Questioning Buddhism

Bekenze

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

What do you think?

Sabre

Of course we should. If we don't question, we will not learn and may get stuck. The Buddha also went from teacher to teacher to find the answers he was looking for. Likewise we should question not only Buddhism and the suttas, but also specific teachers. So we can both find the right answers and the right teachers.

Why do you think it is getting in your way?

patbb

I think that questioning is good, but only if we're doing our homework and actually look at the things the Buddha was talking about.

as in, get what people refer to as "Stream entry", then question the conclusions "Buddhists" made of these things.
or
get jhana, then question whatever conclusion or reasoning Buddhists made about it.
etc...

If we question chemistry without doing any chemistry, then we're only assuming out of our butts.

Iñigo

Hi Bekenze
Are there any areas in paticular that you find raises more skeptism?

I have read that doubt can be an obstacle.

Metta

caz

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

What do you think?

Buddha also taught about having faith in his teachings, Faith as a virtue. Buddha's teachings are non deceptive. You cannot get anywhere if you Dont invest any faith.

Victorious

I guess everybody's heard the sutta about the arrow?

So yes it can be but still nobody likes to walk blindfolded.

What is the problem Bekenze?

vinlyn

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

What do you think?

Let me ask you a question? What do you think of a Christian who just accepts every word in the Old and New Testaments?

I already know your answer. Same answer I have. How can anyone be so gullible. And that's exactly why you should question things in any religion, because otherwise you're just buying it hook, line, and sinker (so to speak), and that's never good...or in this case, mindful.

RichardH

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

What do you think?

Extreme skepticism will definitely block practice. It is attachment to a position..and probably laced with cynicism which a can be very smart and proud, but totally self-defeating . Cynicism and compulsive skepticism form a suit of armor. I found the best way to overcome that hindrance was to find "The blessed one's disciples who have practiced well", people who are very mature and have "practiced well". People like that chasten and inspire, and encourage. But even that would not penetrate the armor if skepticism is over-the-top pathological. There is a saying..(don't know where it came from) ..... "A thief only sees a Saint's pockets"

I love that..

person

For myself, I question the teachings and put a critical eye on them. My default position though is, trust but verify. To me the skeptic position is doubt until proven otherwise.

I suppose its all a continuum though and I didn't arive at the default position of trust without first validating enough of the teaching and finding them to be true.

Whenever I read about questioning the teachings in Buddhist writing the term used is critical not skeptical, maybe that's only a distinction without a difference, just something to think about.

Cinorjer

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

What do you think?

Questioning the Dharma is fine...provided you actually listen to the answers and attempt to understand what people and the sutras are trying to say. You don't have to agree with people or the sutras on everything, or get people to agree with you.

But more than that, your question presumes you have a choice in the matter. Can you really flip a switch in your mind and turn off the skepticism? If so, that's an amazing ability.

What you might look into is not focusing on your problem areas and instead develop a positive practice using what makes sense to you.

vinlyn

For myself, I question the teachings and put a critical eye on them. My default position though is, trust but verify. To me the skeptic position is doubt until proven otherwise.

...

I like that!

BonsaiDoug

Questioning the Dharma is fine...provided you actually listen to the answers and attempt to understand what people and the sutras are trying to say.

Excellent! One of my favorite quotes:
How foolish you are,
grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
~ Vasubandhu

BonsaiDoug

Also, in the Buddha's own words:

Kalama Sutra:

"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

The Kalama Sutra is a sutra in the Anguttara Nikaya of the Tipitaka. It is often cited by both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists, and is known as the Buddha's charter of free inquiry.

Lady_Alison

I think you first need to find the right questions to ask, then ask them.

Questions are many, answers few. But there are answers....you need to do some dilegence on your part. Do some real seeking with an open heart. When you have a good grasp on philosophy as a foundation, it gets easier to weed out some illogical or strange ideas. Then you'll find that some ideas will resonate with you...others wont. I have already suggested some reading for you...but not sure you remember...

You can doubt everything, even whether or not you are actually alive or dreaming. Think matrix. Your questions have bee debated by the great masters over 2000 years ago! You are not alone.

Make philosophy your mistress. She is a good lover.

lamaramadingdong

I find myself questioning it all the time-and I keep getting answers that the teachings are correct.

suopohe

For some teachings, it'.

Also, in the Buddha's own words:

Kalama Sutra:

"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

The Kalama Sutra is a sutra in the Anguttara Nikaya of the Tipitaka. It is often cited by both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists, and is known as the Buddha's charter of free inquiry.

Who's the audiences of Kalama Sutra ?

Zero

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

Taking responsibility for yourself and your actions will inevitably involve questioning...

I suppose there are 3 ways to approach it - I dont believe convince me / I do believe convince me / I'm listening...

It seems that youre becoming skeptical of your own skepticism! you'll be just fine if you can drop just one of those skeptics!!

Skepticism per se doesnt get in the way - deluded self is the only obstacle.

BonsaiDoug

Who's the audiences of Kalama Sutra ?

It was the Kalamas.

Reference here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
And here:
http://oaks.nvg.org/kalama.html
http://buddhasutra.com/files/kalama_sutta.htm

Lady_Alison

I wonder how you overcome delusions? I think it's one of the dangerous state of mind to be in. @zero

Should practitioners of Buddhism question the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha?

I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.

Taking responsibility for yourself and your actions will inevitably involve questioning...

I suppose there are 3 ways to approach it - I dont believe convince me / I do believe convince me / I'm listening...

It seems that youre becoming skeptical of your own skepticism! you'll be just fine if you can drop just one of those skeptics!!

Skepticism per se doesnt get in the way - deluded self is the only obstacle.

BonsaiDoug

I wonder how you overcome delusions?

Ah, but does the OP demonstrate "delusion" or merely skepticism? Big difference, no?

Zero

Ah, but does the OP demonstrate "delusion" or merely skepticism? Big difference, no?

On balance, 'traits' (skeptic / agnostic / faithful) are no more or less in the way than anythingelse - the root is how these traits are perceived and reconciled by the subjective observer - thus the root is the observer not the traits - therefore illusion / delusion is considering the traits rather than the observer.

Zero

I wonder how you overcome delusions?

Head on with the personal effort and responsibility moment by moment...

compassionate_warrior

Who's the audiences of Kalama Sutra ?

You're onto something here. The Kalama Sutra is often misunderstood. It was not a teaching to the Buddha's followers, it was a response to an inquiry by a community that had seen self-declared wise men and prophets come and go, and asked the Buddha how to discern between charlatans and bona-fide spiritually-attained teachers. The Buddha provided guidance on how to do that. The teaching was not intended to be applied to the Buddha's own teachings. Bhikku Bodhi explains this here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html

We had a thread analyzing the Kalama Sutra, that came to this conclusion. This is not to say that the Buddha didn't teach his followers to test the Dharma teachings and methods. He did, but in a different discourse directed to his monks.

vinlyn

Who's the audiences of Kalama Sutra ?

You're onto something here. The Kalama Sutra is often misunderstood. It was not a teaching to the Buddha's followers, it was a response to an inquiry by a community that had seen self-declared wise men and prophets come and go, and asked the Buddha how to discern between charlatans and bona-fide spiritually-attained teachers. The Buddha provided guidance on how to do that. The teaching was not intended to be applied to the Buddha's own teachings. Bhikku Bodhi explains this here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html

We had a thread analyzing the Kalama Sutra, that came to this conclusion. This is not to say that the Buddha didn't teach his followers to test the Dharma teachings and methods. He did, but in a different discourse directed to his monks.

So Buddha's teachings are only valid for a specific group of people?

compassionate_warrior

Context is everything.

vinlyn

Context is everything.

When the message changes from one audience to another, we don't call the person giving the message Buddha, we call him Mitt Romeny.

A principles is a principle. A principle is either valid, or not valid.

If you think that's not true, think back to the Civil Rights movement. Separate but equal? No thanks.

compassionate_warrior

Sorry, not following you with the Civil Rights comment.

The Buddha's teaching to the Kalamas was situation-specific. If you have a problem with it, you can take it up with Bhikku Bodhi. He's available by email, and does respond to questions.

vinlyn

First, let's keep in mind that the "Sutta Study" column is not Buddha speaking. It is a monk speaking.

As the monk admits, the "discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation". But then he goes too far by saying that people use it to "[dismiss] all doctrine and faith", which I personally have never heard anyone actually do.

He says, "Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context — with a particular audience and situation in view — and thus must be understood in relation to that context." I don't agree that setting and context are the same.

And I don't like that the monk is insinuating that Buddha sometimes talks down to people ("This advice can be dangerous if given to those whose ethical sense is undeveloped").

The monk's discourse tries to say, again, that principles are only valid for some people, and not for others ("These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them").

I wonder what you would say if you had attended a suspension hearing when I was the principal and I said that "This Black student will have to be treated differently because of his race than a White student who did the same thing, because the Black people aren't sophisticated enough to understand our moral code as well."

And I find it wrong to imply that Buddha was hypocritical and would essentially say that yes, you should be suspicious of everyone's teachings, except for mine.

compassionate_warrior

What can I say? It's well known that the Buddha taught differently to different constituencies, tailoring his discourses for a given audience. In the Kalama Sutra he was addressing a specific concern, he was not speaking about himself. This thread isn't about the Kalama Sutra, I see no point in hashing this out here, especially since it's been addressed thoroughly before. It's certainly true that there's disagreement about its interpretation, so we may as well leave it at that.

vinlyn

What can I say? It's well known that the Buddha taught differently to different constituencies, tailoring his discourses for a given audience. In the Kalama Sutra he was addressing a specific concern, he was not speaking about himself. This thread isn't about the Kalama Sutra, I see no point in hashing this out here, especially since it's been addressed thoroughly before. It's certainly true that there's disagreement about its interpretation, so we may as well leave it at that.

ok

patbb

First, let's keep in mind that the "Sutta Study" column is not Buddha speaking. It is a monk speaking.

As the monk admits, the "discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation". But then he goes too far by saying that people use it to "[dismiss] all doctrine and faith", which I personally have never heard anyone actually do.

He says, "Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context — with a particular audience and situation in view — and thus must be understood in relation to that context." I don't agree that setting and context are the same.

And I don't like that the monk is insinuating that Buddha sometimes talks down to people ("This advice can be dangerous if given to those whose ethical sense is undeveloped").

The monk's discourse tries to say, again, that principles are only valid for some people, and not for others ("These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them").

I wonder what you would say if you had attended a suspension hearing when I was the principal and I said that "This Black student will have to be treated differently because of his race than a White student who did the same thing, because the Black people aren't sophisticated enough to understand our moral code as well."

And I find it wrong to imply that Buddha was hypocritical and would essentially say that yes, you should be suspicious of everyone's teachings, except for mine.

you are over-thinking this quite a bit.


you cannot talk about and teach some advance mathematical theorems to pre-school childrens.

They wouldn't understand and would misinterpret everything.

it's that simple

Cinorjer

The Dharma is simple and easy to comprehend. You do have to translate it into words your intended audience will understand, though. And, you have to answer the question before you. The Buddha was asked a question about how people are supposed to sort through conflicting teachings. He answered the question, and his answer was honest and true and applies to all of us when we have the same question. His own disciples never seemed to have asked that most obvious of questions, or if they did, it was not recorded.

I was also rather unimpressed with the Bhikku's reasoning, but only because he fails to extend it to its logical conclusion. All teachings have to be taken in context and with the intended audience in mind, not just the teachings someone has questions about. The Buddha never taught anything to you or me. He spoke to various people, followers and strangers and his monks back then, and his teachings and answers were intended for them and to answer their questions. How strange to think he would turn to a disciple and say, "Now what you hear next is the official teaching, so remember it for future generations. Never mind that other stuff. That's just for those people over there."

So by the Bhikku's own reasoning, a teaching to his monks applies only to his monks, not us. By this reasoning, the only teachings that we lay Buddhists should bother with are the occasional time he talks about lay Buddhists. Even then, those lay people lived lives much different from us and their concerns were different.

No, the valid point is one of taking a single paragraph out of a comprehensive teaching and elevating it all out of its intended purpose. There are many more sutras that talk about the value of faith.

xabir

While certain amount of healthy skepticism is beneficial, one must have strong faith in the Buddha's core teachings and practice according to it, if we want to be awakened.


Namdrol: "The Eastern Gatehouse sutta provides much needed balance to this (Kalama) sutta targeted directly to non-Buddhists."

Namdrol: "Actually, Buddha, in the Eastern Gatehouse Sutta, asserted the opposite -- those who do not have direct knowledge need to accept it on faith from people who do. The Sutta spoken to the Kalamas was spoken to non-buddhists who were confused by all the competing claims made by itinerant religious teachers who visited them. In the end, in that Sutta, Buddha does not teach any thing especially Buddhist, but gave them the brahma viharas, asserting that those who practiced these would take rebirth in a better place, and even if they did not beleive in rebirth, this practice would improve their lives as they were. But the four bhrama viharas are not a specifically Buddhist practice and therefore are never held to lead to liberation. They are the practice of the "vehicles of gods and humans"."

Namdrol: "If we know that someone is an awakened person, than as the Eastern Gatehouse shows, we can have confidence in what they say."

Namdrol: "You can infere someone's awakening, or lack thereof, much in the same manner as a fire can be inferred from the presence of smoke."

.........

Eastern Gatehouse Sutra: "SN 48.44
PTS: S v 220
CDB ii 1689
Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997–2012

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Sariputta: "Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?"

"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."

"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation.""

xabir

Furthermore, extreme skepticism is put down by Buddha as a form of false view:

DN 1:

Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'

Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation: Is there no world beyond? Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond? Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?