Why do teachers sometimes conflict one another

[Lombardi4]

Why is it that teachers -- all of them credible -- sometimes disagree with each other on certain doctrinal or practical issues, and more importantly, how do we judge which teacher is right?

For example, some say that you need jhāna to get enlightened, or even to practice vipassanā, others say you don't need jhāna for either. Some strongly advise against meditating for 3 hours, others say it's up to you. Some say right view is an advanced stage of practice, others say there is also a preliminary type of right view.

I could give other examples, but it seems that many teachers have different views on a range of different doctrinal and practical points.

And as far as ordinary Buddhists are concerned, there are even more disagreements. So I am sure I will get different responses to my question. But how do I know which one(s) is/are right?

[Crazy cloud]

I've come to that the safest way to get answers or rather; come up with the right questions, is by trusting in my intuitiv awareness and thereby further developing stilness in body and mind. I mostly do this training alone, and thereby its less doubt I guess ..

I listen a lot to Luong Por Sumedho, and find his advise to be down to earth true

Be well and bright dear friend

[SDC]

I moved this topic from DT because answers are going to be mostly opinion, something we do not like to contend with in the beginner's section.

[Zom]

And as far as ordinary Buddhists are concerned, there are even more disagreements. So I am sure I will get different responses to my question. But how do I know which one(s) is/are right?

This is not an easy answer. You need to have your wisdom to differentiate and make conclusions.

However, there is an advice from the Buddha one should follow:

1) "Here, monks, a monk may say thus: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, friend, have I heard, face to face with him have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.'
"Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled. Non-welcoming, non-reviling, every word and syllable should be well studied, placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya. When placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya, should they not fit in with the Sutta, nor accord with the Vinaya, you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is not the word of the Blessed One, and has been wrongly grasped by that monk.' Thus, monks, you should reject it. If they fit in with the Sutta and accord with the Vinaya, then you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is the word of the Blessed One and has been rightly grasped by that monk.' Monks, understand this as the first great standard.

2) "Again, monks, a monk may say: 'In such and such a residence lives a community of monks with an elder, a leader. Face to face with that community of monks have I heard, face to face with it have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.'
"Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled ... Monks, understand this as the second great standard.

3) "Again, monks, a monk may say: 'In such and such a residence live many elder monks, of great knowledge who have mastered the tradition, Dhamma-bearers, Vinaya-bearers, tabulated summary-bearers. Face to face with these elders have I heard, face to face with them have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.'
"Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled ... Monks, understand this as the third great standard.

4) "Again, monks, a monk may say: 'In such and such a residence lives a monk, an elder, of great knowledge, who has mastered the tradition, a Dhamma-bearer, a Vinaya-bearer, a tabulated summary-bearer. Face to face with this elder have I heard, face to face with him have I received this. This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the message of the Teacher.'
"Monks, the speech of that monk should neither be welcomed nor reviled. Non-welcoming, non-reviling, every word and syllable should be well studied, placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya. When placed beside the Sutta and compared with the Vinaya, should they not fit in with the Sutta, nor accord with the Vinaya, you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is not the word of the Blessed One and has been wrongly grasped by that elder.' Thus, monks, you should reject it. If they fit in with the Sutta and accord with the Vinaya, then you should come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is the word of the Blessed One and has been rightly grasped by that elder.' Monks, understand this as the fourth great standard."

others say you don't need jhāna

And then you check MN 64 and "come to the conclusion: 'Truly this is not the word of the Blessed One and has been wrongly grasped by that elder"

[Aloka]

I listen a lot to Luong Por Sumedho, and find his advise to be down to earth true

Me too.

[DC2R]

Suppose there’s an elephant and a bunch of blind people are trying to describe it. One touches the leg and says it’s like a pillar. Another touches the ear and says it’s like a fan. Another touches the tail and says, ‘No, it’s not a fan; it’s like a broom.’ Another touches the shoulder and says it’s something else again from what the others say.

It’s like this. There’s no resolution, no end. Each blind person touches part of the elephant and has a completely different idea of what it is. But it’s the same one elephant. It’s like this in practice. With a little understanding or experience, you get limited ideas. You can go from one teacher to the next seeking explanations and instructions, trying to figure out if they are teaching correctly or incorrectly and how their teachings compare to each other. Some monks are always traveling around with their bowls and umbrellas learning from different teachers. They try to judge and measure, so when they sit down to meditate they are constantly in confusion about what is right and what is wrong. ‘This teacher said this, but that teacher said that. One guy teaches in this way, but the other guy’s methods are different. They don’t seem to agree.’ It can lead to a lot of doubt.

You might hear that certain teachers are really good and so you go to receive teachings from Thai Ajahns, Zen masters and others. It seems to me you’ve probably had enough teaching, but the tendency is to always want to hear more, to compare and to end up in doubt as a result. Then each successive teacher increases your confusion further. There’s a story of a wanderer in the Buddha’s time that was in this kind of situation. He went to one teacher after the next, hearing their different explanations and learning their methods. He was trying to learn meditation but was only increasing his perplexity. His travels finally brought him to the teacher Gotama, and he described his predicament to the Buddha.

...

Understanding this, that wanderer made up his mind to practise as the Buddha advised, putting things down. Seeing ever more clearly, he realized many kinds of knowledge, seeing the natural order of things with his own wisdom. His doubts ended. He put down the past and the future and everything appeared in the present. This was eko dhammo, the one Dhamma. Then it was no longer necessary for him to carry his begging bowl up mountains and into forests in search of understanding. If he did go somewhere, he went in a natural way, not out of desire for something. If he stayed put, he was staying in a natural way, not out of desire.

Practising in that way, he became free of doubt. There was nothing to add to his practice, nothing to remove. He dwelt in peace, without anxiety over past or future. This was the way the Buddha taught.

[Thisperson]

Quote

[JohnK]

Why is it that teachers -- all of them credible -- sometimes disagree with each other on certain doctrinal or practical issues, and more importantly, how do we judge which teacher is right?...

It might be helpful to have a look at One Dharma by Joseph Goldstein where he suggests that different teachings and instructions are "skillful means" that have been developed to aid in progress toward liberation. Liberation is beyond language, so different means (and even different descriptions of realization itself) have evolved over a long time in different traditions. He does however discuss the elements of the "One Dharma" that are common. (Of course these few sentences simplify.)

I seem to recall a story about Ajahn Chah where he describes his teaching as keeping the students (was the metaphor that they were blind?) from falling into the ditches on either side of the road. He might see one heading to the ditch on the left and so he would instruct "move right." At another time he might have to instruct "move left." The instructions are not contradictory. So that may be part of what you are talking about.

[mikenz66]

Hi Upasaka Sumana,

I agree it can be confusing. It's a lot less confusing if you think about why people teach what they teach: because of their personal experience, and the experience of their students, of what was helpful.

Ajahn Brahm had deep meditation experiences while still a student in the UK, and build on that basis. Other students of Ajahn Chah brought backgrounds from other sources. Ajahn Tiradhammo mentioned on one retreat I attended that he found "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation" very helpful. As you might expect with that background he teaches more of a Burmese Vipassana approach, and doesn't emphasise deep concentration.

And that's just two students of one particular teacher...

In the end there is no real contradiction. Full liberation requires the development of (among other things) tranquillity and insight. The order varies in the suttas, so it's not surprising it varies in the teachings of various teachers.

This is, by the way, why it can be really confusing to mix up instructions from different teachers.

See also: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=25479.


Mike

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

From Dhotaka's Questions, Suttanipāta:

"I can see now," said Dhotaka, "that there is, in this world, a man who has nothing, a Brahmin, a wanderer. I bow down and honour you. Sir, the eye that sees everything. Please, Man of Sākya, free me from confusion!"

"It is not in my practice to free anyone from confusion," said the Buddha. "When you have understood the most valuable teachings, then you yourself will cross this ocean."

[Alex123]

Hello Upasaka_Sumana,

Different people can require different specific approach to counter their specific defilements and misunderstandings.
Even though in all cases lobha, dosa, and moha must be let go, the specific instructions how to best arrive there can differ.
In the suttas you will find many different specific teachings about the path. Sometimes Buddha taught metta, sometimes anapanasati, sometimes one of many other meditation subjects. Some people reached this or that stage while hearing a short or long discourse.

Unfortunately there is no "one size fits all". If that was the case, then all suttas would focus on just that one "technique" and we wouldn't have 40+ kammatthana subjects.

[Lombardi4]

Thank you all for your views. Duly noted and much appreciated.

[dhammarelax]

Why is it that teachers -- all of them credible -- sometimes disagree with each other on certain doctrinal or practical issues, and more importantly, how do we judge which teacher is right?

For example, some say that you need jhāna to get enlightened, or even to practice vipassanā, others say you don't need jhāna for either. Some strongly advise against meditating for 3 hours, others say it's up to you. Some say right view is an advanced stage of practice, others say there is also a preliminary type of right view.

I could give other examples, but it seems that many teachers have different views on a range of different doctrinal and practical points.

And as far as ordinary Buddhists are concerned, there are even more disagreements. So I am sure I will get different responses to my question. But how do I know which one(s) is/are right?

You practice what one teacher says and see the results, do they look like final liberation or not, if not practice what other teacher says and compare again, but be smart enough to not just dump all the teaching of a person just because they are not conducive to final liberation, some of it is useful some of it is not. Results are the key factor.

Smile
dhammarelax

[cappuccino]

Read the suttas, until you understand...

[mikenz66]

Oops, 2500 years too late...



For the Aussies:


http://aussiememes.com.au/character/julia-gillard-meme


Mike