the buddhist shrine.
At least we can be satisfied that the western buddhist temple is not having such partitions for other deities but only to advocate principles of buddhism.
With mettha.

[justindesilva]

I whole heartedly agree with this buddhist priest Analayo.
And my gratitude and greetings.
The way I understand is he wants us to follow the Kalama sutta and then how to do it in this conflicting modern situation of splitting buddhism.
Except for commercialised buddhism one can understand why certain theories has been put forward.
As an example it is not a secret that certain people are there to warp buddhism to propagate other religions and these had been divulged.
There are certain other famous bikkus who had taken up mahayana buddhism in sri Lanka to be wealthier. A very sad situation.
But then as well said respect and understanding is the only way to safe guard buddhism.
When the kings from India were throned in sri Lanka they brought their wives who were Hindus and made a room for their practise in buddhist temples. Buddhists today in sri Lanka is mixed up in worshipping Hindu deities as a result.
It is up to us who seek budda dharma to seperate our methods of worship at a time when the Hindu kovils is a part of the buddhist shrine.
At least we can be satisfied that the western buddhist temple is not having such partitions for other deities but only to advocate principles of buddhism.
Theravada Mahayana and Vajrayana buddhism May have there differences of ideology but is based on the Darma expounded by Lord budda.
With mettha.

[binocular]

Interesting that there is no skeptical view presented in it, which for example would allow for a kind of epistemic epoche - ie setting aside one's belief in absolute truth and simply deciding while at the same time allowing for the possibility that one might be wrong.

It seems that doing so would require elucidating a number of beliefs that would make such a course of action acceptable and non-threatening.

I also find it interesting that professional philosophers devote themselves to problems (such as the epistemology of disagreement) that ordinary people basically just brush off.

[binocular]

The problem of religious variety and multitude only seems to afflict the weak and the undecided, though.

Those who are already affiliated with a particular tradition/lineage/teacher have no real need or interest to solve the problem of religious variety.

[davidbrainerd]

There is a proverb "As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27:17) i think its true, in the sense that one sharpens their own understanding of an issue by discussing or even arguing with the opposing side. An imposed uniformity in religion would lead to a group of dullards who comprehend nothing. Some controversy is necessary to stay sharp mentally.

[binocular]

An imposed uniformity in religion would lead to a group of dullards who comprehend nothing.

On the other hand, variety and multitude can lead to paralysis and the proliferation of those only who have big enough egos.

Some controversy is necessary to stay sharp mentally.

And weed out the weak, literally?
Survival of the fittest and all that?

[Goofaholix]

There is a proverb "As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27:17) i think its true, in the sense that one sharpens their own understanding of an issue by discussing or even arguing with the opposing side. An imposed uniformity in religion would lead to a group of dullards who comprehend nothing. Some controversy is necessary to stay sharp mentally.

That's right, as long both sides of the argument have the same framework and and same purpose, and are willing to learn.

[davidbrainerd]

There is a proverb "As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27:17) i think its true, in the sense that one sharpens their own understanding of an issue by discussing or even arguing with the opposing side. An imposed uniformity in religion would lead to a group of dullards who comprehend nothing. Some controversy is necessary to stay sharp mentally.

That's right, as long both sides of the argument have the same framework and and same purpose, and are willing to learn.

I don't think that necessarily matters even. I didn't say both sides would get something out of it, but the side who is truly seeking the truth does.

[Alex9]

Thank you so much for posting this video. I am an occasional lurker on this site, but interested in these issues and the venerable Analayo's work.

I do not think that Analayo is promoting a kind of postmodern relativism with regards to truth. If Analayo is not promoting relativism, then he must hold that ultimately, there are practices and views which are skillful and practices which are unskillful in leading to the ultimate goal of nibbana.

We can note that he does not use the word relativism (with its connotations of anything goes, infinite), but plurality (finite, particular, but more than one) in opposition to fundamentalism. To me the key part is from 8:54:

The respect for the plurality. That's like, we can recognize that there are different Buddhas. So, for us, with our western background in scientific inquiry, the really interesting thing is the historical Buddha, the Buddha as we can reconstruct it, which is much of my work, this early buddhism comparative study, what is the most probable understanding of what the historical Buddha actually taught... But again, in order to avoid this leading into a kind of fundamentalism, we have to understand that other Buddhist traditions operate with different Buddhas... It is totally meaningless to go to one of these venerable sayadows and say "the Buddha didn't teach Abhidharma"... their Buddha--and after all, all Buddhas are mental constructs--their Buddha is the Buddha who taught Abhidharma. He went to the heaven of the 33 to visit his mother, and that is when he taught Abhidharma... I am perfectly entitled to have my historical Buddha, but I can hold that in such a way that I don't create a conflict with these other Buddhas.

Basically he sees the historical reconstruction of early Buddhism as a modern, mostly western venture, one which he is devoting considerable effort to, and which can bring up new/forgotten ways of practicing (his take on the Metta practice for example, his book on it has been very helpful to me practically). But only to add more options, not to replace any of the existing traditions. For a practitioner, he is very much of the view that whatever works for you, do it. Even when he is looking at early texts, he likes to point out where this view is suggested, where they give multiple possibilities. For example, in the second lecture of this series http://agamaresearch.ddbc.edu.tw/wp-con ... es2013.htm he talks about AN 4.170, where Ananda describes four different paths to attain Arahantship, not one, and speculates about what they look like in practice, which teachers seem to be following which one. This is my understanding anyway.

Metta

[Javi]

Thank you for your input Alex. That was quite helpful for me.