A couple of questions - half truths and arguments.

ShiftPlusOne

First question regarding arguments...
It seems like there's some aversion to arguments within Buddhism... it seems to me like it's considered to be something negative.

Usually I don't have much to say here, since I am here to read and learn. However, sometimes I read something which makes me think "hmm, this doesn't sound right". In an attempt to find the reasoning for certain conclusions I say why I disagree or don't understand it. Usually I hope for an explanation/clarification but sometimes all I get is something more along the lines of "Okay , you're entitled to your opinion." Other times, if the other person does get into it, someone else will come in and say it's bickering. Mind you, I've never judged a person for their views.

So, considering I don't say these things in an attempt to convince anyone they are wrong or to force my opinions on anyway, why is it such a negative thing?

Second question:
Often I hear stories of how a 'clever' or 'wise' monk does something to get someone to do something they don't want to do. These often involve manipulative statements, omission of facts or half truths. On one hand, many people preach complete honesty, on the other, the Buddha himself says not to say things which are true but not helpful. I am not sure about manipulative actions like saying things which are 'true', but you know which the other person will perceive differently or just using reverse psychology to get around the complete truth. Where do these things fit in the context of right speech? Is it just a matter of intention?

Cloud

Answer the First: Nothing wrong with constructive arguments, in which all parties are mindful of the fact that they have no monopoly on the truth. What they think they know, what they believe, may be wrong. And so they should not quickly dismiss the understandings and experiences of others.

Answer the Second: If we were fully awakened, all of our actions would be skillful, for the benefit and not harm of others. So they'd all be right speech. Manipulation isn't something that should be attempted otherwise, as it may do more harm than good (for both people).

MindGate

I don't take constructive criticism too badly, as long as I'm allowed to counter the argument.

Cloud

@MindGate, Yeah I wasn't really applying those to your posts or anything. I haven't formed any judgments about those; just answering them in general.

ShiftPlusOne

Cloud, thanks for the response.

MindGate, just to clear it up, these two questions have been brewing in my head for a while, so it wasn't triggered by the the discussion in the other thread. Just in case you thought I was hinting at you here.

rainbowwarrior

there should be a distinction drawn between arguing and debating.

Debate is an age-old tradition in Buddhism

Cloud

@rainbowwarrior, ...that sometimes lasts for ages. (had to do it)

rainbowwarrior

@cloud - absolutely!

SherabDorje

Using manipulative speech or reverse psychology in the way you describe is just not Right Speech. It's just not. Neither monks nor lay people should do that. It's just wrong.

ShiftPlusOne

SherabDorje, one of the examples I was referring to was Ajahn Chah pretending that he was going to pour boiling water on a girl and bury her in order to banish a demon. Obviously, the 'demon' was banished before the water was boiled and before the hole was dug.

Another example given by Ajahn Brahm was someone using and excuse to stop people from pressuring him to drink alcohol. This person was claiming that the doctor advised him against it. When this person said it, they were referring to the Buddha, but obviously that not how the others were meant to interpret it and I think that's intentionally misleading.

Those are the two examples which brought about the question to begin with, so many I should've been a little less vague.

Cloud

I'd just leave it to the pros, meaning the completely unfettered. If they do it, they know what they are doing. Who am I to say otherwise? Certainly not going to try it myself though!

SherabDorje

My most immediate reaction is that in the first case, Ajahn Chah should have honestly said "As Buddhists, we don't believe in demons, we don't believe in the practice of banishment of demons (it could be classified as one of the "lower arts"), especially by monks, you just have to face the fact that you don't have a demon and come off it." In the second case, mentioning a doctor and really meaning the Buddha may or may not have cut it in terms of right speech, but what would have been wrong with him saying "No, I'm a Buddhist, Buddhists, especially monks, don't drink alcohol and please stop trying to persuade me otherwise"? I realize that both of these examples may have been contextual, as in "you had to be there to understand why they did it this way" but I think as recognized Buddhist leaders they should have (IMHO) stuck with the straight-up truth. Buddhism does not believe in the banishment of demons, or consumption of alcohol by monks, end of discussion. I think Buddhist leaders have a responsibility to be truthful, calmly and gently but firmly, and I don't see that going on in either of the examples you cite.

