Buddhism Today - Too Smart By Half

[huli]

People continue to discuss, explain, and distill Buddha's teachings of 2500 years ago, and this seems both very positive and inevitable. However, one bemoans the fact that, for so many people, they want to improve on them by adding complexity, and their own, supposedly advanced, spin.

It is probably inherent in human nature. People just want to be personally prominent. The allure of prestige is so strong, and the satisfaction of creating something unique and lofty bolsters the self.

Here we have a tremendous effort to remember and then finally record the words of the Buddha, creating a set of sutras that are agreed to be the most accurate in existence. Now, can we all agree these are the basis of Buddhism? No.

Take Buddhism to China and Japan, pretty soon they have their own sutras, popped out of the ether, with new teachings. Ha! Do you really think China or Japan wants to adopt an Indian teaching? Got to improve on that. The 8-Fold Path to Enlightenment? Not important because Enlightenment is transmitted directly from one who has it. Oh, yea, and we are already Buddha. Sitting meditation isn't really necessary. Really a Buddha isn't all that great, bodhisattvas are way bettter.

Or lets make a ton of rituals and chanting of mantras of prime importance. Never mind that Buddha advised not to be attached to rituals.

Nowadays, we still discuss if there is a soul or not, pretending Buddha did not answer that question. Is Nirvana a noun or a verb? Whose opinion do you agree with? Funny, if we are Buddhists why don't we read what Buddha had to say about Nirvana instead of asking each other? Not with faith, but with the simple and sincere effort to try to understand. Modern day commentators make their name by criticizing other commentators, and not in an entirely scholarly way, by trying to destroy them and their motives (Peacock vs Buddhaghosa). It's sad.

Endless parsing of words, and attempts by people to take Buddhism to the next level, rather than understand it as Buddha taught.

Too smart by half.

[rockyysdt]

For these reasons it's important not to cling to any particular conclusion or way, but to continue daily practice of the eightfold path, and to live with compassion.

As the Buddha said, seek the answers for yourself (personal experience) through practice.

I think, non adversarial discussion has its benefits.

It's a way of sharing knowledge and thought, and aids personal investigation, a quality which the Buddha taught.

Such Forums and the world wide web enables us to share our knowledge and guidance.

As to its authenticity, contributors are able to seek out, air and debate their thoughts.

Regular practice is the key.

A big concern of human nature and our conditioning, is that we have difficulty perceiving (becoming aware of, know, or identifying by means of the senses).

Rather than evaluating each contact on its own merits, we tend to associate it with preconceived beliefs/conditioning.

Our perception is colored. This is why we begin with belief and perceive/analyse sensory contact based on our conditioning.

Often when debating or discussing a point, participants tend to become polarized behind their existing beliefs, rather than taking onboard new information and putting it to the test.

This is why ritual and tradition is so powerful.

Observing the reaction of an adherents by challenging their values and beliefs is a good way of gauging ones attachments and ability or willingness to test these or defend them.

A good measure of perception vs conditioned response is to look for motive through self awareness.

Am I debating to win (ego) or am I debating to uncover truth and grow.

If it is the latter, I should be willing to be flexible in my beliefs.

Edited April 28, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

A good measure of perception vs conditioned response is to look for motive through self awareness.

Am I debating to win (ego) or am I debating to uncover truth and grow.

If it is the latter, I should be willing to be flexible in my beliefs.

But have you applied this to yourself? For months you've been promoting John Peacock's ideas as if they were the gospel truth and without applying any critical thinking to them. You never seem to doubt him, you disregard all evidence to the contrary and you don't bother to check the work of other scholars who don't agree with him. Have you considered the possibility that you believe him because he's telling you exactly what you want to hear?

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

It's nothing new to be sceptical about rebirth in other realms, etc. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. That's dualistic thinking. Back in the 30s John Blofeld was wandering around China asking Tibetan masters questions such as whether the Boddhisattvas were "out there" with an external reality or all in our mind. And the masters would answer, "It's the same thing."

Most of the monks who are teaching the dhamma in English today recommend focusing on the here and now and simply not worrying about the metaphysical side of Buddhism. That way we can get moving along the path and reap the benefits it offers. This kind of agnostic Buddhism works fine for many of us and there is no chance of somehow "following the wrong path."

[rockyysdt]

But have you applied this to yourself? For months you've been promoting John Peacock's ideas as if they were the gospel truth and without applying any critical thinking to them. You never seem to doubt him, you disregard all evidence to the contrary and you don't bother to check the work of other scholars who don't agree with him. Have you considered the possibility that you believe him because he's telling you exactly what you want to hear?

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

It's nothing new to be sceptical about rebirth in other realms, etc. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. That's dualistic thinking. Back in the 30s John Blofeld was wandering around China asking Tibetan masters questions such as whether the Boddhisattvas were "out there" with an external reality or all in our mind. And the masters would answer, "It's the same thing."

Most of the monks who are teaching the dhamma in English today recommend focusing on the here and now and simply not worrying about the metaphysical side of Buddhism. That way we can get moving along the path and reap the benefits it offers. This kind of agnostic Buddhism works fine for many of us and there is no chance of somehow "following the wrong path."

Perhaps, but I have often written, a number of times, that I travel with an open mind to either possibility.

That if I realize enlightenment and become involved with Nibhanna l would acknowledge this.

By airing Peacocks interpretations considerably, one could say I've either made up my mind or accept him as the gospel.

Rather than having made up my own mind, l felt it was important to give this other plausible possibility an airing for discussion.

Up until I listened to his Dhamma talks I was only exposed to strict Theravadan views as if these were the true and only acceptable understanding.

Bringing these views to the forum was my way of attracting critical thinking through the resource of forum members.

I'm still haven't been convinced by others critiques that Peacock is incorrect.

You mention Ven Thanissaro warning of not following preferences, but l don't know of any way I can use to test the action of Kharma nor re birth over many lifetimes.

On the other hand I understand that the Buddhas teaching that self and consciousness is a process, and there is no soul, and that we are experiencing many moments which give rise to re birth of the next moment (like a movie), can be captured through our practice of self awareness and concentration(self experience).

Isn't Ajarn Buddhdasa's teaching of moment to moment re birth, over re birth to many lives, an authority and evidence that can be quoted in support of Peacocks theories?.

After all he was an Arahant.

Edited April 29, 2012 by rockyysdt

[hookedondhamma]

But have you applied this to yourself? For months you've been promoting John Peacock's ideas as if they were the gospel truth and without applying any critical thinking to them. You never seem to doubt him, you disregard all evidence to the contrary and you don't bother to check the work of other scholars who don't agree with him. Have you considered the possibility that you believe him because he's telling you exactly what you want to hear?

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

It's nothing new to be sceptical about rebirth in other realms, etc. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. That's dualistic thinking. Back in the 30s John Blofeld was wandering around China asking Tibetan masters questions such as whether the Boddhisattvas were "out there" with an external reality or all in our mind. And the masters would answer, "It's the same thing."

Most of the monks who are teaching the dhamma in English today recommend focusing on the here and now and simply not worrying about the metaphysical side of Buddhism. That way we can get moving along the path and reap the benefits it offers. This kind of agnostic Buddhism works fine for many of us and there is no chance of somehow "following the wrong path."

Perhaps, but I have often written, a number of times, that I travel with an open mind to either possibility.

That if I realize enlightenment and become involved with Nibhanna l would acknowledge this.

By airing Peacocks interpretations considerably, one could say I've either made up my mind or accept him as the gospel.

Rather than having made up my own mind, l felt it was important to give this other plausible possibility an airing for discussion.

Up until I listened to his Dhamma talks I was only exposed to strict Theravadan views as if these were the true and only acceptable understanding.

Bringing these views to the forum was my way of attracting critical thinking through the resource of forum members.

I'm still haven't been convinced by others critiques that Peacock is incorrect.

You mention Ven Thanissaro warning of not following preferences, but l don't know of any way I can use to test the action of Kharma nor re birth over many lifetimes.

On the other hand I understand that the Buddhas teaching that self and consciousness is a process, and there is no soul, and that we are experiencing many moments which give rise to re birth of the next moment (like a movie), can be captured through our practice of self awareness and concentration(self experience).

Isn't Ajarn Buddhdasa's teaching of moment to moment re birth, over re birth to many lives, an authority and evidence that can be quoted in support of Peacocks theories?.

After all he was an Arahant.

Karma on the surface is something I've heard many explain along the lines of cause and effect. Any hard pondering about or dissecting its intricate system - is probably something that should be avoided (Acintita Sutta - I know you are a supporter of Mr. Peacock, but could you possibly check out the translation by Ajaahn Thanissaro?)

Those are both tricky things, Rocky. There are many 'arahants' in Thailand whose carry a distinct manner of conveying Dhamma. So while Aajahn Buddhasa's teachings were quite vibrant at the time, they don't appeal to everyone (as Luang Ta Maha Bua's don't appeal to everyone as well). Though that what I've gotten out of Buddhadasa's teachings about the moment-to-moment re-birth was that it is something to be aware of, to know ones state of mind in the here and now to avoid doing any karma by body, speech, or mind and suffering the results of that (vipaka) later.

Many have had some earth-shaking reality, by staying in the present, by practicing. It's well known and documented by former 'arahants' that if there were any hang-ups about their practice, they'd go find a knowledgeable Aajahn to clear them up. By all means, those Aajahns still exist today. But those Aajahns aren''t necessarily the Thai Visa forum. I don't know where you're located, but you could always call up Wat Metta, his temple, in California if you can't understand Thai or speak it. Something to consider - you may be able to rest a little after speaking with him. Sometimes the internet doesn't have everything we're looking for).

[rockyysdt]

But have you applied this to yourself? For months you've been promoting John Peacock's ideas as if they were the gospel truth and without applying any critical thinking to them. You never seem to doubt him, you disregard all evidence to the contrary and you don't bother to check the work of other scholars who don't agree with him. Have you considered the possibility that you believe him because he's telling you exactly what you want to hear?

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

It's nothing new to be sceptical about rebirth in other realms, etc. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. That's dualistic thinking. Back in the 30s John Blofeld was wandering around China asking Tibetan masters questions such as whether the Boddhisattvas were "out there" with an external reality or all in our mind. And the masters would answer, "It's the same thing."

Most of the monks who are teaching the dhamma in English today recommend focusing on the here and now and simply not worrying about the metaphysical side of Buddhism. That way we can get moving along the path and reap the benefits it offers. This kind of agnostic Buddhism works fine for many of us and there is no chance of somehow "following the wrong path."

Perhaps, but I have often written, a number of times, that I travel with an open mind to either possibility.

That if I realize enlightenment and become involved with Nibhanna l would acknowledge this.

By airing Peacocks interpretations considerably, one could say I've either made up my mind or accept him as the gospel.

Rather than having made up my own mind, l felt it was important to give this other plausible possibility an airing for discussion.

Up until I listened to his Dhamma talks I was only exposed to strict Theravadan views as if these were the true and only acceptable understanding.

Bringing these views to the forum was my way of attracting critical thinking through the resource of forum members.

I'm still haven't been convinced by others critiques that Peacock is incorrect.

You mention Ven Thanissaro warning of not following preferences, but l don't know of any way I can use to test the action of Kharma nor re birth over many lifetimes.

On the other hand I understand that the Buddhas teaching that self and consciousness is a process, and there is no soul, and that we are experiencing many moments which give rise to re birth of the next moment (like a movie), can be captured through our practice of self awareness and concentration(self experience).

Isn't Ajarn Buddhdasa's teaching of moment to moment re birth, over re birth to many lives, an authority and evidence that can be quoted in support of Peacocks theories?.

After all he was an Arahant.

Karma on the surface is something I've heard many explain along the lines of cause and effect. Any hard pondering about or dissecting its intricate system - is probably something that should be avoided (Acintita Sutta - I know you are a supporter of Mr. Peacock, but could you possibly check out the translation by Ajaahn Thanissaro?)

Those are both tricky things, Rocky. There are many 'arahants' in Thailand whose carry a distinct manner of conveying Dhamma. So while Aajahn Buddhasa's teachings were quite vibrant at the time, they don't appeal to everyone (as Luang Ta Maha Bua's don't appeal to everyone as well). Though that what I've gotten out of Buddhadasa's teachings about the moment-to-moment re-birth was that it is something to be aware of, to know ones state of mind in the here and now to avoid doing any karma by body, speech, or mind and suffering the results of that (vipaka) later.

Many have had some earth-shaking reality, by staying in the present, by practicing. It's well known and documented by former 'arahants' that if there were any hang-ups about their practice, they'd go find a knowledgeable Aajahn to clear them up. By all means, those Aajahns still exist today. But those Aajahns aren''t necessarily the Thai Visa forum. I don't know where you're located, but you could always call up Wat Metta, his temple, in California if you can't understand Thai or speak it. Something to consider - you may be able to rest a little after speaking with him. Sometimes the internet doesn't have everything we're looking for).

Thanks H o D.

I'm in either Australia or Thailand.

I won't make this crossroad a hindrance or blockage other than to explore what can be explored.

To me it doesn't matter which is correct other than to have aired it for others who may be hard and fast on one or the other.

I'm happy with the 4 Noble Truths/Eightfold Path practice and can appreciate both possibilities, which are improving my day to day life, as well as possibly connecting with the metaphysical if it exists.

Thank you for your thoughts and references.

Edited April 29, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

You mention Ven Thanissaro warning of not following preferences, but l don't know of any way I can use to test the action of Kharma nor re birth over many lifetimes.

I think you're conflating two issues here. The first is what the Buddha actually taught. The second is whether you believe it or not. The Buddha taught that karma operates over multiple lifetimes. The fact that you can't prove it intellectually or experientially yet doesn't mean the Buddha taught something else. IMO it makes more sense to remain agnostic on this than to try and convince yourself that the Buddha had a different teaching entirely.

Isn't Ajarn Buddhdasa's teaching of moment to moment re birth, over re birth to many lives, an authority and evidence that can be quoted in support of Peacocks theories?.

After all he was an Arahant.

Was he? You accept this without question? In the books I've read, I never saw Ven Buddhadasa state that there was no rebirth over multiple lives.

[hookedondhamma]

But have you applied this to yourself? For months you've been promoting John Peacock's ideas as if they were the gospel truth and without applying any critical thinking to them. You never seem to doubt him, you disregard all evidence to the contrary and you don't bother to check the work of other scholars who don't agree with him. Have you considered the possibility that you believe him because he's telling you exactly what you want to hear?

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

It's nothing new to be sceptical about rebirth in other realms, etc. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. That's dualistic thinking. Back in the 30s John Blofeld was wandering around China asking Tibetan masters questions such as whether the Boddhisattvas were "out there" with an external reality or all in our mind. And the masters would answer, "It's the same thing."

Most of the monks who are teaching the dhamma in English today recommend focusing on the here and now and simply not worrying about the metaphysical side of Buddhism. That way we can get moving along the path and reap the benefits it offers. This kind of agnostic Buddhism works fine for many of us and there is no chance of somehow "following the wrong path."

Perhaps, but I have often written, a number of times, that I travel with an open mind to either possibility.

That if I realize enlightenment and become involved with Nibhanna l would acknowledge this.

By airing Peacocks interpretations considerably, one could say I've either made up my mind or accept him as the gospel.

Rather than having made up my own mind, l felt it was important to give this other plausible possibility an airing for discussion.

Up until I listened to his Dhamma talks I was only exposed to strict Theravadan views as if these were the true and only acceptable understanding.

Bringing these views to the forum was my way of attracting critical thinking through the resource of forum members.

I'm still haven't been convinced by others critiques that Peacock is incorrect.

You mention Ven Thanissaro warning of not following preferences, but l don't know of any way I can use to test the action of Kharma nor re birth over many lifetimes.

On the other hand I understand that the Buddhas teaching that self and consciousness is a process, and there is no soul, and that we are experiencing many moments which give rise to re birth of the next moment (like a movie), can be captured through our practice of self awareness and concentration(self experience).

Isn't Ajarn Buddhdasa's teaching of moment to moment re birth, over re birth to many lives, an authority and evidence that can be quoted in support of Peacocks theories?.

After all he was an Arahant.

Karma on the surface is something I've heard many explain along the lines of cause and effect. Any hard pondering about or dissecting its intricate system - is probably something that should be avoided (Acintita Sutta - I know you are a supporter of Mr. Peacock, but could you possibly check out the translation by Ajaahn Thanissaro?)

Those are both tricky things, Rocky. There are many 'arahants' in Thailand whose carry a distinct manner of conveying Dhamma. So while Aajahn Buddhasa's teachings were quite vibrant at the time, they don't appeal to everyone (as Luang Ta Maha Bua's don't appeal to everyone as well). Though that what I've gotten out of Buddhadasa's teachings about the moment-to-moment re-birth was that it is something to be aware of, to know ones state of mind in the here and now to avoid doing any karma by body, speech, or mind and suffering the results of that (vipaka) later.

Many have had some earth-shaking reality, by staying in the present, by practicing. It's well known and documented by former 'arahants' that if there were any hang-ups about their practice, they'd go find a knowledgeable Aajahn to clear them up. By all means, those Aajahns still exist today. But those Aajahns aren''t necessarily the Thai Visa forum. I don't know where you're located, but you could always call up Wat Metta, his temple, in California if you can't understand Thai or speak it. Something to consider - you may be able to rest a little after speaking with him. Sometimes the internet doesn't have everything we're looking for).

Thanks H o D.

I'm in either Australia or Thailand.

I won't make this crossroad a hindrance or blockage other than to explore what can be explored.

To me it doesn't matter which is correct other than to have aired it for others who may be hard and fast on one or the other.

I'm happy with the 4 Noble Truths/Eightfold Path practice and can appreciate both possibilities, which are improving my day to day life, as well as possibly connecting with the metaphysical if it exists.

Thank you for your thoughts and references.

You're welcome Rocky - I haven't been in the Buddhism forum for too long but I do commend your efforts for providing another point of view. It's not something I come across too often in Thai temples. Good luck in everything you do, and sincerely hope you achieve what you are striving for.

Edited April 29, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[rockyysdt]

Was he? You accept this without question? In the books I've read, I never saw Ven Buddhadasa state that there was no rebirth over multiple lives.

Am I misquoting him?

Did he teach rebirth over multiple lives?

If he didn't, is it possible that he was of a belief/knowledge, by writing about the opposite Moment to Moment interpretation?

Wouldn't openly coming out against a cornerstone view of the Theravadan tradition be controversial?

Edited April 29, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Be patient, Huli. Maybe these misguided souls with their rituals and chanting and dialectics, etc have something to offer. Certainly the Tibetan people I saw in Dharamsala, the pilgrims from all traditions at Bodh Gaya, the people in Bhutan, the Chan monastics and lay people at Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, all seemed aglow with the richness these traditions had brought them. For many Westerners, especially in the US, the different forms of Japanese-derived Zen have been liberating.

Buddhism as a religious faith, philosophy and practice has evolved over the years. No one doubts the special status of the Pali Canon, but it may not be the only vehicle or pathway to effective practice and genuine insight at both intellectual and intuitive levels.

I'm reminded of Jack Kornfield's story about Ajarn Chah. A former nun who had become a born-again Christian visited the wat and tried to convert the monks. They were annoyed and complained to Ajarn Chah. He just laughed and told them not to worry about it. "After all", he said, "she might be right!"

[huli]

Be patient, Huli. Maybe these misguided souls with their rituals and chanting and dialectics, etc have something to offer. Certainly the Tibetan people I saw in Dharamsala, the pilgrims from all traditions at Bodh Gaya, the people in Bhutan, the Chan monastics and lay people at Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, all seemed aglow with the richness these traditions had brought them. For many Westerners, especially in the US, the different forms of Japanese-derived Zen have been liberating.

Buddhism as a religious faith, philosophy and practice has evolved over the years. No one doubts the special status of the Pali Canon, but it may not be the only vehicle or pathway to effective practice and genuine insight at both intellectual and intuitive levels.

I'm reminded of Jack Kornfield's story about Ajarn Chah. A former nun who had become a born-again Christian visited the wat and tried to convert the monks. They were annoyed and complained to Ajarn Chah. He just laughed and told them not to worry about it. "After all", he said, "she might be right!"

Xangsamhua,

I know there is wisdom in your words.

I admit, I have a couple of favorite ideas. First, how much better off everyone would be if all Buddhists were on the same page. I agree that some of the evolved Buddhist traditions have been very good for Buddhism, but others seem more like heresy.

Second, that Buddhism is a unique religion (if I may use the word) based on mind-culture and not divine revelation.

I resist the often-stated opinion that all religions are the same. How can Christianity be the same as Buddhism? Maybe someday I'll see that, but I hope not! Really!

As a final point, it is my observation that people can seem aglow from a wide variety of incompatible beliefs, and some of them are really screwy. Seems good for them, tho'.

Thanks for the council.

[camerata]

Wouldn't openly coming out against a cornerstone view of the Theravadan tradition be controversial?

He had a lot of controversial views. By all accounts he was on a mission to wean Thais off merit-making Buddhism and get them to see the relevance of the dhamma to everyday life, so it wouldn't have made much sense for him to teach about future lives.

[AYJAYDEE]

Was he? You accept this without question? In the books I've read, I never saw Ven Buddhadasa state that there was no rebirth over multiple lives.

Am I misquoting him?

Did he teach rebirth over multiple lives?

If he didn't, is it possible that he was of a belief/knowledge, by writing about the opposite Moment to Moment interpretation?

Wouldn't openly coming out against a cornerstone view of the Theravadan tradition be controversial?

I dont mean to butt in but in my reading of his work, I always understood that he taught moment to moment rebirth but never denied multiple lives. What he did say was that if we practiced with the knowledge of moment to moment rebirths , there would be no need to worry about whether there were multiple lives or not.

[AYJAYDEE]

Be patient, Huli. Maybe these misguided souls with their rituals and chanting and dialectics, etc have something to offer. Certainly the Tibetan people I saw in Dharamsala, the pilgrims from all traditions at Bodh Gaya, the people in Bhutan, the Chan monastics and lay people at Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, all seemed aglow with the richness these traditions had brought them. For many Westerners, especially in the US, the different forms of Japanese-derived Zen have been liberating.

Buddhism as a religious faith, philosophy and practice has evolved over the years. No one doubts the special status of the Pali Canon, but it may not be the only vehicle or pathway to effective practice and genuine insight at both intellectual and intuitive levels.

I'm reminded of Jack Kornfield's story about Ajarn Chah. A former nun who had become a born-again Christian visited the wat and tried to convert the monks. They were annoyed and complained to Ajarn Chah. He just laughed and told them not to worry about it. "After all", he said, "she might be right!"

Hahahahahahahahahaahahahah! Thats Great! thanks!!

[weary]

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

To put the views and belief into practice and draw conclusions based on the result seems to me like a good way - if it does not work, it is better to discard it. To "check against the experience of people who are wise" would seem logical, but there is a big BUT: How to recognize a wise person, when the vast majority of us are afflicted with personal biases about what is wise or not?

To me, it makes the most sense to assume that the Shakyamuni Buddha, like all human beings, also had some preconceptions and flaws. I do believe he showed the way to Enlightenment, but I am not convinced that all citations in the Pali Canon are a] necessarily directly derived from what the Buddha said b] even those that are directly derived from the Buddha, may contain at least some bias due to the limitations of the Buddha's own experiences in Samsara.

If we believe that Enlightenment is possible for humans to achieve, and that it is possible to reach Enlightenment using at least partially different means than the Buddha did, then we must acknowledge that other Enlightened humans have pointed out paths/methods that lead to the same goal, and some of these are not identical with what the Pali Canon says the Buddha taught.

Maybe most of you are convinced that the Buddha's teachings as represented in the Pali Canon are the absolute and only way to Enlightenment. Then, of course, my reasoning will not seem valid to you.

Most Thais seem content with just taking the word of an Ajaan, or the word in the scriptures (if they can be bothered to read it) at face value - he must be right, he is the Ajaan - the scripture must be right, it is the Scripture - or at any rate, if they have doubt, not display that doubt. That does not work for me...

[rockyysdt]

As Ven Thanissaro says in his introduction to the Kalama Sutta: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

To put the views and belief into practice and draw conclusions based on the result seems to me like a good way - if it does not work, it is better to discard it. To "check against the experience of people who are wise" would seem logical, but there is a big BUT: How to recognize a wise person, when the vast majority of us are afflicted with personal biases about what is wise or not?

To me, it makes the most sense to assume that the Shakyamuni Buddha, like all human beings, also had some preconceptions and flaws. I do believe he showed the way to Enlightenment, but I am not convinced that all citations in the Pali Canon are a] necessarily directly derived from what the Buddha said b] even those that are directly derived from the Buddha, may contain at least some bias due to the limitations of the Buddha's own experiences in Samsara.

If we believe that Enlightenment is possible for humans to achieve, and that it is possible to reach Enlightenment using at least partially different means than the Buddha did, then we must acknowledge that other Enlightened humans have pointed out paths/methods that lead to the same goal, and some of these are not identical with what the Pali Canon says the Buddha taught.

Maybe most of you are convinced that the Buddha's teachings as represented in the Pali Canon are the absolute and only way to Enlightenment. Then, of course, my reasoning will not seem valid to you.

Most Thais seem content with just taking the word of an Ajaan, or the word in the scriptures (if they can be bothered to read it) at face value - he must be right, he is the Ajaan - the scripture must be right, it is the Scripture - or at any rate, if they have doubt, not display that doubt. That does not work for me...

You make compelling points.

In one of John Peacocks lectures he indicated that the Buddha engaged with his world.

He not only crafted his teachings around the beliefs of the time but also to specific audiences.

Perhaps, as you allude, he would engage in a different way if he was alive today.

Edited May 8, 2012 by rockyysdt