Some Questions About Buddhism In Thailand

[kirk0233]

First, I was wondering the purpose of providing food to a Buddha statue or alter. Buddha never claimed to be a god and stated he was unsure if there were gods. Even Christians who believe Jesus was the son of god don't offer food to his image. This practice by the Thais obviously started after Buddha's death. Does anyone know its origin? Second, I was wondering about the chanting in the temples in Pali and having to memorize a Pali scripture in order to become a monk. I have read the monks do not even know sometimes the meaning of their chant. This reminds me of the Catholic use of Latin for sermons that were not understood by the congregation until the change to English by priests in the US; I believe in the 1970s. Why the use of Pali other than its original use to write Buddha's scriptures? My wife reads Pali scriptures in our home Buddha room that she does not understand. Should this be updated and translated to Thai so it can be of some benefit to people? Excuse my ignorance if these answers are obvious. I am not a scholar of Buddhism.

[chutai]

I'm no authority on these matters either. But as far as Pali is concerned wasn't it mistakenly thought to be the original language that Shakyamuni Buddha spoke in ? Although it was Magadhi, which subsequent research revealed has little in common with Pali. But does it really matter?

Just one point though about chanting (I'm not sure about reading) in a language that one doesn't understand. In my tradition we chant portions of the Lotus Sutra in classical Chinese - the original language of the Mahayana tradition. which some may not understand. But perhaps in that case it's a question of being like a baby suckling it's mothers milk, the infant knows not why it's good for them but instinctively knows it is. So it is with any Buddhist sutra even though translations are available for those who want to take it a step further. I'm also wondering if chanting in the Thai language might not lose some of it's continuity and flow ? It certainly would - as in the Lotus Sutra - if chanted in English.

[sabaijai]

I don't think I've ever seen food offered to a Buddha image here in Thailand. The usual offerings are candles, incense and flowers.

At any rate, this activity as well as the others you mention are all part of the way Thai Buddhism is practised, and it's much more complex than assuming that Thais view the Buddha as 'god.'

Many Thais agree with you, that Pali texts should be translated into Thai, and in fact Thai translations of the Pali canon as well as common Pali chants are widely available in book form. The general belief, however, is that the translation is somehow less meaningful, less powerful, than the original Pali. Just as many Catholics believe that Latin liturgy is more meaningful than vernacular liturgy.

Why? Because it's human nature to seek talismanic properties in ritual and sacred art. Philosophical Buddhism has a following in Thailand, but only among a minority, it seems.

The good thing is that you and your wife are free to choose either of the two or any combination thereof

[Comicus]

> Should this be updated and translated to Thai so it can be of some benefit to people?

When I was in LOS, I asked educated Thais about the translation and they said that it was up to the monks.

I then asked a few monks, they said that many of them have been translated. However, after a few more questions, I found that there have been many different versions of the same chanting, hence, the monks didn't translate it the same way. Therefore, one or more of the translations are possibly wrong.

So it might be better to chant in Pali from that point of view as you don't want to chant incorrectly. And learn Pali to understand what it is all about.

Come to think about it, I always wanted to learn Latin but haven't time for it yet

[kirk0233]

I don't think I've ever seen food offered to a Buddha image here in Thailand. The usual offerings are candles, incense and flowers.

At any rate, this activity as well as the others you mention are all part of the way Thai Buddhism is practised, and it's much more complex than assuming that Thais view the Buddha as 'god.'

Many Thais agree with you, that Pali texts should be translated into Thai, and in fact Thai translations of the Pali canon as well as common Pali chants are widely available in book form. The general belief, however, is that the translation is somehow less meaningful, less powerful, than the original Pali. Just as many Catholics believe that Latin liturgy is more meaningful than vernacular liturgy.

Why? Because it's human nature to seek talismanic properties in ritual and sacred art. Philosophical Buddhism has a following in Thailand, but only among a minority, it seems.

