Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
So, literal interpretation of the Dharma, or contemporary awareness of it? Where do you stand?
0
Comments
When dealing with religion, the same basic questions must be asked and answered. I have not found my personal opinion yet, but I think I lean towards a radical interpretation - it's simple the most flexible and effective. One can make new laws which govern gay rights, but we can't change the Tipitaka
Similarly, I don't feel a document written 2,500 years ago is totally static. The world has changed, and we should interpret the document as appropriate in today's world. For example, I don't find this passage particularly relevant today...but perhaps we can still find some wisdom in it if we interpret it based on the life of people today:
"Wrong livelihood for contemplatives
... reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; reciting house-protection charms; snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore; fortune-telling based on visions; giving protective charms; interpreting the calls of birds and animals ... [The list goes on and on]
— DN 2"
Apparently in Buddha's time this was a significant issue. Not so much today.
I meant "radical" as in "thinking new". I apologize if the meaning is negative in your language. That there has always been discussions on how to interpret such texts is evident - the interesting part is how we interpret old texts written by people who are now long dead, in relation to issues which are of a modern origin. Do we (as you seem to think best of, and I tend to agree) try to make them fit our world, or do we try to find the original meaning regardless of the way society looks now.
There are benefits and drawbacks of both approaches; a more text loyal and historical interpretation makes sure that what is directly written is also what you can count on - but it tends to be rigid. A "liberal" interpretation makes for flexibility but sacrifices some of the transparency - if we interpret "into our time" we also intellectualize. To understand the text "correctly" you have to be initiated.
In regard to the passage you quote the first approach means, that the text is understood as written. We are to refrain from those exact things - nothing more, nothing less.
With the approach I called "radical" (which may be inappropriate) we can make analogies - if "laying demons in a cemetery" and "reciting house-protection charms" is to be avoided, then it's fair to say that the modern "clairvoyants" and "mediums" who make a living out of exorcism, charming and talking to ghosts are to be avoided.
I know example is weak because those things existed at Buddha's time as well but I hope you follow me
we may "think" we are different from those of the past, but in reality we are quite alike. we suffer from i, my, me mind. we create delusions and chase power. the surface might be a little different, but the essence is the same.
now that being said, we must always understand that the words are pointing to truth and the words themselves are not truth. in zen we assert that once you start talking about the dharma you've already lost the dharma. the dharma of the buddha cannot be spoken of. the best way most teachers approach this problem is by negation. just negate what the dharma is not and possibly you'll be left with what the dharma is.
the mind will interpret and skew what truth there is.
the heart knows what is truth and what isn't.
thus the best way to approach any writing or doctrine is from the heart. is what i am reading correct and useful? the mind will say all sorts of things. well if this say this that implies this and such. you get the idea. test your heart. see what the heart says.
In terms of the US Constitution, two points. First, for most of those who favor a "strict" interpretation, I don't even think they like that because it's the right approach, but rather they like it because they view that it fits the laws they personally favor. I was no fan of Barry Goldwater in terms of his policies, but I remember seeing him interviewed once (it may have been on 60 Minutes) and they asked him about the concept of gay marriage. He said he didn't believe government should be involved in marriage (straight or gay) at all. That it wasn't a government function based on the Constitution. My other point about those who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution based on the founding father...which founding fathers? They didn't all agree on the philosophy of the Constitution. Do we really think that if old Tom was alive today that he would write the same Constitution he did at the time of the nation's founding. I doubt it.
And, from a philosophical perspective, I think the US Constitution can be an analogy for the Dhamma. I'm not living 2,500 years ago. I haven't used any rafts lately...or in fact during my entire life. Were the Dhamma actually written today, it's basic principles would remain, but I think the parables provided and the words used would be much different. For those who believe in a strict interpretation of the Dhamma, I think they see it as a book of Commandments, rather than as a guide to life. That's fine. They're entitled to interpret it as they wish.
For example, I find the Four Noble Truths as the foundation of Buddhist thought (but not all human thought), and pretty unshakable.
The next step is the Noble Eightfold Path. They require a higher level of interpretation, and, as we have discussed in other threads (for example, about the killing of Bin Laden) many of us see the need to use the Eightfold Path as a guide, rather than a series of commandments.
The next step are the Precepts. For example, what is the true significance of:
6. Refrain from taking food at inappropriate time.
7. Refrain from dancing, singing playing music and watching entertainment programs.
8. Refrain from using perfume, cosmetics, wearing of garland
9. Refrain from using high chairs and sleeping on luxurious bed.
Why during ordination does a prospective monk have to be asked if he suffers from leprosy in today's world? If he has boils? Eczema? If they are a human being? If he is a free man? If he is a Naga (snake). Why can't a monk eat at 3 p.m.?
The world has changed, and to be frank, most institutions that don't change do not have a bright future.
I too think we pretty much agree
The dharma lives on ..
Good point. People have been re-inventing the Dharma for over 2 thousand years as it adapts culturally. Best IMO to keep an open mind and view our own opinions and biases with some caution.
Spiny
Spiny
Sooo, I take the teachings as a finger pointing to a finger pointing to the moon. The teachings point to what the Buddha taught, and what the Buddha taught points to "this". I follow what is reasonable from each tradition, but acknowledge the Pali Canon as the best source (the closest) to what the Buddha actually did teach. That's not to mean Theravada, as they have their own viewpoint/perspective/tradition, but the sutras of the Pali Canon itself (though these may not have been perfectly preserved, as time changes all things...).
Spiny
Or one could look to the Kalama Suttra to see the same...