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.
Questioning Buddhism
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?
I am beginning to think that my extreme skepticism is getting in the way.
What do you think?
0
Comments
Why do you think it is getting in your way?
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.
Are there any areas in paticular that you find raises more skeptism?
I have read that doubt can be an obstacle.
Metta
So yes it can be but still nobody likes to walk blindfolded.
What is the problem Bekenze?
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.
I love that..
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.
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.
How foolish you are,
grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
~ Vasubandhu
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.
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.
Who's the audiences of Kalama Sutra ?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.""
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?