The Buddha instructed his disciples, and those who had not yet decided whether or not to follow him, to question the teachings. He said to be sure that the teacher and the teachings are the correct path before giving one's self over to them. The emphases the Buddha put on investigating the truth and not just blindly following his instructions shows how much he wanted people to be sure of the Dhamma, to learn the Dhamma, to live the Dhamma. He did not want people to just participate in these lessons of existence without actually believing in them. This is a level of investigation that the Buddha not only recommends to his students, but implores to the whole world. It is a wonderful quality of his teachings. However, there seems to be a little confusion regarding this particular trait of the Buddha's instruction, and it appears some people think the Buddha actually meant for there to be followers of the Dhamma while not believing in the actual Dhamma as an absolute structure of reality itself and how one should act within this reality (that being constructs of ontology and ethics) or that he himself, the Thathāgatha, the self-realized fully awakened one, was not the greatest teacher of the actual truth of existence (in this particular age of this particular world cycle). This is a misunderstanding to be sure. The Buddha most certainly wanted people to believe in his teachings, for themselves, from conviction and determination that the teachings were actually true. What he did not want, was people believing in the teachings without any meaning behind that belief, an empty faith that amounted to nothing but following a herd. This, however, in no way implies that the Buddha thought people could make their own arbitrary belief systems and be on a path to liberation. It also does not imply that the Buddha wanted people to believe in the Dhamma yet somehow think the Dhamma was not an absolute structure of reality.
One argument I seem to hear is that the Four Noble Truths, and other teachings, are open to interpretation. While I may not agree with that totally, I can certainly agree with the idea that the Four Noble Truths are conceptualized differently for each person. What I don't see, is how this makes the Four Noble Truths itself, as the Buddha taught it, a mundane structure that is not universal to the Dhamma. He certainly would not want someone to not believe in the Nobel Truths, this would not be a follower of the Dhamma in his eyes. The fact that people may hold the Truths differently than others does not make them any less of a teaching that is required. They are called the Truths for a reason. They are taught, by the Buddha, as absolute Truths of reality, ones in which a person must understand in order to progress towards liberation. This doesn't mean everyone must understand them the same way, the Buddha never suggested that. He was well aware that people thought differently and held concepts in personal ways that can not be compared to others. This is why he would give different teachings to different people, depending on their need and ability. However, the Truths are still the Truths. They are not the Maybe's, or the If You Understand's, or the Only If You Feel Like Believing's, they are absolute qualities of existence, according to the Buddha's teachings.
In the Alagadupama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Buddha compares his teachings to a raft. He said that the lessons he gives of the Dhamma should be used like a raft going from one shore to the other. At the other shore, the raft would be discarded. This famous simile is discussing the difference between mundane reality (the shore of departure) and absolute reality (the shore of arrival) and the means in which to get there, the teachings of the Buddha, which is only given in conventional language and must be discarded once one realizes the absolute Truth. There is most certainly absolutes as taught by the Buddha, and in order to even begin to understand these absolute constructs one must believe in the teachings. But belief is not enough, one must hold these teachings as truth through faith and conviction, one must come to this decision of belief on their own with great determination. The famous teachings of the Kālāma Sutta are lessons in how to do that, you can read my explanation for this here.
There are many times the Buddha called for people to not only question the teachings, but to question the validity of the Buddha himself. The Vīmaṃsaka Sutta is a discourse given to his disciples teaching them to question his own authority and knowledge. However, again, this did not mean that one could still be a follower of the teachings, yet not believe that the teachings were of Truths beyond language and conception, Truths that are absolute, according to the Buddha.
The Buddha after telling his students to question his own validity-
“Bhikkhus, when anyone‟s faith has been planted, rooted, and established in the Tathagata through these reasons, terms, and phrases, his faith is said to be supported by reasons, rooted in vision, firm; it is invincible by any recluse or brahmin or god or Mara or Brahma or by anyone in the world. That is how, bhikkhus, there is an investigation of the Tathagata in accordance with the Dhamma, and that is how the Tathagata is well investigated in accordance with the Dhamma.”
Faith must be ROOTED, must be ESTABLISHED. The Buddha was talking of conviction through questioning, not a chronic state of doubt concerning what he actually taught, a chronic state that one would be comfortable with, this would not be considered a follower of the teachings by the Buddha (this doubt is actually an unwholesome quality of consciousness, yes, a quality of consciousness that is unwholesome absolutely, called vicikicchā in Pāli). He said to "be a refuge on to yourself" in the Mahaparinabbana Sutta, not so that you create your own truths arbitrarily, but that you create your own truths fully ROOTED in those that the Buddha is teaching. Truths beyond the actual teaching that one must have faith in. This statement of his to "Be your own refuge" does not mean to create your own truths, it means to "be your own refuge" within the triple refuge of the Teachings: The Dhamma, which is absolute- The Buddha, self-realized fully and awakened one that brought the teachings of the absolute to mundane reality through language- and the Sangha, the warriors of the Buddha who keep the flame of the teachings alive.
There are different interpretations as people understand the teaching differently, no doubt. People hold the teachings in different ways, of course. People live the teachings in their own capacity, I completely agree. But in order for a group of people to have different interpretations, to understand something in their own way, implies a greater structure that they are interpreting FROM. There must be an overarching construct that which people understand in their own way FROM. Just saying people believe in the Noble Truths differently does not mean that there is not a unified belief system within Buddhism. In fact, saying that implies there MUST be a unified belief system, otherwise there would be nothing from which to reference these differences.
I am not against a more modern interpretation of the Dhamma. I am not even against people taking some parts of the Buddha's teachings and leaving out the supernatural essence of the teachings. Following an ancient existentialism that promotes compassion and wisdom sounds like a wonderful path. What seems to be a problem though, are attempts at proof, not very coherent ones, that the Buddha himself was not teaching a belief structure that was universal, or that he would tolerate someone claiming to be his devout follower without attending to his lessons.
The Buddha could be very strict, many times he admonished his students for not following the rules or observing the teachings.
The Catuma Sutta-
The Blessed One addressed the venerable Ananda thus: “Ananda, who are these loud noisy people? One would think they were fishermen hawking fish.”
“Venerable sir, they are five hundred bhikkhus headed by Sariputta and Moggallana who have come to Catuma to see the Blessed One. And while the visiting bhikkhus were exchanging greetings with the resident bhikkhus, and were preparing resting places and putting away their bowls and outer robes, they have been very loud and noisy.”
“Then, Ananda, tell those bhikkhus in my name that the Teacher calls the venerable ones.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” he replied, and he went to those bhikkhus and told them: “The Teacher calls the venerable ones.”
“Yes, friend,” they replied, and they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. When they had done so, the Blessed One asked them: “Bhikkhus, why are you so loud and noisy? One would think you were fishermen hawking fish.”
“Venerable sir, we are five hundred bhikkhus headed by Sariputta and Moggallana who have come to Catuma to see the Blessed One. And it was while we visiting bhikkhus were exchanging greetings with the resident bhikkhus, and were preparing resting places and putting away our bowls and outer robes, that we were very loud and noisy.”
“Go, bhikkhus, I dismiss you. You cannot live with me.”
Trying to manipulate the actual words of the Buddha to somehow fit an individualistic modern mind-set where everyone can do as they please as long as they believe they are being compassionate is not healthy for anyone. It is misinterpreting the actual teachings, it is infringing upon tradition, and it is an outward attempt to validate individuality via a teaching while trying to appear nonchalant about teachings. If the consensus is that the Buddha taught people to come up with their own belief systems arbitrarily, solidifying people's belief that one did not need absolute truths or teachings in the first place, why then do people care so much about what the Buddha taught? Why search for teachings of a structure that verifies the need for no teachings of a structure? Again, a modern interpretation of Buddhism is not an issue for me, I actually think that it can be a very good thing. However, understanding what the Buddha actually taught and what context he taught it in is paramount. Otherwise, we are just creating our own truths, and if that is all we are doing, why look towards the Buddha at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment