Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by binocular »

Greetings.


This has come up in another thread:

Dhammanando wrote:Stentorian claims to the effect: “The true path was long lost, but thankfully through my personal reading of the Suttas I have rediscovered it. Re-opened are the gates to the Deathless!” are made by many Buddhist teachers. Yet it’s hard to find any two of them whose conception of the “true path” tallies.
So how do we make sense of this, without becoming discouraged?
That being so, what would be extremely foolish would be to embrace this or that that teacher’s approach merely on the strength of his making such claims; and especially if one’s embracing of it is in the spirit of Idam’eva saccaṃ mogham’aññan ti, “This alone is truth, all else is vanity!”
But what is an actual viable alternative to this?

I find that the idea to come and see for oneself, however nice it may sound, doesn't really solve or help anything; and it's also not clear whether it really means a kind of free invitation as the phrase is sometimes used by Westerners.
Ehipassiko means 'calling one to come and see' the genuine Dhamma. This though does not mean that we should go out calling other people to come and see it. 'Ehi' refers to teaching the one listening to Dhamma and practicing it, so turn your heart to look inwards to where the truth is found.

Using more worldly terms, we can say that the truth is constantly proclaiming itself, constantly inviting and challenging — because of its candour and honesty it challenges us to, "look here!". This 'ehi!' invites you to look, rather than getting other people to come and see. How can others see, when they neither know the truth nor where to look for it. The truth is in themselves but if they don't search for it there then they are certainly not going to find the truth inside us.

Ehipassiko — the Lord taught us to look at the truth, the truth about ourselves that is right here.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... astbr.html
People (and doctrines) of other religions, too, invites us to "come and see", but they, too, teach that their doctrine is self-evident, and it's we who "just need to look."
Well, the fact is that all kinds of people teach this, so it's not helpful, unless we are to take the absurd trivial position that all religions are true.


How can we move past this?



Thank you for the discussion.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:Stentorian claims to the effect: “The true path was long lost, but thankfully through my personal reading of the Suttas I have rediscovered it. Re-opened are the gates to the Deathless!” are made by many Buddhist teachers. Yet it’s hard to find any two of them whose conception of the “true path” tallies.
So how do we make sense of this, without becoming discouraged?
That being so, what would be extremely foolish would be to embrace this or that that teacher’s approach merely on the strength of his making such claims; and especially if one’s embracing of it is in the spirit of Idam’eva saccaṃ mogham’aññan ti, “This alone is truth, all else is vanity!”
But what is an actual viable alternative to this?
Thanks for an interesting question. I think the solution lies in accepting that the gates to the Deathless have not been closed since the Buddha's time; they remain open for anyone who sincerely takes up his teaching. Later teachers who wish to present a different interpretation have a vested interest in suggesting that the teachings have been lost, because otherwise why would we bother with their interpretation, if the original were still available?

Interestingly, in the two Saropama Suttas, the person seeking heartwood - the true valuable essential teaching - always has the heartwood ready to hand, if only they were to recognise it. When they take away twigs, or some other lesser part, it is because they have "passed over" the heartwood. It is not because the heartwood has become unavailable.

The viable solution consists of recognising that there is an essential truth which is necessarily mediated by a culturally-conditioned set of instructions or practices; and then choosing such a set of instructions and practices that resonate, and following them to the best of one's ability, bearing in mind the wisdom of Idam’eva saccaṃ mogham’aññan ti.
I find that the idea to come and see for oneself, however nice it may sound, doesn't really solve or help anything; and it's also not clear whether it really means a kind of free invitation as the phrase is sometimes used by Westerners
But one won't really "come and see for oneself" until one has contact with a form of teaching that resonates. If it looks like a "free invitation" in the sense of making an unconstrained choice, then it probably isn't worth bothering with.
People (and doctrines) of other religions, too, invites us to "come and see", but they, too, teach that their doctrine is self-evident, and it's we who "just need to look."
Maybe so, but here we are not looking to prove a doctrine, but in order to see the truth about our lives, about how things are. As Ajahn Jayasaro puts it, a
growth in Dhamma in order to really know what life is
all about - not as a philosophy, not as a complex intellectual structure, but as
direct experience. What is body? What are feelings? What are perceptions?
What are thoughts? What is sense-consciousness? Not as some elaborate
abhidhamma exercise, but as a direct experience.
User156079
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by User156079 »

One could practise only what is clearly understood by one exclusively from Sutta instruction.
Ie contemplations:
Its clear and evident that certain contemplations provide a pleasant abiding in those thoughts, some lead to jhanas and counter greed anger and delusion.
Mindfulness:
Taking just the most obvious instruction from Suttas
Maha Satipatthana and satipatthana sutta, mindfulness immersed in the body 1&2
paul
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by paul »

There is a theme among letters here where the writer, often a beginner is beset by doubt and at the first stage (study, practise, penetration) of practice and like salmon at the bottom of a waterfall, are going round and round in constant speculation. They often want the path to nibbana laid out in detail for them in advance. For one thing it’s not possible to do that just as it’s not possible to predict the path of an individual salmon once it reaches the top of the fall, temperament and weather conditions etc. make their path unpredictable, that’s why the Buddha in MN 12 said that all the questions from disciples about mindfulness can never be answered.
The questions can only be answered through the experience of the individual themselves once they make the move from study to practise and to subsequent penetration where they begin to put dhamma principles into practice in their own lives and see what the outcome is. Yes it takes courage. The dhamma is a radical statement about overcoming the world and the motivation to implement it only comes when suffering and the monotony of circling in the lower pool become strong enough so the individual sees the dhamma as the only escape.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by Dhammanando »

binocular wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:Stentorian claims to the effect: “The true path was long lost, but thankfully through my personal reading of the Suttas I have rediscovered it. Re-opened are the gates to the Deathless!” are made by many Buddhist teachers. Yet it’s hard to find any two of them whose conception of the “true path” tallies.
So how do we make sense of this, without becoming discouraged?
An assertion by a Buddhist teacher that he, and he alone, has rediscovered some long-lost key to understanding the Dhamma is for me a red flag. Unless one subscribes to the Protestant Buddhist myth of the Theravada going through a 1500-year Dark Age one must regard such a claim as so improbable that anyone making it is almost certainly either lying or deluded. That being so, my own policy is to give a wide berth to teachers who say these sort of things. Giving them a wide berth frees one of any imperative to try and decide between their competing claims.

As for becoming discouraged, there’s really no need for this. Although I did speak in my earlier post of there being “many” teachers making claims like this, I didn’t mean to suggest that they are typical or the majority. In fact, though they make a lot of noise and attract a lot of attention, they are still only a minority of Theravada meditation teachers as whole. Most teachers just quietly go about their business without needing to puff themselves up with messianic pretensions.
binocular wrote:
That being so, what would be extremely foolish would be to embrace this or that that teacher’s approach merely on the strength of his making such claims; and especially if one’s embracing of it is in the spirit of Idam’eva saccaṃ mogham’aññan ti, “This alone is truth, all else is vanity!”
But what is an actual viable alternative to this?
Just follow the psalmist’s advice: “Put not thy trust in princes nor in any child of man.”

Or as the Buddhist version goes...
  • Dwell with yourself as your own island, with yourself as your own refuge, with no other refuge; dwell with the Dhamma as your island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge. And how does a bhikkhu dwell with himself as his own island, with himself as his own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, with the Dhamma as his refuge, with no other refuge? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world.

    “Those bhikkhus either now or after I am gone, who dwell with themselves as their own island, with themselves as their own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as their island, with the Dhamma as their refuge, with no other refuge—it is these bhikkhus who will be for me topmost of those keen on the training.”
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by binocular »

Dhammanando wrote:An assertion by a Buddhist teacher that he, and he alone, has rediscovered some long-lost key to understanding the Dhamma is for me a red flag.
There is also a milder form of this assertion; like when people say, "The Buddha said ..." It's very common. How does someone know what the Buddha said? It's not like there exists a consensus as to what exactly are the Buddha's words (just consider the dichotomy Mahayana vs. Theravada); although some people very firmly believe that such a consensus exists.
Unless one subscribes to the Protestant Buddhist myth of the Theravada going through a 1500-year Dark Age one must regard such a claim as so improbable that anyone making it is almost certainly either lying or deluded. That being so, my own policy is to give a wide berth to teachers who say these sort of things. Giving them a wide berth frees one of any imperative to try and decide between their competing claims.
On the grounds of what do you give them such a wide berth? What reasoning goes into that?
I can't imagine what internal resources a person must have in order to write off certain other people as lying or deluded. (I don't assume that someone is lying or deluded. I default to thinking that whatever they say or do is their strategy.)
As for becoming discouraged, there’s really no need for this. Although I did speak in my earlier post of there being “many” teachers making claims like this, I didn’t mean to suggest that they are typical or the majority. In fact, though they make a lot of noise and attract a lot of attention, they are still only a minority of Theravada meditation teachers as whole. Most teachers just quietly go about their business without needing to puff themselves up with messianic pretensions.
Like I said, many people use milder forms of bold declarations, so the problem remains.
To me, it makes little difference whether someone says, "This is what the Buddha taught, I know for sure, this is how it is and no other way," or whether they say, "The Buddha taught that ..."
  • Dwell with yourself as your own island, with yourself as your own refuge, with no other refuge; dwell with the Dhamma as your island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge. And how does a bhikkhu dwell with himself as his own island, with himself as his own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, with the Dhamma as his refuge, with no other refuge? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world.

    “Those bhikkhus either now or after I am gone, who dwell with themselves as their own island, with themselves as their own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as their island, with the Dhamma as their refuge, with no other refuge—it is these bhikkhus who will be for me topmost of those keen on the training.”
The Dhamma -- according to whom? The Dalai Lama? Thanissaro Bhikkhu? Pema Chodron? Jack Kornfield? Jon Kabat-Zinn? Glenn Wallis? Walpola Rahula? ?? The ideas that occur in my mind based on my reading of the suttas?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
santa100
Posts: 6811
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by santa100 »

binocular wrote:The Dhamma -- according to whom? The Dalai Lama? Thanissaro Bhikkhu? Pema Chodron? Jack Kornfield? Jon Kabat-Zinn? Glenn Wallis? Walpola Rahula? ?? The ideas that occur in my mind based on my reading of the suttas?
As already mentioned in many other threads, don't go by the teacher. Go by the teaching. The Dhamma according to whom? According to the Pali Nikayas and its Mahayana Agamas and Tibetan equivalents. Example: https://suttacentral.net/dn1. They share a lot more things in common than you think. If a common idea is stated from the different texts from completely separate remote regions in Sri Lanka, China, Tibet, etc. then it should be a pretty reliable indicator that that idea came from the original Buddha. And if this is not even enough for you to start practicingthe Dhamma, then hate to break it to you, but you'll be stuck here in Samsara for a very very very long time.
Dogmatic
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by Dogmatic »

I agree. Read the nikayas by yourself and do not put trust in any teachers. Just like the teacher has a brain, you too have a brain. Ancient peasants were able to understand the teachings by using their brain. In case you do not suffer from some mental illness or have a very low IQ, then you should be able to understand them too. Why have others as your teacher ? Why not have the Buddha as your teacher ?
rajitha7
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:14 am

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by rajitha7 »

Bhante Dhammanando,
Dhammanando wrote:An assertion by a Buddhist teacher that he, and he alone, has rediscovered some long-lost key to understanding the Dhamma is for me a red flag. Unless one subscribes to the Protestant Buddhist myth of the Theravada going through a 1500-year Dark Age one must regard such a claim as so improbable that anyone making it is almost certainly either lying or deluded.

.. Just follow the psalmist’s advice: “Put not thy trust in princes nor in any child of man.”
Well, we live in a deeply cynical, untrusting world. The situation has arisen due to the first noble truth. i.e. one hardly gets what one wants. After decades of unsatisfactoriness due to being let down, lost dreams and heartache one no longer trust there is good news any longer.

The noble truth does not say things are permanently unsatisfactory. There are peaks and troffs along the Samsaric journey. The fact the blessed Gutama Buddha made his presence alone suggests things are not that gloomy. One should use these temporary respites to take a breather, learn new things - even find salvation.

So I said the following in the other thread.
rajitha7 wrote:The path has been re-exposed after been hidden for many centuries. You will be extremely foolish not to take notice.
I must admit the observation I made here is not a well-researched one. Therefore it should only be taken in a figurative sense. The path may have certainly exposed in certain pockets around the world along the way. However, for me, this is the first time I have experienced it first hand.

How do I know the path is open for me? I know thanks to late Venerable Waharaka Thero.

Image

There are thousands of monks in Sri Lanka. Millions of people follow the dhamma there every day. When a special monk arrives people know. This monk is one of them.

Read more here. He has nothing to gain by misleading people nor do I.
It's all -> here
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by justindesilva »

Long ago I read some where that the path of realisation has to be from within . I from then took this in to my head. Meditation, reading of damma and listening to damma for myself is based on this principle. I believe that this is the same meant by yoniso manasikara.
I would say that it is very effective.
With mettha.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by Dhammanando »

binocular wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:An assertion by a Buddhist teacher that he, and he alone, has rediscovered some long-lost key to understanding the Dhamma is for me a red flag.
There is also a milder form of this assertion; like when people say, "The Buddha said ..." It's very common. How does someone know what the Buddha said? It's not like there exists a consensus as to what exactly are the Buddha's words (just consider the dichotomy Mahayana vs. Theravada); although some people very firmly believe that such a consensus exists.
Yes, if one is doubt-prone there are certainly lots of things one can have doubts about, lots of ways of doubting those things, and lots of reasons for continuing to doubt. Doubt's inventiveness seems practically unlimited.
binocular wrote:
Unless one subscribes to the Protestant Buddhist myth of the Theravada going through a 1500-year Dark Age one must regard such a claim as so improbable that anyone making it is almost certainly either lying or deluded. That being so, my own policy is to give a wide berth to teachers who say these sort of things. Giving them a wide berth frees one of any imperative to try and decide between their competing claims.
On the grounds of what do you give them such a wide berth? What reasoning goes into that?
I disbelieve in the foundational myth of modern messianic Theravadism. That is, I don’t believe that there was a multi-century or multi-millenia Dark Age during which key points of the Buddha’s teaching were either lost or so grossly misunderstood that the teaching ceased to be an effective vehicle for liberation. If one rejects this myth, then naturally one will reject 20th or 21st century claims to the effect that so and so has rediscovered what was lost, or that so and so has now correctly understood what everybody in the Theravada had previously misunderstood. If one rejects these kind of claims, then naturally one will wish to steer a wide berth of the claimants.

binocular wrote:
  • Dwell with yourself as your own island, with yourself as your own refuge, with no other refuge; dwell with the Dhamma as your island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge. And how does a bhikkhu dwell with himself as his own island, with himself as his own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, with the Dhamma as his refuge, with no other refuge? Here, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world.

    “Those bhikkhus either now or after I am gone, who dwell with themselves as their own island, with themselves as their own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as their island, with the Dhamma as their refuge, with no other refuge—it is these bhikkhus who will be for me topmost of those keen on the training.”
The Dhamma -- according to whom? The Dalai Lama? Thanissaro Bhikkhu? Pema Chodron? Jack Kornfield? Jon Kabat-Zinn? Glenn Wallis? Walpola Rahula? ?? The ideas that occur in my mind based on my reading of the suttas?
You seem to be overlooking the final part of the Buddha’s pre-parinibbāna exhortation. You will be dwelling with the Dhamma as your island and refuge by the practice of the four satipaṭṭhānas, not by putting your trust in this or that person. Time spent wondering whether 'tis nobler to trust the Dalai Lama or Glenn Wallis is time spent seeking another refuge; it is not time spent developing the satipaṭṭhānas. If you’ve reason to trust them, then do so. If you’ve reason not to, then don’t. If you’re uncertain whether to trust them or not, then ask yourself whether this uncertainty bugs you. If it doesn’t, then your non-knowledge of these teachers’ trustworthiness doesn’t signify. If it does bug you, then it’s an opportunity to practise contemplation of dhammas with vicikicchā, the fifth of the five hindrances as your object. By so doing you will be dwelling with yourself as your own island, with yourself as your own refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, with the Dhamma as your refuge, with no other refuge.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by Dhammanando »

rajitha7 wrote:Read more here.
Sorry, but I have looked at a few pages of the Pure Dhamma website and find the Pali scholarship there just a congeries of philological and grammatical absurdities, and the Sutta interpretations based upon it entirely without merit. Specifically:

* The uncritical assumption that two Pali words that begin with the same letters, or that just happen to look a little alike, must be related.
* The unevidenced assumption that any two Pali or Sinhala words that look a little similar must be cognates.
* The assumption that what a Pali loanword now means in Sinhala is the same as what it originally meant in Pali, and that what it is now understood to mean in Pali is a corrupted understanding.
* The taking of the inflectional endings of nouns as being separate words.
Etc. Etc.

Ven. Pesala the other day described the site-owner as making "a schoolboy's mistake". I would say that's being a little unkind to schoolboys. A schoolboy monk with with just two or three months Pali study under his belt just couldn't make the kind of ridiculous errors that I observed on every page that I looked at.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by binocular »

Thank you for your reply.
Dhammanando wrote:Yes, if one is doubt-prone there are certainly lots of things one can have doubts about, lots of ways of doubting those things, and lots of reasons for continuing to doubt. Doubt's inventiveness seems practically unlimited.
I wouldn't say that I am prone to doubt (although I have been accused of such several times). To me, it's natural to see two (or more) sides of something. Also, to me, many things just seem tentative. I don't see myself as doubting; I see myself as lacking a firm foundation or a firm hold.

(My username is making a statement in itself -- from Ajahn Lee:
Be a person with two eyes. Sometimes an object looks good, but we don't look for its bad side. Sometimes it looks bad, but we don't look for its good side. If something looks beautiful, you have to focus on its bad side as well. If it looks bad, you have to focus on its good side, too.
Food for the mind)
I disbelieve in the foundational myth of modern messianic Theravadism. That is, I don’t believe that there was a multi-century or multi-millenia Dark Age during which key points of the Buddha’s teaching were either lost or so grossly misunderstood that the teaching ceased to be an effective vehicle for liberation. If one rejects this myth, then naturally one will reject 20th or 21st century claims to the effect that so and so has rediscovered what was lost, or that so and so has now correctly understood what everybody in the Theravada had previously misunderstood. If one rejects these kind of claims, then naturally one will wish to steer a wide berth of the claimants.
To be sure, some of the modern Theravadin messianism seems to be a response to some specific situations. Such as in Thailand where until around the turn of the 20th century, the official party line was that Nirvana had become unattainable. The Forest Tradition then developed as an opposition to that, and in effect claim that they have rediscovered the path to liberation.
Do you think the Forest Tradition is an example of modern messianic Theravadism?
You seem to be overlooking the final part of the Buddha’s pre-parinibbāna exhortation. You will be dwelling with the Dhamma as your island and refuge by the practice of the four satipaṭṭhānas, not by putting your trust in this or that person.
I don't see it that way. I see it as "I will be dwelling with the Dhamma as my island and refuge by the practice of the four satipaṭṭhānas, as taught to me by this or that person."

I seem to be unable to dissociate the Dhamma from the people who talk about it. I am sure of this much.

Perhaps the Dhamma should be considered as similar to mathematics -- something that objectively exists, can be put into practice and tested and applied in many ways, and is ultimately independent of people or how people teach it.


(I apologize if I am tedious. I just can't think far when on my own/by myself. I'm more the Holmesian type who needs to discuss things with other people, it's only then that my powers of deduction really set in.)
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
rajitha7
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:14 am

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by rajitha7 »

Bhante Dhammanando,
Dhammanando wrote:
rajitha7 wrote:Read more here.
* The uncritical assumption that two Pali words that begin with the same letters, or that just happen to look a little alike, must be related.
* The unevidenced assumption that any two Pali or Sinhala words that look a little similar must be cognates.
* The assumption that what a Pali loanword now means in Sinhala is the same as what it originally meant in Pali, and that what it is now understood to mean in Pali is a corrupted understanding.
* The taking of the inflectional endings of nouns as being separate words.
Would you be able to show the 3 the most significant errors you find there, please?

So try to point out semantic errors first i.e. ones that deeply affect liberation.

For example you earlier said Anapana means "breathing" here. I have made a response to you there.

Can you please close off the discussion there with either a yay or a nay as well?
It's all -> here
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Courage in the face of versatility and supremacism regarding the Dharma?

Post by vinasp »

Hi binocular,

binocular said: - "Perhaps the Dhamma should be considered as similar to mathematics -- something that objectively exists, can be put into practice and tested and applied in many ways, and is ultimately independent of people or how people teach it."

The problem is that the discourses are really two quite separate teachings. The wrong eightfold path is included in the teachings.

Many discourses describe this wrong path in great detail, without making it explicit that this is the wrong path. It is up to each one who hears, or reads, to discern which path is being described in each discourse.

So the discourses are really secret teachings, but if you look closely you can see the secrets.

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply