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.
Militant Buddhists
MindGate
United States Veteran
The vibe I've been getting from some members on this site are similar to the same vibes I get from militant/fundie Christians or militant Atheists. What I mean is: many members seem to be posting saying that following the sutras is the only way to end suffering, and they are infallible writings that we shouldn't dispute. I find this a bit strange, as I thought that the Buddha was pro-open mindedness and encouraged the questioning of his teachings.
For example, many people seem to be against following any teachings from Eckhart Tolle or any other non-Buddhist teacher.
Discuss. Are the sutras infallible (have they not been altered through time, culture and by the perceptions of the writers and translators)? Should we shun other views?
For example, many people seem to be against following any teachings from Eckhart Tolle or any other non-Buddhist teacher.
Discuss. Are the sutras infallible (have they not been altered through time, culture and by the perceptions of the writers and translators)? Should we shun other views?
0
Comments
Do you, Mr Mind Gate, regard these sayings as fallible or as infallible?
It can look like an anti-life movement.
It basically says that life is an endless cycle of suffering and we have to put an end to it.
The way to do that is to stop all joy and to cultivate contempt and arrogance.
(This is picturing a caricature and not referring to any particular member of this forum)
If people want to prevent themselves from having any joy in life, that’s their choice. I’m fine with it.
But I don’t think we should encourage such ideas; and occasionally say something friendly and compassionate to restore the balance.
Radicalization happens when – in a group of people – there is no tolerance for criticism or even for nuances; when the way to gain status is to outbid others in radicalism. That can happen in any type of organization.
Imho
What I do,MG, is focus on the members who participate in a thoughtful, helpful manner. (Sometimes suttra-quoting can be informative and interesting. Other times it seems to be used as a weapon, lol. ) I haven't noticed much of the latter type of suttra-quoting happening here for a good while, though. There's a lot of good, heartfelt,thoughtful advice on this forum. Focus on that.
Keep in mind that just because someone rejects other teachings, it doesn't mean they are being dogmatic. They may have good reasons for doing so. Buddhism is a fairly all-encompassing system, which therefore creates potential for conflicts with many other teachings.
I've criticized Tolle before, but for good, scientific reasons: He doesn't tell people HOW to reach his level of consciousness. That's a major flaw.
I think there's such a thing as 'doing religion badly'. Religion claims to be both true and beneficial. But religion can only be true if it is simply a value-system dealing with the human condition, and it can only be beneficial if it does that in the right way. Those who make untestable claims about reality and do so in a dogmatic, authoritarian, 'infallibilist' way are doing religion badly, because it is untrue and unbeneficial. And I know, most religion is done badly. I think Karen Armstrong's analogy is good: Religion is like art, hard to do well, often done poorly, and sometimes tragically abused.
We choose to believe the sutras. That does not make them infallible.
(awaits backlash)
You just can't have a reasonable discussion with people who see you as attacking their religion. Believe me, I've tried.
Replace the Bible with Sutras, and God with Buddha, and you have Buddhist fundamentalism. Of course it exists, because we're no different from other people.
So my own answer to Dhamma is, nothing is infallible, because that's only a belief and all beliefs are subject to being wrong. It's also irrelevant. Knowing I am reading fallible human beings' words doesn't mean experience and wisdom won't lead me to conclude these statements are true. I don't deal in "infallible" though. No human creation, including something written down in the distant past, should have to pass that test to be honored and seen as the guide to the end of suffering that it claims to be.
Hmm. How do we know the sutra is infallible? Because those who wrote it were omniscient. How do we know they were omniscient? Because the sutra SAYS they were omniscient...
Not all of us believe in rebirth, or in enlightenment in the sense of becoming something super-human. But to each their own.
@Prometheus - I too find the mythological stuff a bit incredible. At the moment I'm just assuming they're metaphors for states of mind/consciousness, but if I ever meet a demon I'll be sure and change my point of view.
On a side note, I am very sorry if I have ever contributed to such a feeling, I really hope not!
Hear hear! That's just what the Buddha did indeed, listening to what others had to teach but then putting them to the test himself, and searching for other ways until he finally did find his answers. We can hope he passed on a worthy path to find those answers, but we must test the path (and whatever tradition we choose) for ourselves.
"As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece of touchstone), so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me," says Buddha in Jnanasara-samuccaya [Bht 285].
He told the people of Kalama not to accept what he said to them out of respect for his status or any other shallow reason,or even on the basis of reasoning alone, but in terms of whether it was efficacious---did it directly produce the results they wanted.
"Ma anussavena.
Do not believe something just because it has been passed along and retold for many generations. [Simpler: Do not be led by what you are told.]
