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.
Authority and Authenticity
RichardH
Veteran
Where does authority and authenticity rest in Buddha Dharma?
There are different answers in different traditions. Some would say the final authority is Sutra. Some would say it is one's teacher or lineage. Some would say ones own practice. Most likely all of these are a factor.
IMHO the final arbiter is ones first-hand practice. This trumps the written word or the word of a teacher, and in my experience a teacher who knows she has been trumped by her student's experience is a wise one.
This is just one practitioners view. What is your view and why? Thankyou.
There are different answers in different traditions. Some would say the final authority is Sutra. Some would say it is one's teacher or lineage. Some would say ones own practice. Most likely all of these are a factor.
IMHO the final arbiter is ones first-hand practice. This trumps the written word or the word of a teacher, and in my experience a teacher who knows she has been trumped by her student's experience is a wise one.
This is just one practitioners view. What is your view and why? Thankyou.
0
Comments
Only by your own discernment can you determine if a sutra or teacher or some other party is trustworthy or not.
I came to the same conclusion as you!
I'm stealing this from someone (I forget who), but I like the description of the Triple Gem/Three Refuges as "the teacher" (Buddha), "the teachings" (Dharma), and "the taught" (Sangha). We learn from all three; and as a sort of checks and balances, they balance out any potential imperfections from another branch.
We cannot trust that we've had the Buddha's word perfectly relayed from 2500 years ago.
We cannot trust that his teachings are not diluted in some form or another by politics or social beliefs of the various relayers.
And we cannot trust our Sangha, whether it's this humble board or a physical group, is enlightened enough to transmit absolute truth to us.
However, if all three have found a teaching reliable, and our first-hand practice agrees with that, then we can be confident in that teaching. For example, the Buddha taught meditation, the Dhamma teaches meditation, and my Sangha practices meditation, all to good effect. Therefore, I have decided to practice it, and had similarly good effect.
So to answer your question, it does lie with us, and we do "trump" every and all teachings. However, there's even a check and balance against our own current imperfection in that we have three hopefully reliable sources that can potentially guide and correct us. E.g., that I was risking messing up my knees with the way I was sitting
Today, people believe what they want for whatever reason they want. I rely on what my teachers say.
That said, I'm in agreement with the Richard, Jeffrey & MrDude1228.
First hand practice is the authority & authenticity for one's own experience but not for the Buddha-Dhamma.
Buddha-Dhamma is Buddha-Dhamma. It literally means "the Buddha's Dhamma".
If all our personal experiences are different, how they all be "the Buddha's Dhamma"?
Clearly, logically, sutta is authority and authenticity of the Buddha-Dhamma.
When the Buddha recommended one should not believe blindly and only speak what one has realised for oneself, this does imply one's personal experiences are the Buddha-Dhamma.
It is like a patient and their doctor. The doctor can help the patient, but first the patient must determine if the doctor is reliable. And some people do not believe in modern medicine for example. So without confidence in your own discernment one could not even evaluate the dharma!
First Noble Truth = Pancha upadana skanda (Five clinging aggregates) are dukka (suffering/unsatisfactory)
Second Noble Truth = Paticca samuppada (dependent origination) (cause of dukka)
Third Noble Truth = Thrilakkana (anicca, dukka, anatta) (know and live with constant mindfulness with it)
Fourth Noble Truth = Arya ashtangika marga (Noble Eightfold Path) and Sathra Sathi pattana (fourfold mindfulness)
we have to learn them from sangha (bikku, bikkuni, upasaka, upasika) and contemplate on what we learn (with the help of sermons or books)
to make our contemplation effective
first we have to practise Concentration meditation (samatha bavana)
and then
Insight meditation (vipassana bavana)
whether we have to practise Concentration meditation or how long we have to practise it
before turn into Insight meditation
depends on
how long we have been practising concentration meditation in this life itself or in our previous life
only the Buddha can tell us 'how long one has been practising meditation'
so we have to find it ourselves
And how do you know this? How have you validated this statement?
i) in the Buddhist canon
ii) in the lineage in Buddhist sangha
iii) in the unchanging principle in the phenomena
In the scripture also state , for the correct Dharma to be present, the teaching, practice and proof are obvious
So proof of practice is the credence , it required the documentary proof, the theoretical proof and the actual proof
among them, the actual proof is most important - it means that a doctrine is compatible is borne out by actual result when put into practice
I think far too strongly and far too unquestionably. Authority is bad, in every sense. It is about control, domination and subjugation and to think otherwise is simply to support it.
I think the Buddha believes this also.
I agree.
Doubt everything save for that which you cannot doubt!
Mat
Gawd yes!!!
You should certainly doubt my thoughts and ideas, especially about politics, philosophy and Buddhism!:)
At least I try;)
Cornwall?
Our follies about authority and authenticity are of the ego. It follows reconcilitation with authority and authenticity will be difficult.
:smilec:
Which teachings of the Buddha are grating against our ego sensitivity and need for personal affirmation?
Do we have guru anusaya or guru tanha?
Often rebels against authority are society's next dictator.
Other times we are simply rebels without a cause.
:cool:
We are taught to yield to Sangha. The teaching and the form is right. The student yields to that. But ultimately first hand practice is the confirmation. Direct experience. One is alone and the matter of authority and authenticity ceases to be an issue.
Many people have sought to practise Buddhism and not attained the higher fruits.
Does their experience negate the efficacy of the Buddha's path?
If that is the case, why did you raise the issue?
Your opening post said: Of course, your humble opinion stands on shakey ground because one may not have finished the end.
For example, Buddha taught the permanent extinguishing of greed, craving, delight, hatred, ill-will, delusion & confusion are the end.
If we ourselves have not reached this end then what authority are we concerning ourselves with? About what exactly?
When Buddha said unsurpassed emptiness is empty of sensual desire, empty of becoming and empty of ignorance, because our mind is not actually yet empty of these things, do we wish to redefine emptiness?
Salient yes, only, no:)
I am not sure what you are meaning here. Why should there be reconcilliation with any authority?
All of them, as instructed by The Buddha.
Instead of doubting, the Buddha taught to weigh up the teachings against the criteria of harming/non-harming/dukkha/no dukkka.
The Buddha said doubt is a hindrance but most of all a fetter to enlightenment.
The Buddha encouraged achala saddha or unshakeable faith rather than doubt.
Saddha, faith, trust or confidence, is the first of the spiritual powers.
As far as standing on shakey ground, that may be the case from your perspective. I am speaking from a Zen practice with a Zen teacher, in a tradition that I have come to repect above all and have chosen to follow through. It is something you do not understand and do not want to understand. Your lens is strictly theravadin. Absolutely Theravadin. All Buddhism is reduced to a Theravadin measure. You regard Zen as false, So there is nothing to discuss. I'm not going to discuss "emptiness" with you in a Zen context, or defend Mahayana over Theravada. I respect Theravada and treasure the friends we have both Ordained and Lay, but you represent that fundamentalist streak in Theravada that I haven't encountered offline, and hope I never do. You have by your example, helped clarify things for me so I guess there is some gratitude to be had for your contribution.
The Op asked a question. You have given your reply and view.
There are no exact words to quote in Buddhism, but I think think the items the Buddha instructed the kalama's suggest the universal doubt I refer to:)
Which kinds of doubts are hindrances? Surely not all? Mind you... I can even doubt that the Buddha said doubt was a hindrance:)
As a skeptical buddhist I reject this view of Buddhism, I don't believe faith belongs. If you, that's fine by me:)
Mat
Palzang
Hi Palzang
I am surprised to hear you say this, respect to you:)
One request I have is can you try to explain to us what that change was please.
I will clarify my question so as to hopefully avoid confusion.
I can imagine that there are changes one can experience while meditating that are in themselves utterly profound, "down deep" as you say. But what do you think it was in in the Teacher's speaking about Dharma that gave you this "gift of understanding" without meditation? Was it perhaps like a mediation? The way they said it or what they said? I am very curious:)
With respect,
Mat:)
That's funny