Befriending Buddhist Sutras

John T. Bullitt, "Tips on Reading the Pali Discourses" (accesstoinsight.org); Wisdom Quarterly

(Linc060/flickr.com)

 

(Linc060/flickr.com)

"Thus should one train: 'We will listen when discourses -- words of the Wayfarer, deep, profound, transcendent, impersonal -- are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping and mastering.' That is how one should train." (SN 20.7)

 

The ancient Pali canon contains thousands of sutras (Pali, suttas) or discourses, of which more than 1,000 are now available in English Access to Insight. When faced with such a vast store of riches, three questions naturally spring to mind:

1. Why should I read the sutras?
2. Which ones should I read?
3. How should I read them?

There are no simple cookie-cutter answers to these questions; the best answers will be the ones discovered on one's own. Nevertheless, here are a few ideas, suggestions, and helpful tips from years of experience.

Why read sutras?
Interested in exploring the original teachings of the historical Buddha? Then the Pali canon is the place to turn for authoritative advice and support through discourses. These sutras are the primary source of Buddhist teachings. We need not worry whether the exact words in standardized/chanted/memorized discourses were uttered by the historical Buddha. Who can prove such a thing? Keep in mind that the teachings in discourse form have been practiced -- with success -- by countless followers for 2,600 years. If we want to know whether the teachings really work, we study and put the teachings into practice and thereby find out firsthand.
 

They present a complete body of teachings. The teachings, taken in their entirety, present a complete roadmap guiding the follower from one's current state of spiritual maturity onwards toward the final goal. No matter what our current state may be (skeptic, outsider, dabbler, devout lay practitioner, or celibate monastic), there is something in the sutras to help us progress another step further along the path towards the goal. As one reads more and more widely in the canon, we may find less of a need to borrow teachings from other spiritual traditions, as the Buddha's discourses contain most of what we need to know.  

The Buddha addresses the Five Ascetics as well as countless devas.

 

They present a self-consistent body of teachings. 

  

The consistency of the canon is characterized by a single taste [Ud 5.5] -- that of freedom. As we wend our way through them, however, from time to time we encounter things to question. Contradiction, apparent or real, presents a need for a nuanced understanding of the Dharma translated into words and symbols. The truth simply is; the Dharma is a systematic attempt by the Sangha to present the message of the Buddha.

 

As we reflect deeply on any stumbling blocks, conflicts often dissolve as a new horizon of understanding opens up. It was our understanding that was deficient, not the Dharma's. For example, we might conclude from reading one sutra [Sn 4.1] that Buddhist practice should be to avoid all desires. But upon reading another [SN 51.15], we learn that wholesome-desire itself is a necessary factor of the path. 

 

Only upon reflection does it become clear that what the Buddha taught is that there are different kinds of desire. Sensual craving  is not the same as an aspiration for the goal of ending all suffering. 

 

Some things are actually worth desiring -- most notably, the extinction of all harmful craving.

 

This is not the Dharma changing. It is our understanding that needs expanding into unfamiliar territory to encompass both sutras; the apparent "contradiction" evaporates. Over time we learn to recognize apparent conflicts not as inconsistencies in the discourses themselves but as an indication that we have been carried to the frontier of our understanding. It is up to us to cross beyond the boundaries of ignorance.

  

Sutras offer lots of practical advice. We find a wealth of practical information on a host of relevant real-world topics such as: 

• how families can live happily together [DN 31],
• how to safeguard material possessions [AN 4.255],
• what sorts of things are worth talking about [AN 10.69],
• how to cope with grief [AN 5.49],
• how to train the mind even on our deathbeds [SN 22.1],
• much, much more. 

In short, the Buddha's teachings offer very practical and realistic counsel on how to find happiness, no matter what our life-situation may be, no matter whether or not we call ourselves "Buddhist." There is even instruction on how to meditate [e.g., MN 118, DN 22] although writings cannot take the place of a competent teacher/guide. (This may be very hard to accept in the West, but it has been understood to be a necessity throughout India's spiritual history).

 

Sutras bolster confidence in the Buddha's wisdom. As we explore we come across things we already know to be true from our own direct experience. The Buddha said them 26 centuries before we had a chance to experience them. We may already be well acquainted with the hazards of alcoholism [DN 31]. Perhaps we've already tasted the kind of wholesome pleasure that naturally arises in a concentrated mind/heart [AN 5.28]. 

 

Reading is not believing; experience is (Keira Sutra baby/Hansong/flickr.com)

  

Seeing our own experience validated in the sutras makes it easier to accept the possibility that the more refined or advanced experiences the Buddha describes may be true. And some counter-intuitive and difficult teachings may, in fact, reflect realities we were not yet familiar with. This validation can inspire renewed confidence and energy to help our meditation, daily practice, and understanding move into new territory.

  

Energy and confidence support and further energize our meditation (bhavana, self-cultivation) practice. When we read about other people's meditation experiences, we may begin to get a feel for what we have already tasted or accomplished in our own practice and what remains to be done.

 

Reading them is just plain good for us. Instructions contained in them are entirely of a wholesome nature. For they are all about the cultivation of skillful qualities such as generosity, virtue, patience, joy, concentration, mindfulness, and so on. 

 

Therefore, when we read we are filling our heart/mind with wholesome things. Consider by contrast all the harmful impressions modern media bombards us with. A little regular sutra becomes an island of sanity and safety in a dangerous sea. Take good care. Whereas reading a sutra is a great first step, it is taking good advice to heart that bears the fruits of wisdom and compassion. More

Read More

How to lead a Buddhist life 1: Poisons

Dhr. Seven, CC Liu, Amber Dorrian, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly (edited from Alankhoo)

The 14th Dalai Lama admonishes happy Westerners (overgrownpath.com)

  
The fundamental message of Buddhism (of all previous buddhas) was summarized by Shakyamuni in the Dhammapada ("Dharma-path"):

 

To not do any harm,
To cultivate all that's good,
To purify one's mind --
This is the teaching of all buddhas.

 

The instruction is simple, but that does not mean the practice of it is easy. Even a three-year-old child knows this much, but that is not to say that such a child can practice it. Even a 100-year-old can hardly manage to put it into practice in daily life.

VIRTUE

Kwan Yin Bodhisattva (123Chic/flickr.com)

Virtue (sila) is the preliminary stage on the path to enlightenment whether as a disciple (savaka, "hearer") or as a supremely-awakened teacher (buddha). It is a necessary but insufficient condition, a foundation for the concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna) essential for liberation.

  

Virtue in Buddhism is practical, ethical, and based on personally verifiable individual experience in this very life. It is regarded as the one of the best moral codes ever taught in the world, as it avoids extremes on both sides.

What is the criteria of virtue in Buddhism? In one admonition given by the Buddha to his son, the new and very young monk Rahula, an answer is discernible: 

"If there is a deed, Rahula, you wish to do, reflect: 'Is this deed conducive to my harm, to another's harm, or to harm for both?' If so then this is an unprofitable deed leading to suffering when it eventually comes to fruition. From such a deed, wishing to avoid suffering, you should desist.'

"If, however, there is a deed you wish to do, reflect: 'Is this deed neither conducive to my harm, to another's harm, nor to harm for both?' If so this is a profitable deed leading to happiness when it eventually comes to fruition. Such a deed do again and again."

  

So a Buddhist takes into consideration the interests of everyone involved -- oneself, the other, and "both" [the collective or everyone impacted, which includes future generations, animals, unseen beings, and the environment.]

  

To better understand this standard of virtue, one may study the Dhammapada, a collection of Buddhist aphorisms preceded by their origin story. Many other sutras are also very helpful. The most useful to lay Buddhists is the "Advice to Householders" (Sigalovada Sutra), a discourse with additional fragments that form a long sutra explaining the reciprocal duties of everyone in society -- children (like Sigala), parents, teachers, monastics, bosses, workers, servants, and friends. Also see:

• Vyagghapajja Sutra
• Mangala Sutra
• Mutta Sutra
• Parabhara Sutra
• Vassla Sutra
• Dhammika Sutra

THE THREE POISONS

Good (profitable) deeds are essential for one's emancipation. And when the ultimate goal (enlightenment/seeing nirvana) of the supreme life is attained, one transcends both good and bad. Virtue is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is not that it is pleasing to some deity (though such deities may indeed be pleased by it, having reached their delightful rebirth due to it). It is that it leads to everyone's relief and happiness.
  

There are three "poisons" or unwholesome roots. In Mahayana Buddhism's "Flower Adornment Sutra" states that all detrimental karma created in the past is based on beginningless greed, hatred, and delusion born of body, mouth, and mind.
  
Wishing to no longer do harm but to become helpful and compassionate, one turns around. We have all done harm, and that is nothing to feel bad about. Instead, repenting of past harm, one reforms without wallowing in guilt (which would be a serious form of unskillful mental karma).  Rather than guilt, one lives anew, in the now, becoming a blessing to oneself and others.

  

In the ancient original sutras as well as the later Mahayana Repentance Verse, the distinction between what is "good" (beneficial) and what is "bad" (harmful) is straightforward: It hinges on the intention or motivation from which an action (karma) springs. "Karma" just means action, but the Buddha clarified that what gives karma its direction is intention (cetana). Deeds that are associated with greed/attachment, hatred/aversion (and fear), and/or delusion/ignorance are harmful.

  

These three "poisons" of the heart/mind -- broad categories called greed, hatred, and delusion are called the "Three Poisons" and the "Three Unwholesome Roots." They are the primary source of all suffering by their intrinsic nature. It is for this reason that the Buddha pointed them out to his hearers. It is because the three antidotes -- broad categories called simply nongreed, nonhatred, and nondelusion -- ripen in happiness that he pointed them out and encouraged seekers in that direction. 

Ancient temple complex, Indonesia (LittleMissBigFeet/flickr.com)

  
Ultimately, one does not become attached to either. But in the meantime, the good is helpful (when the real goal is liberation) in all places everywhere -- even in harmful scenarios. For example, it is only because of past good karma that a criminal succeeds in business, not because of the unwholesome business s/he is engaged in now. It is very hard to accurately label anyone "good" or "bad" because prior to full enlightenment, everyone is a mix of both. But not all of it is manifesting its results at the present time. It will.

  

So we may consider ourselves "good" but know that our motives are flawed even as others applaud us. Moreover, we may consider ourselves "bad" forgetting how much good (nonharming) we do everyday. It all stores up and comes to fruition opportunistically. And the one thing almost everyone wishes on his/her dying bed is having racked up a greater store of merit, which follows one into lives to come.

These three -- craving, aversion (including cowardice), and confusion -- create all bad karma. What makes it "bad"? The results, when experienced, are unpleasant, unwelcome, and unwished for. One may think that "Crime doesn't pay." But it does pay for a while, as one exhausts one's store of merit. When it is exhausted and one begins to experience the results of unwholesome karma, it is universally unpleasant and unwelcome.

  

Unskillful karma results in all kinds of unsatisfactoriness, unpleasantness, disappointment, distress, and suffering of all kinds. But this is not due to a strict cause-and-effect relationship. For if it were, everyone would know it and understand it. It is infinitely more complex, a net, a web, an entanglement, a thicket. Nevertheless, many seers discern general laws (axioms). Like begets like, good good and bad bad. We do unto others knowing that that is what will (eventually) come to us. The thought that it will or should come immediately to us is a delusion a wrong view, and that leads to disappointment.

  

The Buddha to come (Snap-shooter/flickr.com)

The law of karma is much more subtle, much more uneven or asymmetrical. The little good we do becomes great; the little harm is magnified. Killing, for instance, is very harmful and is not easily exhausted. It may drag us at the time of death to realms of woe, the return from which is very difficult and uncertain.
  
And even when we return to the human world or better, it may still dog us. In just the same way, a small good grows. It connects to other good and forms the basis of far greater good than it should if karma were "cause and effect." One cause will have many effects, and each of those effects will go on to become a cause.

The Three Poisons are an obstacle, a hindrance, a frustration to attaining merit (a general term for one's store of good karma). So it is something we are wise to abandon by all means. And even if we do not abandon the unwholesome, it is extremely beneficial to cultivate the good. Why else are "bad" people handsome, rich, debonair, cunning (intelligent), and so on? It is not from cultivating harm but rather by misspending it through current choices.

GREED

Greed (sensual desire, craving) is the proximate cause of many offenses. The five greedy or selfish desires are for wealth, sensual enjoyment, fame, eating, and sleeping. 

  

Greed-based desire is endless and can therefore never be satisfied. The lesser the greed we entertain, the happier and more satisfied we are. The best prescription to deal with greed is giving (letting go) for the benefit of others. 

  

HATRED
Hatred (aversion, anger) is another cause of unwholesome karma. When we lose our temper and get angry, we are unhappy while making others miserable as well. The best prescription for calm and patience is kindness and appreciative joy (or again and again reflecting on the harm that arises based on hate).

DELUSION
Delusion (wrong views, ignorance, confusion) means holding persistent beliefs at variance with reality, distortions, perversions, misunderstanding, or simply not knowing any better. The best prescription is mindfulness (not "thinking" but being clearly cognizant of the present moment). It is also very useful to hear the Dharma, investigate it, ask questions, observe, and think (or at least reflect) in an objective manner. It is very useful to avoid or abandon our prejudices, which only hinder our understanding.

 

For instance, if we don't believe in karma (the fruition of deeds long after they are performed in accordance with an impersonal law or principle that is not a judgment by the universe or a god. Instead, we usually commit offenses in line with our mistaken belief or wrong views and much later suffer the natural result. CONTINUED IN PART II

Read More

Making "Merit" in Buddhism

Wisdom Quarterly edit of Wikipedia entry "Merit"

The Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha vowed to save others even from the hells (en.topictures.com)

  
The best merit contributes to one's growth towards liberation (nirvana, moksha, full emancipation). But it is generally useful and welcome however it manifests.

Merit can be gained in a number of ways. Before the Buddha's time, it was customary to pray and make vows (deals). Others chanted Brahminical-style mantras and engaged in unprofitable rites and rituals: 

   

According to a latter day Mahayana Buddhist invention, the Sutra of the Great Vows of Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva, one can "transfer" 1/7th of the merit of an act performed to a deceased loved one such as in the Shitro practice in order to diminish the deceased's suffering in his or her rebirth.

   

"Transferring" merit is possible but not in the way we might imagine. IF one makes merit then "shares" it by offering it for the benefit of relatives (which extend seven generations back) not able by their circumstances to perform very many profitable deeds, AND those relatives approve of such deeds, MERIT is produced by their approval. It is actually their own doing with the help of the living.

   

Great Sivali, an arhat of astounding merit, abundance

The extent of their merit is measured by the meritoriousness of the deed of which they approve (commend, laud, rejoice, and delight in).

      

Giving to the noble Sangha or the Buddha or giving the gift of the Dharma (Dharma-dana) is superior karma most beings in the universe do not have access to and of which few have knowledge.

   

Beings able to receive this transfer of merit is limited, but it is possible. And it is meritorious to offer. Shakespeare's ghost writer was right when he borrowed someone else's observation noting that mercy does not dissipate by being expressed; it is only strengthened:

  

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest....

(Wm. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice)

  

Transferring Merit
Pariṇāmanā is a Sanskrit term that may be translated as "transfer of merit" or "dedication." It involves helping others by generating merit then sharing it and thereby accruing even more as a result of having shared. The recipient to whom it is dedicated then has the opportunity to also generate merit IF s/he approves of the deed.

  

As humans we need never feel jealous or envious of others' accrual of good deeds, their riches of merit. Instead by approving, applauding, and rejoicing in them, we generate profitable mental karma based on the strength of their good. Our commendation and happiness for them, as well as the special strength of the deed(s) we are approving, enriches us. Unlike limited resources -- gold, greenbacks, oil, wage slaves, precious gems -- merit is a boundless fountain of happiness.

  

Sadly, the same goes for unprofitable karma: Often without realizing it we approve and applaud, sometimes silently at heart, karmically unwholesome deeds. One example is the death penalty. Or we celebrate the mistreatment or killing of others we have labelled "enemies" and members of other groups we distinguish ourselves from. 

   

Rejoicing in the foolish misbehavior of others (violating precepts, holding to wrong views, encouraging actions motivated by greed, aversion, and delusion) brings us harm. This is mental karma bearing a mental resultant and later coming to fruition as miserable outward circumstances.
  
In fact, merely suggesting or praising or encouraging that one kill another (e.g., abort) or commit suicide -- if that person then does it -- makes us co-guilty of the action from a karmic standpoint.

  

Three Bases of Merit

There are three bases of merit. In the "Meritorious Deeds" sutra (AN 8.36, A 8.4.6), the Buddha identifies them:

• giving (dāna-puñña)
• virtue (sīla-puñña)
• cultivation (bhāvanā-puñña)

And in the "Chanting Together" sutra (DN 33, Verse 38), Sariputra identifies the same three.

   

In the Khuddaka Nikaya's Itivuttaka (Iti. 1.22), these bases are defined as: giving, self-mastery, and refraining. In the same discourse the three are restated as: giving, a serene life of mental calm, and a mind of good-will (metta, universally extended friendship).

   

More Merit

Buddhist monastics accrue merit through Buddhist meditation (developing karmically profitable qualities), mindfulness (staying aware of the present moment), sustained contemplation (anussati), wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) while chanting sutras, personal restraint, higher virtue, preserving the Dharma for the human world, teaching the Dharma for the benefit of all beings, and practicing in accordance with the Dharma for the sake of liberation of oneself and others. It is not either-or, it is both.

   

A post-canonical commentary elaborates on the three bases of merit (D.III,218) by stating that lay practitioners can make merit by performing seven other actions:

1. honoring others
2. offering service
3. inviting and involving others in skillful deeds
4. rejoicing, being thankful, and appreciative for others' good deeds
5. listening or studying the Dharma
6. instructing others in the Dharma
7. straightening one's own views in accordance with the Dharma (ditthujukamma).

Read More

The Dalai Lama, Science, Buddhism and the Kalama Sutra.

One of the reasons I am a Buddhist, is in how the DL answers the first question about science and Buddhism. He is asked, "What if science confirms something that contradicts your faith?"*Note: Sutta and Sutra refer to the same thing but are from two different ancient languages.

James: How many belief systems out there are willing to adapt when new scientific proof contradicts their teachings? Not many. The Dalai Lama's sane and realistic response echoes one of my favorite sutras, the Kalama Sutra. It also happens to be a large chunk of the foundation of my Buddhist belief. In short, it is a sutra that echoes the scientific method of testing and observation. It is the Buddha talking about doubt, but not in the pejorative way that some religions do. He was asked by villagers in an Indian town, how do we know which teachers to believe? He told them not to believe teachers simply because they are teachers, or traditions simply because they are long held ones, nor from sutras simply because they are said to be beneficial. At the same time, we shouldn't trust either our own preferences because they are almost always based on wrong perceptions of what is helpful and less helpful.

So, how does he advise us to know if we should practice Dharma? After hearing or reading about the Dharma, he advises that we put the teachings into practice for a time and contemplate on how they affect our lives. I feel this is best explained in the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta:

Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do. -From the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone. Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

This same sutta instructs us further on the matter and I encourage you to read its entirety; it's not that long, really, I promise). However, since we can't always rely upon our mind and practice to interpret actions as either skillful or unskillful, we should check the conclusions we reached from contemplation against the experiences of wise ones. How do you know if said, "wise ones" are indeed, wise and trustworthy? Well, try investigating the Cula-punnama Sutta for answers, which says:

And how is a person of no integrity endowed with qualities of no integrity? There is the case where a person of no integrity is lacking in conviction, lacking in conscience, lacking in concern [for the results of unskillful actions]; he is unlearned, lazy, of muddled mindfulness, & poor discernment. This is how a person of no integrity is endowed with qualities of no integrity. -From the Cula-punnama Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Full-moon Night. Translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Keep in mind, however, that the Kalama Sutta isn't Buddha saying to go out and do whatever you want because the "Buddha said I didn't have to listen to anyone." That is not what he is saying. This sutta doesn't replace doctrines like the Four Noble Truths, the Three Jewels and the Eightfold Path, but it does give us a realistic blueprint for how to practice spirituality without being duped by charlatans and zealots.

***By the way, "wise ones" aren't automatically Buddhist teachers or spiritual teachers, at all. The Cula-punnama Sutta goes on further to speak of other qualities of a wise person you can trust. It is quite exhaustive with examples, so if you want further details, I encourage reading the entire sutta. It's another short one, so please don't be daunted by the fact that these are ancient suttas. They are extremely understandable and approachable thanks to the tireless efforts of the great Theravada monk Thanissaro Bikkhu. All the quotes I've used in this post come from his greatly appreciated translations. I am also grateful to the Shambhala SunSpace who posted this video on their excellent blog. Thanks for the idea!!

(bowing)

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

In Defense of the Kalama Sutra.

My writings lately on the Kalama Sutra being a Buddhist version of the "scientific method" have sparked a discussion about its essence. Found here. And, so, I decided to make a new post using my comments addressing the points of the readers Dylan and Jayavara. Dylan mentioned a discourse of the Kalama Sutra by the Theravadan monk Bhikkhu Bodhi. I won't speculate on Dylan's intentions in posting that link but I do disagree slightly with the Bhikkhu's analysis on the sutra. I want to make it clear that I'm not ascribing any of the following Bhikkhu Bodhi comments as being the same of Dylan. In the discourse, the Bhikkhu seems to reject the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a guide for knowing when a teaching of Buddha's is helpful. Bhikkhu Bodhi said:

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

James: I am not saying in my post that Buddhists should dispense with all faith and doctrine because of this sutra. I think you should be balanced with both faith and reason. As for this sutra being specifically for the Kalama people and not applying to actual Buddhists; I would disagree because many who first read the sutra are already Buddhist practitioners. Additionally, to say that certain sutras are only for Buddhists and others for non-Buddhists is a form of dividing people and denying the oneness of all beings that Buddha taught. All of us can learn from the sutras whether we are full blown, card carrying, Buddhist or just investigating Buddhism. To say some teachings are just for Buddhists seems somewhat elitist. All of us come to Buddha to dispel our doubts and answer our questions of life. Not just Kalamas. To suggest otherwise is to say that Buddhists don't need to dispel doubts or answer questions. It seems to suggest that Buddhists already have it all figured out, which clearly isn't true.

Bhikkhu Bodhi goes on to say: Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. 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.

James: Here the Bhikkhu seems to be saying that the four noble truths are only for Buddhists. How then do you teach someone about Buddhism (as the 4 noble truths are apart of the very foundation of Buddhism) without mentioning the four noble truths? The idea that Buddha would categorize those seeking his wisdom doesn't jive with my own experience and with other teachings of his in other sutras. And I gain that insight from using the admonitions in the Kalama sutra to use (in-part) one's own experiences and observations as a guide. Not the only guide but a necessary tool to help figure out what makes causes less harm and what doesn't. Then Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to contradict himself and agree with the line of thinking that I was expounding upon.

Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening.

James: Here he seems to be backing up the idea of using the Kalama Sutra as a "control" to assess further the core of Buddha's wisdom and enlightenment. He calls it an "acid test" (which is a scientific test). Just like the idea of it being a form of the "scientific method." In the end, you have to make up your own mind about this sutra by putting it to the test. Like all of the Buddha's teachings in the Sutras. While I do put a lot of weight behind the Kalama Sutra I also advocate (as the Bhikkhu does) cultivating faith and adhering to doctrine that one finds helpful. I don't agree that the Kalama Sutra only applies to non-Buddhists. If it's not a sutra that Buddhist practitioners should listen to then why is it in the "sanctioned" Pali Canon?

Then, my friend Jayavara said the following when addressing my last post: I think we are in danger of over cooking the (so-called) Kālāma Sutta. Yes, it is a charter for an empirical approach, but to what?. But there are quite a number of limitations on this approach. The Buddha seems to be only talking about the moral sphere in that discourse. He is telling the Kālāmas that they should decide what is ethical on the basis of what they know to be good. There was then, as now in our societies, some doubt as to the basis of morality. Specifically moralities based on ideas of karma and rebirth of which there were a number of variations at the time.

This can be seen in the varied ways that karma is talked about in the Pāli texts themselves, and in texts which are likely to date from near that time like the early Upaniṣads, particularly the Bṛhadāranyaka. The Buddha was suggesting natural morality to the Kālāmas - i.e. that they don't go on ideology, but on "what they know to be right". But I don't think he goes beyond this into the sphere of meditation or wisdom and there we cannot use it as a measure for judging any teachings per se, but only for judging the suitability our own actions. Because of the subjective nature of Buddhist morality - it's all about what's going on your mind when you act - it makes applying the scientific method quite difficult. Science is all about repeatability and on the level of individual actions, none is ever repeatable.

So we tend to look in hindsight, and to try to assess actions collectively. At best it gives us broad brush strokes like: "refrain from acting when angry otherwise you will cause harm, or at least unhappiness." This is indeed the kind of truism that 'social scientists' come up with after years of research, which make us wonder why we fund such 'science'. I've trained in both disciplines - Science (I have a B.Sc in chemistry) and Buddhism. I do find some cross fertilisation. But it's more a spirit of enquiry and observation, than a full blown application of scientific method. And since it is all very subjective, all about knowing my own mental states, the scientific method has little to get a purchase on. In short there is nothing to measure. Learning from experience is not necessarily the scientific method - everyone does it. The only way to know if a teaching 'works' is to try it out for yourself.

James: Just because Buddha is mainly speaking to the Kalamas about karma and rebirth doesn't mean that the wisdom can't be applied to other teachings that one is doubting or investigating. For example, the heart sutra applies to many situations. As does the Diamond sutra and others. I think compartmentalizing his teachings as addressing only the people he is directly speaking to in a particular sutra; and about only that specific situation presented, is limiting the impact of the Dharma. We are limiting the Buddha's scope. Faith also requires us to have faith in ourselves that we can adapt Buddha's teachings to guide us in all situations. Otherwise, none of us should be following ANY of the sutras because they were all spoke to people that are long dead. So how can any of the sutras apply to us if we are to only look at them in the context of who he was historically addressing?

To teach otherwise seems to be focusing more on protecting a particular tradition or dogma than encouraging direct experience based on the faith in Buddha as a wise teacher. As we know, there are many varied schools of Buddhism. So, if it's possible to have such diverse styles of practicing the Dharma then surely it's possible to interpret the sutras several ways. And apply them to several time periods and situations. It feels like limiting the scope of Buddha's wisdom. I would only somewhat disagree with you that all actions aren't repeatable. If Buddha is specifically saying in the Kalama Sutra that testing his teachings will help you realize whether they help cause less harm or not then I think testing them to see if greed (for example) causes harm is pretty repeatable. As millions throughout varied ages have discovered the same reality that greed is harmful using the directions from Buddha to not accept anything that causes you harm.

I don't mean to say that the advice in the Kalama Sutra is EXACTLY like the scientific method. But that there are similarities, which would seem to be beneficial in understanding the wisdom of the Dharma to the modern mind that is so influenced by science. I agree that the only way to know if a teaching works is to try it. Just like the only way to know if a scientific hypothesis is right is to try it in a test. That's why I compared such advice to the scientific method. Again, they aren't exactly the same but both provide a way to test ideas based on direct, concrete actions. I also don't suggest that we should only follow our direct experience and intuition. Of course, faith and trust in our teachers is important as well.

~Peace to all beings~

PHOTO CREDIT: Students in the Emory Tibet Science Initiative take turns, looking through a microscope. Emory University.

Read More

Having the Kalama Sutra as a Foundation.

My last post mentioned the Kalama Sutra and a discussion in the comment section had me analyzing this fundamental sutra further. Doug commented how the Kalama Sutra hit him like a bolt and is aiding him in gaining a deeper, and wider awareness of the Dharma.

I have mentioned here before that I have been (and still am) deeply influenced by science. I don't agree with some Buddhists who say the Dharma and science have nothing in common, or shouldn't in fact interact. I think the Kalama Sutra teaches otherwise. That is because it is an early form of the scientific method. It's similar in my mind to a, "scientific control" which allows one to access a particular process (Dharma practice) without too much bias from other influences. In Buddhist practice we're talking about such biases as our ego, an overly controlling teacher or peer pressure.

The Kalama Sutra gives us a framework to judge teachings by to see if they work. Including all the other sutras. In my opinion, it is the jumping off point for continued analysis of the other sutras. Others encourage starting from the Heart Sutra or the Diamond Sutra. I adore the Heart Sutra, and the others but I find that understanding the Kalama Sutra first to be a great help in understanding the others. But I digress. Do the teachings help me and the people around me suffer less? Do they help bring happiness and peace into life? The Buddha is advising us to test his teachings and those of all teachers that come after him because otherwise we are simply parroting someone else. It doesn't end suffering to simply be able to parrot someone else and recite all the teachings ever written or committed to memory. That's simple obedience and memorization. That takes you nowhere but back into the arms of the ego.

We have to experience it for ourselves. We have to let our minds marinate in their essence and observe how they affect our daily lives and interactions. If the teachings help us be nicer, happier and much more peaceful people; and if they help us suffer less than we know that what has been taught to us is beneficial and worth continuing to learn from. If, however, a teacher makes us feel worse about ourselves or contradicts our direct experience on the matter then you can know that the teacher is leading you astray.

The Buddha didn't want people to follow him or worship him but rather he wanted his fellow siblings (us) to experience the peace and relief from suffering that he experienced. Thus, because of this humble sharing of a sincere person he shows us that he is not Buddha because of some desire for self-aggrandizement or other stroking of the ego. Encouraging people to test his teachings and those who claim to follow in his tradition is the exact opposite of the blind obedience that some religious traditions engender. Where others want to tell you what to think, (and what to ignore) Buddha invites us to follow his map and see for ourselves if it leads anywhere beneficial. It's in our own hands and any teacher who won't encourage or allow for direct experience in their teachings is not one who would seem to fully understand the Buddha's invitation.

~Peace to all beings~

Read More

Why I Chose Zen Buddhism.

When we practice zazen [Zen Meditation] our mind always follows our breathing. When we inhale, the air comes into the inner world. When we exhale, the air goes to the outer world. The inner world is limitless, and the outer world is also limitless. We say "inner world" or "outer world," but actually there is just one whole world. In this limitless world, our throat is like a swinging door.

The air comes in and goes out like someone passing through a swinging door. If you think, "I breathe," the "I" is extra. There is no you to say "I." What we call "I" is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It just moves; that is all. When your mind is pure and calm enough to follow this movement, there is nothing: no "I," no world, no mind nor body; just a swinging door.

--Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind.

James: I often am asked why I chose Zen Buddhism over the other Buddhist traditions. I have written about this before but I'd like to write about it again, however, hopefully from a bit of a different angle. I respond well to the stripped down nature of Zen Buddhism as seen in this quote by the Zen legend Suzuki. I was raised in a very dogmatic religion and found it to be less helpful and I think that past experience led me in part to Zen, which (in my view) the least complicated form of Buddhism. For me it demystifies Buddhism and does a great job of focusing on the basics of Buddha's Dharma.

As well as the focus on Zazen (meditation) because that is something that I can easily understand and implement. I continue to study the sutras and canons and I certainly do not want my readers to think that I don't value them at all nor think them necessary to understanding Dharma because they do overall offer essential wisdom. That said, I find it more valuable in my personal practice to spend more time meditating than doing rituals (thought I find some ritual to beneficial) and keeping track of deities except as archetypes. I also like that Zen (in my view) is a bit more flexible in regards to dogma.

I find great success in Thich Nhat Hanh's style of Zen, which gets back to the very basic teachings of Buddha such as focusing on one's breath (as mentioned by Suzuki) while meditating and extending that formal meditation practice to everything that I do. So that mindfulness is the center of my practice, which cuts through the fat so to speak to better enable self-awakening. In my practice I have found that focusing on living in the present moment is where the essence of Buddhism flowers like a lotus.

I like that Buddhism has many flavors because it is more proof to me that karma is indeed apart of our lives. I believe it is this varied karma that, in part directs us toward one school of Buddhism over another. I'm currently reading the new book by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "Becoming Enlightened" for a review and he speaks about these different variations in Buddhism.

When teachings at particular students are examined as a body of work, it is possible for their surface of literal meanings not to be in agreement, since their purpose is to help in ways appropriate to a student's current situation. Buddha himself sometimes taught this way, based on a trainee's need.

He also has some real gems of wisdom in warning against a stubborn, strict adherenace to dogma:

For a teaching to be a suitable source of refuge, it must pass the scrutiny of reasoned reflection and must be highly beneficial. A famous Chilean scientist told me that a scientific researcher should not be attached to science, and I believe that in much the same way a Buddhist should not be attached to Buddhist doctrine as such, but instead should value teachings and teachers that can bear investigation into their validity. The scientific attitude and the Buddhist approach are the same in this case.

Now, of course some dogma is essential to maintaining a religion but I have personally found that a little goes a long way. Remember though that this is my personal experience, I'm not a sanctioned teacher nor a Buddhist scholar but have seen the damaging effects of a heavy handed dogma.

So while I am a Zen student I find much to agree with in these two quotes from the Dalai Lama as well as from many of the great Theravadan teachers. I think all traditions of Buddhism have something essential to offer the others. I don't think that there is one form that is "superior" to any other but again that the variations are there to take into account our different karma, life experiences and socio-economic-cultural differences.

Read More