Narayanjot ji,
Sometimes I’d rather not be identified as coming from a Buddhist perspective given especially that my understanding is so very different from almost every other Buddhist. And as you know, there are so many traditions and within each of these what is considered mainstream is more a matter of popularity than adherence to the original texts. What comes under the Mahayana is varied to the extent of even having different root texts. And the Theravada, although there is the Three Baskets and the fact of the five councils having come to agree upon what constitutes ‘authority’, people have begun to openly reject not only the commentaries, but also the third basket, namely the Abhidhamma.
So not only are those who don’t consider themselves Buddhists ‘outsiders’, but each of these different schools are outsiders to one another. Therefore I think the label Buddhist is actually quite misleading. And although most of these would arrive at the conclusion that there is general agreement on basic principles, I for one am not so optimistic. When someone puts forward a comment which on the surface seem to agree with what I’d say, I’d see this as being due to reliance on vague understanding / lack of precision with regard to the concepts referred to. Upon further investigation, it invariably turns out that the understanding is so very different. You would remember my pointing out in another post, the difference between reading the texts as prescriptive of things to do vs. as description of the way things are, and this is one manifestation of what I consider a huge difference in understanding.
You asked:
<<That leads me to a different question. Now we have two Buddhists disagreeing on key points in the article. What criteria should a non Buddhist apply to determine whether " what makes sense" to us "conforms to what the Buddha taught" or is "diddly?">>
Some random thoughts which may or may not answer your question.
One famous phrase, an invitation by the Buddha is ‘Ehipasiko’, which means ‘come and see for yourself’. Most people read this to mean that one starts off hearing about something which appeals by way of reason or faith, and then through practice one comes to experience the truth of what is said. The general sentiment here is of a big difference between what is considered theory and what practice is. I on the other hand, seeing a very important relationship between ‘intellectual understanding’ and ‘direct understanding’, take ehipasiko to apply from the very outset when upon hearing the teachings; to be all about one’s life now and from moment to moment. Only that one knows also that this is only the beginning step, namely intellectual understanding and that one couldn’t have come to realize this without the Buddha’s teaching it, which then conditions an inclination to lend ear / interest to hearing more.
Failing this and due to other causes is what leads some people to instead think in terms of a difference between theory and practice and therefore ehipasiko as something which happens down the road in time. But the Dhamma is not ‘theory’, and the ‘practice’ is not the result of some projected idea and subsequent decision to apply. Indeed while the one is encouraging of confidence in the teachings, this latter leads to confidence in one’s own ability to make things happen, and like it or not, will only ever lead to more doubt in the future.
A little diversion now before I try to come back on the track. ;-)
It has been said in the Dhamma that the four factors to enlightenment is a) hearing the Dhamma, b) association with the wise, c) wise consideration of what one has heard and d) practice in accordance to the Dhamma (this refers to instances of direct understanding).
How does one know if what one has heard and that which seems to make sense is indeed what the Buddha intended? How does one come to determine who is wise given one’s own ignorance? And given that wrong understanding leads one to be interested in other ‘views’ but which must necessarily feel ‘right’ for those holding the view, how does one come to realize that this is indeed what is happening?
Hard to answer isn’t it?
In the end it is all “conditions’ at play from moment to moment for each individual. One can’t choose the place of birth and so too what is seen, heard, smelt and so on. Likewise, upon the experience through any of these senses, one can’t choose to have attachment or aversion or to think rightly or wrongly. Therefore when encountering the Dhamma, who can make right understanding arise if the tendency to wrong understanding is so much greater? Only right understanding can know what is right and it is wisdom that seeks wisdom. Wrong understanding on the other hand, finds what it seeks, not only in some false teacher but also reading the right set of texts, but with wrong understanding.
In the example of this very situation of me talking to you about what I claim to be the Buddha’s real teachings. If what I say is indeed correct, it would require the element of right understanding on your part to condition further interest in and continuation of the discussion and / or reading any literature that I may direct you to. But who would be the judge as to whether this is really the case? If I’m in fact wrong and you believe me, then it is akin to one blind leading another blind.
My own confidence in this particular way comes from the fact that it is all about the present moment experience which is all there is at any time. I cannot escape the fact for example, that no matter what I think this happens by conditions beyond control and therefore the imperative is always to understanding this. Even when I wonder about this or that text, this very thinking as being conditioned is the more important realization I’d need to come to. Similarly when involved in thoughts about morality and whether one course of action is right or wrong, this very mind now is what I need to come to understand, which would then be far more valuable than any reasoned out answers.
A friend from Australia often says that the Buddha in all that he taught meant his audience to understand it in terms of present moment realities. I do not wholeheartedly agree as I believe that in some cases he had this only as the long term goal and taught what would lead to it for those who were not ready to understand at the time. But although that was their level of understanding, the important thing is that they did not however insist on an interpretation of the Dhamma as a whole, of their own. They accepted that the Buddha *knew* and was giving them the best suggestions / reminders. And although I don’t agree fully with my friend, I accept what he suggested when applied to my own reading of the texts. No doubt people today are far less likely to understand at the needed level, but unlike the more humble disciples of the Buddha, many of these people take what they want saying that this applies to their level, yet underlying it all is a statement about what the Buddha must have meant ultimately and stubbornly insisting on it.
This is an example of being diddly. In other words, when instead of being drawn to the present moment one is caught in ideas about a ‘self’ and past and future and then reading what the Buddha taught through the kind of lens. After all there is really no interest to understand in this case, but instead to promote one’s own hidden agenda. And although there is sometimes talk about ‘sense of urgency’ to get on with the practice etc., because there is no inclination to considering the mind *now*, this again must be just ignorance and craving directing the show and reflects in fact no real sense of urgency. It is really hard to attend to the present moment, after all if this happens, what would be discovered is the extent of one’s own ignorance and other unwholesome tendencies. So much easier to flit off into ideals about what ‘self’ is and needs to do in order to then ‘become’, whereby goals are set and appear reachable.
But alas, it is all about conditions and there is nothing anyone can do to change the course of events towards some projected goal. And as a wise man once said:
No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.
And you should be impressed as far as I’m concerned, by this quote. ;-)
