I'm no expert on the text or the tradition that follows, but it was the focus of (I believe) a full week of reading and discussion in my Intro to Buddhism college course and I have seen it used countless times by other Western authors and teachers. Yet I've also learned that it is traditionally an obscure text, rarely commented upon or used in teaching. And it has been suggested that our Western love of this sutta stems largely from our rejection of the other (Christianity for most of us).
The real impetus for this post, though, is a recent musing by Amod Lele, over at his wonderful blog Love of All Wisdom. There he describes his acceptance of "one and a half noble truths."
It makes me wonder:
- for Progressive Buddhists (if we so claim that label) - how do we approach such basic teachings as the Four Noble Truths?
- Do we need to accept them as a pretty basic starting point for our practice and understanding?
- Can/should we be skeptical as many suggest we should be toward karma and rebirth?
- Do we accept them with saddha (faith/confidence) for the tradition or our own teachers, or wait until we are fully awakened ourselves before we feel confident in endorsing the possibility of awakening?!
- When is healthy skepticism instead the fetter of doubt?
For Kyle's edification (see last post), I should note that's Amod Lele, PhD, Harvard University, Class of 2008 - hehe... And I am Justin Whitaker, PhD Candidate, University of London, 2010. Hehe.
ReplyDeleteThus you should accept our words as authoritative and meaningful and true and stuff like that.
Hi Other-Justin!
ReplyDeleteInteresting post.
The popularity or otherwise of the Kalama Sutra among 'traditional' Buddhists seems pretty immaterial. We are learning from the Buddha. One explanation may be that humans have an innate tendency towards religious behaviour - which includes encouraging faith-based behaviour and conformity and discouraging critical thinking.
Do we need to accept them as a pretty basic starting point for our practice and understanding?
Surely, our acceptance of them is our reason for following the path. Deciding to follow the path and then feeling a need to accept the reason for following that path afterwards seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Can/should we be skeptical as many suggest we should be toward karma and rebirth?
It is pragmatic and rational to base our provisional beliefs on reason, and direct or indirect evidence just as with everything else.
Do we accept them with saddha (faith/confidence) for the tradition or our own teachers, or wait until we are fully awakened ourselves before we feel confident in endorsing the possibility of awakening?!
Is it even possible to simply choose to genuinely believe something? Seems like a recipe for repression or self-deception to me. But again who ould follow the path if they hadn't arrived at some belief in some sort of awakening?
When is healthy skepticism instead the fetter of doubt?
There is a middle way between blind faith and skeptical doubt - it's called pragmatic empiricism. Ha!
It seems that most Western Buddhists are involved in something of a circular argument. The justification for our usual Western form of practice depends on a view of Buddhism that is itself Western. But you can't really get there starting from traditional Buddhism, so this suggests to me that Western Buddhism is not an outgrowth of Buddhism. At least, not in same sense that Mahayana is an outgrowth of Therevada. Isn't it largely an appropriation (in the best sense of the word) of some aspects of Buddhism to spiritualize a liberal, secular, athiestic worldview?
ReplyDeleteThe reason these sort of questions are asked is because it goes to the question of whether Western Buddhism is really legitimate, and I think we should accept that, from a certain standpoint, it isn't a legitimate evolution of the religion, it is an appropriation (in the worst sense of the word).
But on the other hand, no Western teachers justify their doctrines by claiming that they have discovered new sutras hidden by the Buddha and revealed to them by magic snakes, which is, as you know, one of the foundational myths of the Mahayana tradition. Religion traditionally evolves through this kind of song and dance that claims that regardless of the fact that things are changing, this is what God/Buddha/Moses/Mohammed really meant and we're just getting back to that.
But here's a crucial point: when a religion evolves, the reformers attempt to redefine the religion and impose that definition on others. The Mahayanists claimed the new way is not just better, it is the authentic Buddhism and all other forms are inferior.
Western Buddhists don't do this -- instead, the changes are portrayed as pragmatic, just a few adjustments and variations, less emphasis on the rituals to make Westerners a bit more comfortable, but the core teachings are intact. This is what makes Western Buddhism illegitimate, that Western Buddhists don't have the courage to stand up and say "This is the real Buddhism." Obviously in a more ecumenical way suiting the times, not disparaging other views, etc., but I think that this is what a "real" Buddhist would do.
