To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi enkidu,
enkidu wrote: I find it remarkable that any may possess such confidence as to reject the advice of realized masters.
I do too...

I'm all for investigation, but I sometimes get the impression from people that they are saying: "I'm much smarter than those old like Ven Buddhaghosa, and the other people who assembled Tipitika and Commentaries...".
enkidu wrote: My reasoning is as follows: if the Buddha's teachings function as is claimed, then many realized masters have been produced during the time of the Buddha's discourses. These masters taught their students from their experience and so on, preserving the lineages. The lineages have preserved the teachings of the Buddha, along with commentaries for their students, bridging the gaps across generations of cultural changes. The lineages continue to produce masters, who teach and write commentaries, and so on.
Though Theravada doesn't emphasise a single guru sort of relationship, I think that many of us do value strong relationships with live teachers, and take much of their confidence from the lineages that have been preserved, seeing the evidence with their own eyes.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by cooran »

hello enkidu,

When you say "realized masters" .. do you mean contemporary ones? And, if so, how do you truly know they are "realized" and what, exactly do you mean by the term? And how would you differentiate this from a 'fan club' forming around a contemporary teacher?

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by pink_trike »

Sanghamitta wrote:Apologies, I made a complete mess of quoting in my post above.
The point that I was trying ( badly) to make is that insularity can come in many forms. Including an apparent iconoclasm which is in fact a defence against showing a dirth of basic knowledge.
:anjali:
Hi Sanghamitta,

I agree with you. The point of my post was to challenge a particular form of insularity that is widespread among Buddhists - the belief that the suttas are "what the Buddha said" and that they can be taken at face value - which can only be true in a very limited, undefined, inprecise sense. I'm not advocating a rejection of the suttas as a source of information, just that they be seen clearly for what they are - bundles of information that have been at the same effects that cause any information to change over time - cultural views (including our own unconscious cultural views), syncretic influences, religious boundaries, translations, time, etc...especially over vast periods of time. I believe, coming from an academic background, that information must be constantly deconstructed in light of current knowledge about how information was preserved and how it deteriorates. I also believe that if we're interested in a clear view of the The Dharma, then we must constantly scrape away the overgrowth and encrustations that build up on information like plaque and that become institutionalized. Blind faith in "face value" serves to reify our own insular comfortable delusions. This is messy and inconvenient, but there is no solid ground to be found in Buddhism.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
enkidu
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by enkidu »

Chris wrote:hello enkidu,

When you say "realized masters" .. do you mean contemporary ones? And, if so, how do you truly know they are "realized" and what, exactly do you mean by the term? And how would you differentiate this from a 'fan club' forming around a contemporary teacher?

metta
Chris
I was specifically referring to the lineage masters of old in particular, like Mike mentioned, those who had assembled the Tipitaka and its commentaries.

When I say "realized masters" if referring to more contemporary times, what comes to mind is actually Maitreya's 10 Qualities of a Mahayana Guru, but I believe these qualities are expressed by Theravada masters as well--there's nothing strictly Mahayanist about this list of 10 qualities as far as I can tell.

10 Qualities of a Mahayana Guru
Lama Zopa Rinpoche wrote: 1. Discipline as a result of his mastery of the training in the higher discipline of moral self-control;
2. Mental quiescence from his training in higher concentration;
3. Pacification of all delusions and obstacles from his training in higher wisdom;
4. More knowledge than his disciple in the subject to be taught;
5. Enthusiastic perseverance and joy in teaching;
6. A treasury of scriptural knowledge;
7. Insight into and understanding of emptiness;
8. Skill in presenting the teachings;
9. Great compassion; and
10. No reluctance to teach and work for his disciples regardless of their level of intelligence.
Most loosely, "realized" refers to having more realizations than me, which is to say, any. Most strictly, "realized" refers to having attained the ultimate fruit of the Path.

So, can there be contemporary teachers with these qualities? Yes. There must, otherwise, the Buddhadhamma is no longer functioning.

If there can be no contemporary teachers with these qualities, what hope have I of developing such qualities, what hope have I of achieving any progress on the Path? If it is possible for me to make any progress, then it is necessarily so that others have the potential to assist me, having gone before, and are eager to relate their experience.

How do we judge a teacher? Firstly by measuring them against the 10 qualities listed above, and secondly by measuring their teachings against at minimum these reasonable criteria set by Dharmakirti and elaborated by Maitreya:
Alexander Berzin wrote: The Four Sealing Points for Labeling an Outlook as Based on Enlightening Words
1a) All affected (conditioned) phenomena are nonstatic (impermanent).
1b) All phenomena tainted (contaminated) by confusion entail problems (suffering).
1c) All phenomena lack nonimputed identities.
1d) A total release from all troubles (Skt. nirvana) is a total pacification.

2) Correct implementation of its instructions by qualified practitioners must bring about the same results as Buddha repeatedly indicated elsewhere.
I'm not sure if fan clubs are problems in and of themselves. But you should be able to observe the fruits of the Path in the students of a qualified teacher.

Again, please pardon my Gelug perspective, but I am not so sure these assumptions are unique to the Mahayana lineages, and assume these qualities and criteria may be equally applied to the Theravada lineage masters and their commentaries.
enkidu
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by enkidu »

mikenz66 wrote: Though Theravada doesn't emphasise a single guru sort of relationship, I think that many of us do value strong relationships with live teachers, and take much of their confidence from the lineages that have been preserved, seeing the evidence with their own eyes.
Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure why, but I felt an odd kind of anxiety over the possibility that lineage weren't important in the Theravada. But I should have known intuitively that this would be nonsense, for such a thing would mean that the Theravada hold no Sangha jewel in which to take refuge, which would be absurd.

Thanks again,
-eric
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by mikenz66 »

Greetings edkidu,
enkidu wrote: Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure why, but I felt an odd kind of anxiety over the possibility that lineage weren't important in the Theravada. ...
Of course, it would depend on who you talked to. For me, visiting a Monastery and talking to the monks and lay people was how I was introduced to Buddhism. I didn't get started by reading - that came much later. Having started that way, I obviously see interaction with my monastic teachers as extremely important, and this definitely affects the way I approach reading Suttas, and how I view this whole question of "questioning". In fact, I think that my underlying motivation is more to "figure it out" than to "question". If something seems confusing I generally assume that I don't understand it yet. And that seems to have been a useful assumption so far.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by BlackBird »

Could someone please explain reductionism in a Buddhist context to me? I read parts of the wikipedia article but it didn't offer much of an insight to me.

sorry for o.t. but it would help me understand Sanghamitta's post made in the 1st page.
enkidu wrote: So, to reject the collected commentaries of the lineages is to deny that the authors are realized masters, which is to deny that the Buddha's teachings produce realized masters, which is to reject the Buddhadhamma as a true path of realization, which is to make one's own practice meaningless.
Well, there might be a distinction between rejecting the commentaries and rejecting the 'official view.' It's well known that the comy doesn't get it right 100% of the time, but it does pretty good job (imo).

Often as not, you find a lot of people who propose these funny ideas haven't had much contact with other Buddhist outside of the internet. I think noble friendship (or lack thereof) is also a factor at work. To me, there's a pretty good reason most of the widely respected teachers in the world teach the 'classical' approach.

But you can hardly expect someone who's never met a real teacher of the Dhamma before, to have reasoned faith in them. One would need to spend quite some time observing their conduct to really get a footing in that I guess. The problem perhaps is a degree of conceit, an underlying inference that the vast majority of monastic and lay practitioners over the past 2000 odd years must somehow have gotten the whole thing wrong.

Maybe those who express these idiosyncratic (new word for me) ideas, do not make the inference drawn above, in which case there's a logical fallacy. Either way, I think these funny views get blown far out of proportion. They're not very common, certainly not amongst the more dedicated monastic and lay practitioners.

metta
Jack
Last edited by BlackBird on Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:37 am, edited 7 times in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
catmoon
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:59 am

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by catmoon »

Ben wrote:Dear Mr Pink,
pink_trike wrote: Any body of information that extends back 2,500 - 3,500 years or more has to be deconstructed to some extent or it becomes simply fairy tales.
I think we need to approach the Tipitaka (and I guess this what we're all talking about here) void of any view. And in my experience this seems to be only possible through the prism of practice.
Mr Pink wrote:"The Buddha said it, I believe it"...
My observation is that this seems to be an artefact of immature practitioners. When one begins to practice seriously, that coalescence of dhammas known as 'belief' is replaced by something quite different: bhavana-maya-panna:(wisdom derived from direct penetration of the nature of mind and matter). And as a result of developing wisdom, sadha: (confidence) in the Dhamma. To the degree of Dhamma witnessed from practice, that much of the teachings is confirmed. And as the teachings are confirmed by direct experiential wisdom, one's confidence in the Buddha and the Dhamma grows. So from the viewpoint of another, an experienced practitioner can certainly appear caught in the net of blind belief.
metta

Ben
I bounced this argument off a friend of mine the other day, whose holds to no religion but has a pretty good mind. He response, paraphrased, was:

Supposed I bought a car from the Ford motor company. As I read the instruction manual, I see that there is a way to start the car. I try that and it works. I see there is a way to make the car warm inside. I try that and it works. Then I read in the manual an assertion that if I drive the car to Houston I will live forever. It does not logically follow that I should believe that assertion, although I might be inclined to, because previous information has been reliable.

I'm still working the application of this thought. The implication seems to be that the phenomenon of trust is illogical.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Catmoon,

I think the difference between what Ben wrote and your friend's thought experiment, is that in Ben's example there is a conceptual link between the two (i.e. I have experienced this, and can therefore conceptually see how its application could be extended all the way to arahantship), whereas your friend's thought experiment has no conceptual link between the known and the possible, and therefore relies solely on trust.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
catmoon
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:59 am

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by catmoon »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Catmoon,

I think the difference between what Ben wrote and your friend's thought experiment, is that in Ben's example there is a conceptual link between the two (i.e. I have experienced this, and can therefore conceptually see how its application could be extended all the way to arahantship), whereas your friend's thought experiment has no conceptual link between the known and the possible, and therefore relies solely on trust.

Metta,
Retro. :)
So you are saying that if the analogy was more accurate, we would be faced by an untested assertion in the manual that if the accelerator is depressed to the floor and held there, speeds in excess of 100 mph may be expected? Something like that?
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by Paññāsikhara »

nowheat wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:...we can compare these various traditions. On comparison, we can often identify errors in one or other tradition, and thus identify something which is probably what was being transmitted at the point of the split. Moreover, there are still some cultures which largely follow these traditions, and have not really been influenced by various western religions or scientific ideas to the degree that those of us sitting here typing on PCs have most likely been.

So, with the willingness to investigate these various traditions, I don't think that it is quite as obscure or "corrupted" as you seem to imply.
You can check one written tradition against another, but the texts you're comparing are from (if I recall) about 400 A.D., most of a millennium after the Buddha lived.
But the split from which these traditions come is much earlier, around Asoka or so, only 100-200 yrs after the Parinibbana. They were at the opposite ends of the continent.
Even if there were no disagreements between all extant versions, that doesn't mean that there were no errors introduced before they were written down.
Both were oral traditions when they split, not written.
I agree with the scholars accustomed to studing transmitted written texts, that the process of writing it down reduces the number of errors. My understanding is that the first writing-down occurred about 100 A.D. (on fragile palm leaves) which gives about half a millennium for verbal transmission to have been corrupted before the teachings and rules were codified. That's a long time for misunderstanding to creep in.
As above. That's the wrong date to look at it from. I am not just talking about written texts.
And we have evidence that the Buddha's teaching was misunderstood in his own lifetime: there are frequent stories in the suttas about him correcting such misconceptions among his own monks and others. His closest personal assistant, his cousin Ananda, wasn't even able to understand what was being said well enough to become an arahant himself during the Buddha's lifetime
I don't think that was the reason - ie. that he couldn't understand. Remember, many would ask Ananda what the Buddha meant after a teaching. His main reason was that he was busy as attendant, so didn't have time for much jhana. Also, it was not considered proper for an arhat to be an attendant, so he deliberately stayed as a sotapanna.
-- and this is the man whose prodigious memory brings us the suttas. Even keeping the same exact words is no guarantee that the underlying meaning will be preserved, since words are the shiftiest of impermanent things out there.
But, from the comparisons I am talking about, one can see not just word, but also meaning. It can become clear when they have the same word, but translate it differently, or gloss it differently.
If misunderstanding was introduced early -- which I would guess it was -- no matter how good written transmission was afterwards, no matter how faithful the Traditions' handing it on, the corruption of meaning would also be faithfully handed on, even with the best of intentions by every hand applied to the canon.