Ma paramparaya.
Do not believe something merely because it has become a traditional practice. [Do not be led by whatever has been handed down from past generations.]
Ma itikiraya.
Do not believe something simply because it is well-known everywhere. [Do not be led by hearsay or common opinion.]
Ma Pitakasampadanena.
Do not believe something just because it is cited in a text. [Do not be led by what the scriptures say]
Ma takkahetu.
Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning. [Do not be led by mere logic.]
Ma nayahetu.
Do not believe something merely because it accords with your philosophy. [Do not be led by mere deduction or inference.]
Ma akaraparivitakkena.
Do not believe something because it appeals to "common sense". [Do not be led by considering only outward appearance.]
Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya.
Do not believe something just because you like the idea. [Do not be led by preconceived notions (and the theory reflected as an approval)]
Ma bhabbarupataya.
Do not believe something because the speaker seems trustworthy. [Do not be led by what seems acceptable; do not be led by what some seeming believable one says.]
Do not believe something thinking, 'This is what our teacher says'.
Kalamas, when you yourselves directly know, 'This is [these things are] unwholesome, this is blameworthy, this is condemned or censured by the wise, these things when accepted and practised lead to poverty and harm and suffering," then you should give them up.
Kalamas, when you yourselves directly know, 'These things are wholesome, blameless, praised by the wise; when adopted and carried out they lead to well-being, prosperity and happiness,' then you should accept and practise them."
Gautama Buddha, Kesaputti Sutta, 5th sutta (sutra) in the Book of Threes (Mahavagga) in the Gradual Sayings (Tika Nipata)."
Ideally, we don't use the truth of the suttas to dogmatically convince people, but to provide the useful tools we need to cultivate our path away from suffering. I don't think doubt of the suttas is really as helpful as doubting our mental reactions. Better to apply our mind to extinguishing the doubt, rather than looking for wrongness in the dharma. Then, if we watch the leaves falling from the tree (or any other appearing phenomena) a full acceptance of the wisdom of the dharma develops, and our practice is realized.
I also think that some "dogma" in buddhism is people helping each other uproot self-clinging. Especially when buddhism becomes a new identity, rather than a tool to extinguish suffering. How wonderful and helpful is it to have someone kick you in the ego? Gives us a chance to look at our mind, apply teachings, and scrub.
How would we know whether this is true or not in the first place, except by use of our own minds?
"Better to apply our mind to extinguishing the doubt, rather than looking for wrongness in the dharma".
Sounds like dogmatism to me.
Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning. [Do not be led by mere logic.] "
This is one I have real issues with! I think about things logically and it comes naturally as my reasoning process... It doesn't work with real people too well
I accept your concern about dogmatism. My point is that buddhism requires only a small amount of faith, and only at the beginning. As we progress, the teachings become a clear map... not a doctrine of belief we have to believe because our teacher says so.
If you are fed up with not being able to play guitar, you might find a teacher. Rather than using mental facilities to doubt the teacher or the process, it is better to learn use the instrument. Better to use the dharma and our teachers to learn to use the mind skillfully. Then our own concerns about dogma become outmoded as we hear what we play.
That's still ourselves determining what's true, not the sutras. The point is that no matter what, our minds are all we ultimately have. Besides, not everything in the sutras are lessons that can be trialled in practice. As I've said before, they also include beliefs about gods, demons, heavens, hells, etc.
I think no faith is required, ever. I didn't believe in Buddhist practice before trying, I tried it out and then believed in it only after finding it to work. Same goes for a guitar teacher. I would want to see them play before accepting them as teacher.
Do not believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning. [Do not be led by mere logic.] "). The latter is only experienced by conducting the experiment that 4 noble truths and the eight-fold noble path present.
The proof is in the pudding.
I don't wholly disagree with your view, because, as you said, the mind is something we have.
If we accept that the suttas have gold in them, and we turn our attention to the mind's doubt that arises, the lesson in the sutta is more available... moral teaching, truth, metaphor... whatever might be there, we can discern how it applies to the human experience, and even to what context it might apply.
I think that other "holy" scriptures have enough dogma that it might taint some minds to the point where truth becomes rejected. Instead of rejecting, we can use curiosity to explore: "What is really being said? What is this pointing at?" Rather than "This doesn't fit with my mind's view, dump it." Our mind's ignorant view is why we need practice. The sooner we turn inward in this way and skillfully attend that subjective view, the sooner it stops clouding our mind.
Without the cloud, there is no doubt that arises, because there is no ignorance to condition the doubt. Things either are, or they are not.
Like I mentioned before... if what you're learning is working for you, I wholeheartedly agree you should keep going.
With warmth,
Matt