Jeffrey

What forum are you on? I have found many buddhists here who love arguing hahaha!

I think certain deceptions are wise. Like someone is terribly injured and they ask you how they are. So you tell them they look fine so that they don't go into shock which is an additional risk to their injury.

But I hadn't heard of your stories of the exorcism and alcoholism.

formermonkJohn

certainly mahayana buddhists believe in demons, haven't you seen those paintings with demons, etc. i don't know where this anti supernatural bent to new buddhist forum comes from, but its certainly not traditional buddhism which teachs and believes in all kinds of supernatural phenomenon, even if the buddha taught not to dwell on them, and i'm not even sure that is true. ive never had my religion and beliefs attacked as much as here on new buddhist, it seems like the non believers are running the show sometimes, ok off my soapbox...............

Jeffrey

Yes exorcisms are as much a part of tibetan culture as plastic surgery is a part of western.

SherabDorje

From former monk John: "certainly mahayana buddhists believe in demons, haven't you seen those paintings with demons, etc"

I would submit that those demons are allegorical/symbolic and not to be taken literally.

From Jeffrey: "Yes exorcisms are as much a part of tibetan culture as plastic surgery is a part of western."

I would ask for a citation to support that claim. Exorcisms may be part of Tibetan culture, but I don't think they represent mainstream Tibetan Buddhism. The general population in Tibet may "harken back" to their animist roots, but as an American who has had a fair amount of contact with Vajrayana practitioners, I have never encountered exorcism as a part of Vajrayana.

Jeffrey

Sherabdorje, my teacher referred to exorcisms as a tradition in Tibetan culture. If forget what she was talking about, but it was not about exoricism it just came up. Unfortunately I don't remember exactly so there is little to go on. But she lived in Tibet for some time. Plastic surgery is also not a part of Buddhism in the west.

formermonkJohn

sherab read some books about tibet, western based tibetan monks are notorious for not following tradition, and if you went to a lama for an exorcism, would you want every one in the temple knowing about it. you ask us for support for our claims, might i kindly ask you for some support for your ideas.

ShiftPlusOne

I think the exorcism stuff is a bit irrelevant. In this case a family came to a monastery for help. I don't think it would be wise to turn them away simply because the family presented the problem in a way that's not in line with Buddhism. The monk clearly saw the problem as a psychological one and tackled it as such. Also, whether it is relevant to Tibetan and Mahayana Buddhism is moot since this was Theravada and Thai Forest.

ShiftPlusOne

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=msD-op7xi6YC&pg=PA172

formermonkJohn

i think it quite likely that he scared the demon and made it leave, why is that impossible?

SherabDorje

I guess I think there will always be elements in every "religious" tradition that tend toward the "magical" or "shamanistic" or what-have-you. I have been Googling "exorcism tibetan buddhism" and "mahayana demons" and similar phrases, and it appears to me that citations could be brought to show that exorcisms take place in Buddhist contexts and that some people believe in demons in Buddhist contexts. Again, I think the case can be made that these elements are present in every religion, like praying to St. Jude to find something that is lost or praying specifically to the Virgin of Guadalupe. So your point is granted. These elements seem to be present in every "religious" tradition, credibly or not.

But the OP is asking about Ajahn Chah pretending to intend to perform an exorcism, and I know of no belief in demons or exorcism in Theravada. Does the Thai Forest Tradition believe in demons that need to be exorcised? Should Ajahn Chah be pretending to believe in demons and the need for exorcism?

ShiftPlusOne

That's open to interpretation.

Jeffrey

Theres a story about Milarepa that he was thinking about demons while meditating and due to the intensity of his thought one of the demons appeared out of the cracks of the cave he was meditating in. Whatever he tried to get rid of the demon didn't work. Finally he took the demon as his teacher.

Not sure of the appropriate context to present that story in, perhaps in observing addictions energy, but it is an example of demons appearing in Tibetan Buddhist stories.

formermonkJohn

if people believe in demons in thailand, then i guess, yes, there are demons in Thervada tradition, as virtually everyone in thailand is buddhist except for some muslims. certainly some believe in ghosts, etc.