:namaste:
Have you ever compared, say, the Dhammapada, in Pali, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Kharosthi and Chinese, to actually find out to what extent the differences are?
You may be surprised.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by nowheat »

Paññāsikhara wrote: But the split from which these traditions come is much earlier, around Asoka or so, only 100-200 yrs after the Parinibbana. They were at the opposite ends of the continent.
I am not talking about changes in understanding that come from "a split".
Both were oral traditions when they split, not written.
But maybe we are in some sort of agreement here, that we are talking about things that happened before the texts got written down?
As above. That's the wrong date to look at it from. I am not just talking about written texts.
Nor am I, but I'm not sure what it is you *are* talking about.
Paññāsikhara wrote:
nowheat wrote: And we have evidence that the Buddha's teaching was misunderstood in his own lifetime: there are frequent stories in the suttas about him correcting such misconceptions among his own monks and others. His closest personal assistant, his cousin Ananda, wasn't even able to understand what was being said well enough to become an arahant himself during the Buddha's lifetime
I don't think that was the reason - ie. that he couldn't understand. Remember, many would ask Ananda what the Buddha meant after a teaching. His main reason was that he was busy as attendant, so didn't have time for much jhana. Also, it was not considered proper for an arhat to be an attendant, so he deliberately stayed as a sotapanna.
And I don't think that was the reason for the corruptions; it is not my main theory. I am simply pointing out that errors can creep in from many directions. And that in his time, there were those who didn't quite get it. Ananda would be the least of these; most others seriously misunderstood.
But, from the comparisons I am talking about, one can see not just word, but also meaning. It can become clear when they have the same word, but translate it differently, or gloss it differently.
It can, but is not always so clear. Half of my argument on MN 117 rests on "sacrifice" being glossed to mean something other than what "sacrifice" primarily referred to in the Buddha's day. I maintain that when the Buddha said, "What is offered, given, sacrificed" he meant what most people in his day meant by those words: Brahminical practices. But that those who couldn't make what he was saying there fit with their understanding of the teachings twist "sacrifice" around to mean "giving up stuff to monks". Meaning shifts with interpretation of the words; interpretation of the words shift with one's understanding of the meaning. I think this happened very early, and not under the forces of any "split" visible through the texts; perhaps it wasn't even all that visible to the members of the sangha. I am talking about the evolution of ideas and understanding that happens organically, from the inside, without intention, or clarity about it happening, as pink_trike was describing in the studies of the Fortune 100 companies -- with all the will and skill and focus in the world to apply to passing on ideas in ways that prevent meaning from changing, it happens anyway, because that is the impermanent nature of ideas. They will shift and adapt in order to survive, without conscious intervention from their human servants.
Have you ever compared, say, the Dhammapada, in Pali, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Kharosthi and Chinese, to actually find out to what extent the differences are?
You may be surprised.
I have not; I have far too many suttas left to read. I have worked through the Dhammapada but found the pieces to be too short to give enough context for me to trust them much -- for me it would take far too much research time to consider the Dhammapada well when I still have so many suttas to work on. Also, I feel getting a grip on the suttas first may give me the context I need for the Dhammapada in a way that takes care of more than one work at a time.

I would be interested in what you see in those comparisons, though.