The good thing is that you and your wife are free to choose either of the two or any combination thereof

When I write of offering food to Buddha, I don't mean at a temple. I have never seen food offered there either. I am speaking of the Buddha room we have in our home which includes 7 or 8 miniature images of Buddha. My father-in-law has a similar room in his home. I have been to other Thai homes but have never inquired about this practice. I have certainly seen food offered to spirit houses and wonder if Buddhism and spirit house practices have converged in the offering of food to Buddha. Perhaps this is only a Thai-Chinese practice since this is my wife's heritage. Her father came from China and reads the sutras that have been translated into Chinese. With regard to Pali, I have read that some Thai Buddhist scholars believe the temple has lost its teaching function. Perhaps using Thai in the temples would bolster the teaching of Buddhism in temples and the acquisition of knowledge rather than repetition of ritual without understanding. There is too much rote learning in Thailand in my opinion.

[kirk0233]

An update on my understanding of how the offering to Buddha is made in Buddha rooms. My wife has explained only fruit is offered to Buddha. Fruit is also only offered to spirit houses which contained the goddess of the Earth. Spirit houses that contain an angel can be offered food other than fruit, but best to stick to fruit. Spirit houses that contain the spirit of dead ancestors can be offered any food since they are the lowest level of spirit house. She said most people have a Buddha room. It is not restricted to the Thai-Chinese. If someone does not have space for a room then a shelf will suffice if it is at the proper level and far enough away from the bedroom. Books on Buddhism in Thai cannot be bought. You must be given one. Buddhism is not for sale. What people do is get a copy of translated sutras from a temple and pay to have them printed and then offer them to the temple. After making merit at a temple then a person can ask for a printed book of sutras in Thai. Unfortunately, from my experience teaching English to a branch of the military in Thailand, adults know very little about Buddhism. The one person who was knowledgeable about Buddhism had read a great deal on the subject. It seems people are not going to the temples to learn or little instruction is taking place in the temples as some Thai Buddhist scholars claim. Books seem the best avenue for knowledge for the Thais to learn Buddhism, but content seems limited by the ability of a temple to translate and the generosity of those making merit to print and donate.

[chutai]

Unfortunately, from my experience teaching English to a branch of the military in Thailand, adults know very little about Buddhism.

What is there to know about Buddhism, beyond what you consider only the acquisition of knowledge can realise ?

[kirk0233]

Unfortunately, from my experience teaching English to a branch of the military in Thailand, adults know very little about Buddhism.

What is there to know about Buddhism, beyond what you consider only the acquisition of knowledge can realise ?

I cannot argue with a statement like that; primarily since it seems disjointed in its construction. Are you saying that knowledge of Buddhism can be acquired without direct or indirect (symbols, words) experience? I would have to say that reality dictates that some people through exposure to instruction or experience of some kind can acquire more knowledge about a particular subject. Even the historical Buddha had to study.

[chutai]

I cannot argue with a statement like that; primarily since it seems disjointed in its construction. Are you saying that knowledge of Buddhism can be acquired without direct or indirect (symbols, words) experience? I would have to say that reality dictates that some people through exposure to instruction or experience of some kind can acquire more knowledge about a particular subject. Even the historical Buddha had to study.

Buddhism is ultimately realisation. Shakyamuni Buddha didn't need to study in order to reach enlightenment but through direct experience - the intense study of the workings of mind. Upon realisation he was also hesitant to preach the Dharma because it actually transcends words. If one reads the Mahayana sutras they can often seem inaccessible upon a superficial reading. The reason being to help understand that Truth is ultimately beyond mundane narrative. See also: Buddhadasa Bhikkhu; Keys To Natural Truth.

When one tries to criticise from outside of a paradigm - that can easily be defined as being of the heart - with purely an attempt at academic criticism , it can seem arrogant and even an attempt at cultural imperialism. Not that study doesn't have its place, nor indeed introspective analysis- but only if balanced with , and as a part of ... practice.

Constructive criticism is healthy when tempered with wisdom. Criticism that seems concerned with only form, rather than substance, far less so. :jap:

Edited August 29, 2011 by chutai

[Gonsalviz]

The Chinese do it too.

[kirk0233]

I cannot argue with a statement like that; primarily since it seems disjointed in its construction. Are you saying that knowledge of Buddhism can be acquired without direct or indirect (symbols, words) experience? I would have to say that reality dictates that some people through exposure to instruction or experience of some kind can acquire more knowledge about a particular subject. Even the historical Buddha had to study.

Buddhism is ultimately realisation. Shakyamuni Buddha didn't need to study in order to reach enlightenment but through direct experience - the intense study of the workings of mind. Upon realisation he was also hesitant to preach the Dharma because it actually transcends words. If one reads the Mahayana sutras they can often seem inaccessible upon a superficial reading. The reason being to help understand that Truth is ultimately beyond mundane narrative. See also: Buddhadasa Bhikkhu; Keys To Natural Truth.

When one tries to criticise from outside of a paradigm - that can easily be defined as being of the heart - with purely an attempt at academic criticism , it can seem arrogant and even an attempt at cultural imperialism. Not that study doesn't have its place, nor indeed introspective analysis- but only if balanced with , and as a part of ... practice.

Constructive criticism is healthy when tempered with wisdom. Criticism that seems concerned with only form, rather than substance, far less so. :jap:

I can certainly comprehend from your writing that you strongly believe you are correct. Your belief system has somehow been strongly offended by something I wrote, yet to be described in your cryptic reply. I believe your reply is from your intellect not your heart since you make a rather grandiose statement that the as yet unrevealed offensive writing by me borders on cultural imperialism. I doubt my belief system could conquer Thailand and have no desire to. If my views offend you and you think them too western and offensive is that not your adopted eastern bias against thoughts you label western? Is your ego too involved in this issue? I merely wanted some informed answers to practices of the Thai that I have observed. If your implied expert understanding of Buddha's unwritten thoughts enables you to reply to the topic it would be great.

[Brucenkhamen]

Placing food offerings on a shrine is pretty common throughout asia I think, I think it's origin is likely in animissm or hinduism, Thai Buddhism includes a lot of influence from these. Of course from a Buddhist perspective it doesn't really make much sense but a lot of people don't really practise with a Buddhist perspective.

As for chanting in Pali on one hand with scripture being preserved in that language it's pretty common to find that translations into another language don't quite capture the meaning, this is very true of english, maybe not so much of thai or singhalese. So it's important to be able to refer back to the orioginal language to clarify meaning.

As for chanting in pali often meaning is not that important, so understanding is not that important, it's mainly used as a form of devotion or meditation, the discipline and sounds calming the mind.

[Xangsamhua]

I'm no authority on these matters either. But as far as Pali is concerned wasn't it mistakenly thought to be the original language that Shakyamuni Buddha spoke in ? Although it was Magadhi, which subsequent research revealed has little in common with Pali. But does it really matter?

Yes, I've seen it claimed that the Buddha spoke Maghadi, a Prakrit language, and no, it doesn't really matter, but both Maghadi and Pali were derived from Sanskrit, so one would expect they had a fair amount in common. I'm sourcing my assertions in Richard Gombrich's What the Buddha Thought (2009). He says (p. xi), "Pali is a Prakrit language. It is not exactly what the Buddha spoke, but fairly close to it." On the same page he describes Prakrit as "the Indian term for languages directly derived from Sanskrit."

[Xangsamhua]

Translations into the vernacular, especially where they are of sacred texts, are open invitations to animosity and rancour. A prime example is the vituperation that's been going on since the 60s over the English translation of the Latin liturgy of the Mass. People have formed into camps defined by theology, feminism, philology, historical interpretation, and political ideology, and the matter, to my knowledge, is still subject to ill-tempered dispute. Muslims held out against translation of the Qur'an for centuries. Possibly, translations of the Pali texts will do nothing for comprehension and may compromise the dignity and gravitas associated with the original language. Anyway, you can always buy a vernacular guide to follow the Pali with if you want to.

[fabianfred]

Many temples here now chant the morning and evening chants in both Pali and Thai. My own temple does so on each Buddha day. I believe that the International Forest Monastery in Ubon chant in Pali/Thai/English on Buddha days too.

When I was a boy the RC church still used Latin, but most people who had been church goers all their lives understood the meaning also many books had the English translation too even though the mass was done in latin.

I have translated our temples Chanting book into Roman characters so that our Western guests can follow the chanting too...and it has the English translation.. http://www.4shared.com/document/uQfgAqg8/eveningchanting_wide9.html

Edited August 30, 2011 by fabianfred

[rockyysdt]

Unfortunately, from my experience teaching English to a branch of the military in Thailand, adults know very little about Buddhism.

What is there to know about Buddhism, beyond what you consider only the acquisition of knowledge can realise ?

Hi Chutai.

You're correct in that knowing comes through personal experience and self realization, not from a text book.

Is it possible that kirk was suggesting that very little is known about the Four Noble Truths & Eightfold Path, and this would answer your question, " What is there to know about Buddhism?"?

If more Thai adults new the Four Noble Truths & Eightfold Path in detail , much of what we see to be wrong with Buddhism in Thailand would begin to diminish.

Edited September 1, 2011 by rockyysdt

[bankei]

You are forgetting the importance of rituals.

Offering food and chanting are ritual acts. Many westerners, myself included, generally downplay the role and benefits of ritual in Buddhism.

Incidentally, there is no need to memorize Pali scripture to ordain. During the ordination ceremony the preceedure is in Pali and it does need to be memorised for the Bhikkhu ceremony, but it is not really scripture. It is a collection of some older verses as well as more modern verses. I guess the older verses may come from sections of the scriptures, but there is no need to memorise Sutras.

In fact the majority of the chanting that the monks in Thailand do today is not Sutra (sutta) but are modern verses mostly composed by King Mongkut when he was a monk. Mongkut was a great Pali scholar.

It is also unlikely that Pali was the language the Buddha spoke, but it is bound to be close. There is evidence too that at least some parts of the Pali canon was translated from another dialect. Does it matter? Not really, but sometimes it does as there could have been mistranslations made during the process. Prof K.R. Norman has done a lot of work is this area.

There are plenty of Thai translations of the Pali scriptures available.

Chutai, when you say you chant the Lotus Sutra in ancient Chinese, are you sure it is not the Japanese pronounciation of the Chinese version? “Namyo hou renge kyou”? (assuming you are a follower of Nichiren). I wouldn’t say Chinese was the original language of the Mahayana since it begin in India, but certainly it is for a vast number of Mahayana Sutras which were composed in China, many were also composed in Tibet. I think there have been Indian manuscripts founds of the Lotus Sutra and other evidence that it was composed in India.

Thai is also used in Temples. The monks don’t speak in Pali or teach in Pali, except when teaching the language.

And, Buddhist books are also for sale in Thailand!

Bankei

[khaowong1]

Wow.. this is amazing. I am now staying at Wat Promkunaram in Phoenix Arizona, USA until Oct. when I go back to Thailand. I just yesterday recieved a call from a Thai monk who asked for my help in writing a book, in Thai, for Thai people, about what is Buddhism and about the basics of Buddha's teachings. I don't read Thai, but it seems there are a lot of books in Thai out there for chanting, but basic Buddhist teachings are hard to find. We are going to try and get together in Bangkok after I get back and try to hammer out a guide plan. I have most of the English versions of the basics of Buddha's teachings, we will probably use those as a guide.

As far as chanting done in Pali, I agree that most of the chanting is done as a meditation technique. And I for one like the Pali version better than the Thai or even English. Pali doesn't translate well. And for myself, I have my doubts if most of the people chanting in Pali, even monks, know the meanings.

[chutai]

You are forgetting the importance of rituals.

Offering food and chanting are ritual acts. Many westerners, myself included, generally downplay the role and benefits of ritual in Buddhism.

Please expand. Thanks

[sabaijai]

Wow.. this is amazing. I am now staying at Wat Promkunaram in Phoenix Arizona, USA until Oct. when I go back to Thailand. I just yesterday recieved a call from a Thai monk who asked for my help in writing a book, in Thai, for Thai people, about what is Buddhism and about the basics of Buddha's teachings. I don't read Thai, but it seems there are a lot of books in Thai out there for chanting, but basic Buddhist teachings are hard to find. We are going to try and get together in Bangkok after I get back and try to hammer out a guide plan. I have most of the English versions of the basics of Buddha's teachings, we will probably use those as a guide.

As far as chanting done in Pali, I agree that most of the chanting is done as a meditation technique. And I for one like the Pali version better than the Thai or even English. Pali doesn't translate well. And for myself, I have my doubts if most of the people chanting in Pali, even monks, know the meanings.

Actually there are hundreds, if not thousands, of books in Thai teaching basic Buddhism, as a visit to the Indapanno Archives in Bangkok or any Thai bookstore anywhere in the kingdom will confirm. Buddhadasa himself taught in the most basic way. Living masters who teach barebones, intuitive Buddhism include Phra Wudhijaya Vajiramedhi. There are many other less well-known monks and laypeople writing very simple booklets about basic tenets.

But always room for another perspective, which is what I would guess your friend has in mind. Best of luck.

[chutai]

Wow.. this is amazing. I am now staying at Wat Promkunaram in Phoenix Arizona, USA until Oct. when I go back to Thailand. I just yesterday recieved a call from a Thai monk who asked for my help in writing a book, in Thai, for Thai people, about what is Buddhism and about the basics of Buddha's teachings. I don't read Thai, but it seems there are a lot of books in Thai out there for chanting, but basic Buddhist teachings are hard to find. We are going to try and get together in Bangkok after I get back and try to hammer out a guide plan. I have most of the English versions of the basics of Buddha's teachings, we will probably use those as a guide.

As far as chanting done in Pali, I agree that most of the chanting is done as a meditation technique. And I for one like the Pali version better than the Thai or even English. Pali doesn't translate well. And for myself, I have my doubts if most of the people chanting in Pali, even monks, know the meanings.

Actually there are hundreds, if not thousands, of books in Thai teaching basic Buddhism, as a visit to the Indapanno Archives in Bangkok or any Thai bookstore anywhere in the kingdom will confirm.

That's what I thought, but not being a Thai reader didn't comment. Even in small bookshops - let alone larger ones - I've always seen several books displaying the photo of some Ajarn or another and have always thought those books to be expounding Dharma. There's also those that I've read , presumably translated from Thai-English.

[Jawnie]

Rituals are forms, also known as skillful means, that have arisen from the enlightened state. The rituals are transmitted to/from the minds of realized beings and then passed to the human realm (and other realms). These forms, or rituals, when practiced in the proper manner and with the proper attitude, communicate and transmit aspects of the enlightened mind directly to the mind of the participant. Generally though, for rituals to be effective requires participants to adopt fairly conservative and introspective lifestyles and attitudes. That is, take vows and commit to rigorous ethical behavior for a long time. I think this is why westerners have a hard time with rituals - they can't handle the prerequisite lifestyle changes, and also because the Christian West doesn't accept Buddhist ritual per se, including those who claim to be Buddhists. It's also why the success rate for achieving realization is so low for westerners.

You are forgetting the importance of rituals.

Offering food and chanting are ritual acts. Many westerners, myself included, generally downplay the role and benefits of ritual in Buddhism.

Please expand. Thanks

[JurgenG]

I read long time ago that after the death of Buddha, his followers start "singing" his original teaching in order not to forget it, and also not to alter it. If someone make a mistake, it's easy to spot it when everybody sing together.

If my memory serves me well, the last time the monks meet to "sing" the teaching of Buddha, it was in Burma.

Can someone confirm if there is any truth in this story or if it's just a ... "story"

[thailandadam]

I'm wondering what Thai's usually think about or ask when they are praying? Does anyone know?

[Groongthep]

It's also why the success rate for achieving realization is so low for westerners.

I would be curious to know what metric one uses to measure "achieving realization" in westerners vs others. My intuition tells me the only one who could possibly know if enlightenment had been obtained would be the individual him/her self. Attempting to judge others and their individual spiritual understanding and/or progress is in itself a very unskillful pursuit especially when referring to very large groups such as (all) westerners.

[Jawnie]

You raise an interesting point but I'm sticking to my conclusion. It is not the individual who determines whether they are realized or not. It is the tradition, and the realized masters, the emanations, within the tradition who recognize those who are realized. In Tibet, a single master might have 50, 100, 500, or more students who eventually became enlightened or achieved realization. There are no similar groups of westerners like this; if there were, it would be well known and publicized. In any case, I for one, don't buy your premise that no one else can know or that only the individual can say. Part of the path in gaining wisdom is being able to correctly identify those who are beneficial for traversing the path and those who have a negative effect. In other words, the path teaches how to develop wisdom to discern what to accept and what to reject.

I'm wondering what Thai's usually think about or ask when they are praying? Does anyone know?

[Groongthep]

It is not the individual who determines whether they are realized or not. It is the tradition, and the realized masters, the emanations, within the tradition who recognize those who are realized.

Forgive me but I am always skeptical of claims that one tradition is in any respect better than another. Did the Buddha not teach that we should "be a light unto ourselves"? How does one determine if some Tibetan monks routinely have large numbers of enlightened followers or not without simply accepting the monks word on it? Perhaps they do, I don't know, but how would one ever determine if someone else had reached enlightenment unless you had reached that stage yourself? When one goes around claiming that he/she is enlightened or claims that others are so, then I tend to be even more skeptical since most respected Buddhist teachers of all traditions seldom, if ever, make such claims.

I respect your opinion, but I would offer this as food for thought:

Do not go by revelation;

Do not go by tradition;

Do not go by hearsay;

Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;

Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;

Do not go by a view that seems rational;

Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;

Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;

Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;

Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...

Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.

Kalama Sutta - Angutarra Nikaya 3.65

Italics added by me.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Groongthep

[Jawnie]

Sorry Mr. Groongthep, but your inconsistencies have me between 'a rock and a hard place' in providing an answer that might move the topic forward. You said in a previous post that it is only up to the individual to acknowledge their own realization but here you say you would be skeptical of someone who did so. Similarly, your list of quotes of things we should not do, including relying on 'the authority of sacred texts,' is from, well, a sacred text. If that's true, how can I possibly rely on anything in your list?

I did not say monks had large groups of followers, I said emanations had large groups of followers - the distinction makes all the difference in the world. An emanation is the actual embodiment of the enlightened state. It is they who have large groups of followers who eventually attain realization.

Being skeptical of religious traditions, etc., is really an old, worn-out argument that has gone out of fashion. On the one hand, religious traditions in the past have made some mistakes and people of followed them much too naively. On the other hand, they contain the collected knowledge of the great religions of the world. What's the answer? Follow a tradition that works for you. Just because you can't find one that works for you doesn't mean they don't have value and meaning for lots of other people.

It is not the individual who determines whether they are realized or not. It is the tradition, and the realized masters, the emanations, within the tradition who recognize those who are realized.

Forgive me but I am always skeptical of claims that one tradition is in any respect better than another. Did the Buddha not teach that we should "be a light unto ourselves"? How does one determine if some Tibetan monks routinely have large numbers of enlightened followers or not without simply accepting the monks word on it? Perhaps they do, I don't know, but how would one ever determine if someone else had reached enlightenment unless you had reached that stage yourself? When one goes around claiming that he/she is enlightened or claims that others are so, then I tend to be even more skeptical since most respected Buddhist teachers of all traditions seldom, if ever, make such claims.

I respect your opinion, but I would offer this as food for thought:

Do not go by revelation;

Do not go by tradition;

Do not go by hearsay;

Do not go on the authority of sacred texts;

Do not go on the grounds of pure logic;

Do not go by a view that seems rational;

Do not go by reflecting on mere appearances;

Do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it;

Do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent;

Do not go along because "the recluse is our teacher."

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: These things are unwholesome, these things are blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; and when undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them...

Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them.

Kalama Sutta - Angutarra Nikaya 3.65

Italics added by me.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Jawnie

[IMA_FARANG]

Her father came from China

That's the key to the practice of offering food to the Buddha. It is more a Chinese tradition than something from Thai practice.

I've seen the same thing in Vietnam, Penang Malysia, and Singapore ... usually in areas with a large number of Chinese/local ethnic residents.

It always seemed "normal" to me to see offerings of food being made to a Buddha image because Vietnam was the first place I was exposed to Buddhisim, and I just assumed that making such offerings was what all Buddhists did.

[Xangsamhua]

Sorry Mr. Groongthep, but your inconsistencies have me between 'a rock and a hard place' in providing an answer that might move the topic forward. You said in a previous post that it is only up to the individual to acknowledge their own realization but here you say you would be skeptical of someone who did so. Similarly, your list of quotes of things we should not do, including relying on 'the authority of sacred texts,' is from, well, a sacred text. If that's true, how can I possibly rely on anything in your list?

The Kalama Sutta is wheeled out lots by Westerners. It appeals greatly to our way of thinking about proclamations, not just religious ones. I, too, find it affirming, but I wonder if we make too much of it.

Having come out of a religious culture where people, including myself, used proof-texts all the time to back up our claims on all sorts of matters - often unwisely and unskillfully - I'm now a bit wary of them.

From memory, the Buddha advised the Kalamas to judge the validity of any teaching by whether it was harmful or benign, without going into criteria for these - it was up to the Kalamas to decide for themselves. But the Buddha wasn't really saying that his teachings were to be taken or left as just another option on the table. His whole career consisted of teaching with an authority that he claimed was absolute - beyond anything else on offer, past, present and future. He never took the pragmatist view that "if it works for you, it's true for you". In exhorting his monks to be a lamp unto themselves after he had passed on he wasn't inviting them to work things out for themselves, but to follow the Dhamma that he had taught them.

And the Dhamma was not written down at that point. The Buddha didn't teach from sacred texts. Though he was familiar with some of the Vedic (unwritten) texts and made some (usually indirect) references to them, he didn't subscribe to them. In fact, he tended to turn them on their head in order to get his point across in discussions with Brahmins.

Obviously written texts are very helpful to us. The Pali Canon is a treasure that reveals much of what the Buddha and his early followers thought and taught, but I don't know that it's good for proof-texting. It was written down, copied and edited over time. Although there is surprising consistency between the Pali, Chinese and Tibetan versions of the early texts, it's clear that editing did take place in those early years and that inconsistencies appear probably because the early editors simply didn't really understand what the Buddha was saying, especially when he was responding to Brahmin disputants. However, as a whole, as a compendium of the Buddha's and his early followers' teaching, the scriptures tell us a lot - but perhaps not by singling out particular statements or particular suttas. Each sutta has to be seen in the context of the whole collection, and I would suggest that, on the whole, the Buddha, as a religious teacher rather than a philosopher, was proclaiming, not hypothesizing or putting tentative views on the table for people to take up or leave out as they chose.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Xangsamhua