:namaste:
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by nowheat »

BlackBird wrote:Often as not, you find a lot of people who propose these funny ideas haven't had much contact with other Buddhist outside of the internet. I think noble friendship (or lack thereof) is also a factor at work. To me, there's a pretty good reason most of the widely respected teachers in the world teach the 'classical' approach.
A reason aside from this being a new and developing school of thought, you mean? A reason other than the fact that the old way of looking at the Buddha's teaching has had two millennia to spread, in insular pockets, each school taking as a premise that its understanding was correct, not to be challenged, not to be changed? Of course there are many widely respected teachers in the old schools, and few in the new schools who are widely respected by the adherents of the old schools. You don't need any other reason than time, history, and the nature of ideas to see why "most of the widely respected teachers... teach the 'classical' approach."

Have you read any meme theory, BlackBird?

What we have here is the effect of new technology clashing with old ways. The old ways were insular and able to maintain their insularity because information could be kept in a closed system. The old system defends itself in several 'classical' ways -- the primary one being tenets that can't be logically argued against: "It's a matter of faith (in the teachings, in your guru, in the sangha)" -- faith cannot be argued against. "These are very obscure teachings; you have to be much farther along the path to truly understand them" -- these cannot be argued against by any outsider or newcomer, only those who have been thoroughly indoctrinated and already agree with the orientation are given the authority to comment upon them -- and of course they will all agree with the doctrine, by default. "The evidence for this is something one has to experience for oneself, and it is so deep and beyond words that it cannot be adequately explained to someone who has not experienced it themselves" -- also something that cannot be argued against and usually on this one the descriptions are only offered to someone who has already shown a willingness to believe.

Mind you, I am not saying there is a conscious conspiracy to defraud. I am saying that these are survival strategies ideas employ to protect themselves and if that sounds like nonsense to you -- that empty ideas have survival strategies -- look again at your empty self. These systems -- ideas, humans, genes, technology -- all are empty processes with a drive to survive. It takes no conspiracy, no design by humans, to bring these systems into existence. But when you start hearing statements like those above -- statements that cannot be logically defended against -- alarm bells should go off in your mind.

(Sorry, strayed from my point.)

What we have then is old, insular schools of thought which were able to stay insular for thousands of years, get strong, get entrenched, build up impressive defenses in the environment of the past which was suited well to the closed structure of information, and those old schools are now meeting the modern model of open information architecture. In which other disciplines come in (studies of history, archeology, philology, philosophy, logic, even meme theory) and take a fresh look at what the old schools are saying. Change from this is inevitable. You are standing in the crest of a new wave of understanding, and you can let the big wave crash over you and pass you by, or you can get up on the top and body surf along, or you can build yourself a platform to stand on (aka a surfboard) and stand tall and look at the larger view.

:namaste:
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by nowheat »

Sanghamitta wrote: We must also consider the possibility that reductionist rationalism can also be projected onto the Canon or on to the process of its transmission. It is just possible that many people have contemplated the whole issue in depth and reached several different conclusions. They would include a proportion of sane people , adequate people, honest and well motivated people who were not driven by fear or the need for empty certainty, people who in fact do not feel the need to have their religion explained to them by those with a different set of beliefs..
My understanding of what you're saying here is that masters in the tradition don't need outsiders to explain the dhamma to them. The interesting thing is that when I read the quoted text the first time, I though you were describing my position: that I am sane, adequate, honest and well-motivated, not driven by fear or need for empty certainty. However I do enjoy (not "need") having others explain their view of my religion even if we have different beliefs, because I find wisdom even in beliefs that do not precisely align to mine.

:namaste:
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: To Question or Not To Question, That is the Question

Post by BlackBird »

nowheat wrote:Stuff
Well, I can only use my own example w/re to Saddha.

I'm looking at the map (Tipitaka) and I see on this great map that stretches many metres, that I have come a few centimetres a long it's path. But when I compare the map to the land I'm walking on, the map has been 100% right, in all it's grand and finer details.

So it's confidence in the Dhamma, that it works, based on your own personal evidence. My argument is that certainly, there are those in the past, and also the present day who have advanced much further than myself, and they are there to verify, that over the Mountain range ahead, which I cannot see beyond, lie the fruitful plains, that the map describes in detail.

I guess the implication I read in your post is that because of meme theory, elements of the Dhamma are not quite as they seem. My response is that we just don't know for sure, and the only way to find out is to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Post Reply