It seems that most Western Buddhists are involved in something of a circular argument. The justification for our usual Western form of practice depends on a view of Buddhism that is itself Western. But you can't really get there starting from traditional Buddhism,
ReplyDeleteUm...we didn't start from traditional Buddhism.
so this suggests to me that Western Buddhism is not an outgrowth of Buddhism.
It's the offspring of both Buddhism and Western culture. All forms of Buddhism reflect they culture appear in.
The reason these sort of questions are asked is because it goes to the question of whether Western Buddhism is really legitimate,
The Buddhist world is full of squabbling about who is and is not allowed to be a 'legitimate Buddhist'. Divisive and pointless in my opinion.
Religion traditionally evolves through this kind of song and dance that claims that regardless of the fact that things are changing, this is what God/Buddha/Moses/Mohammed really meant and we're just getting back to that.
I'm no fan of bad or distorted scholarship. Much of the reason for this sort of thing is the fight over legitimacy mentioned above.
Western Buddhists don't do this -- instead, the changes are portrayed as pragmatic, just a few adjustments and variations, less emphasis on the rituals to make Westerners a bit more comfortable, but the core teachings are intact. This is what makes Western Buddhism illegitimate, that Western Buddhists don't have the courage to stand up and say "This is the real Buddhism."
Because they don't distort the past to gain the appearance of legitimacy is what makes them legitimate? I don't get it.
"Because they don't distort the past to gain the appearance of legitimacy is what makes them legitimate? I don't get it."
ReplyDeleteJust like every nation was founded on an illegal action, which is then declared legal retroactively within the new regime. Every religion and branch of religion is justified in the same way: a myth, a distortion.
As secular modern people, we've rejected this and want to base our spirituality (and reverence for the Buddha) on more rational grounds, but this tendency is precisely what separates us the most from traditional Buddhists. From this perspective, we Western Buddhists have much more in common with the Christians and Jews who adopt a similar position, than we do with Asians who are nominally our coreligionists.
Thanks for pointing out this sutra, you are right, it is a wonderful piece. Though I would say their is a fundamental difference between faith and belief.
ReplyDeleteLOL Justin, I am glad you took my somewhat satirical post with a good sense of humor. Though I'm sure Dr.Lele is less than enthused with my opinions. :-)
Thansk for the post. For the record, Kesamuttisuttaṃ and Kālāmasuttaṃ and Kesaputtisuttaṃ are all different names used for this sutta before the advent of self-styled Western Buddhists. I come from a tradition of people who prefer Kesaputtisuttaṃ, but Kalama Sutta rolls off the tongue much more nicely in English.
ReplyDeleteLots of excellent food for thought here - many thanks.
ReplyDelete@Kyle, having met Amod once and corresponded a good bit via email and our mutual blogs, I believe him to be a very good humored and generous person - even though he IS an academic... We'll see though :)
@Arun, thank you for your clarification here! I first learned it as the Kalama Sutta (Kālāmasuttaṃ) and then heard that this is what it's "mistakenly called by Westerners." So I'm happy to hear that this is a name/title that non-Westerners would at least recognize.
In your experience, am I right to say that it is not an important sutta in traditional Theravādin countries (or at least wasn't before Western influence)?
@Justin and Mike, in your discussion I tend to agree that serious debate and drawing lines (around practices and, at times, views) is at the core of Buddhist traditions.
Insofar as there is no "Western Buddhism" in terms of an organized set of beliefs/practices we have yet to really see this here. We do appropriate bits and peices - for some its a bit of Zen, or a lot, for others it is other traditions. But we all do (and must!) draw from something from 'over there' in Asia.
Just what we come up with is still a process we all have the pleasure of watching and living through!
I'm still not sure on what grounds we might deny or openly doubt rebirth but at the same time have faith in or accept the 3rd Noble Truth - in that sense I guess I'm agreeing with Amod Lele's post.
@Buddhist_philosopher: That's also what I've heard, but I'm honestly too young to know it first-hand!
ReplyDeleteFor me, Buddhism is a living tradition of awakening not just a tradition of spiritual archaeology which is forever chained to interpreting the words of a single enlightened being who died 2400 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to Amod's post on the 1 1/2 noble truths -- I agreed with it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting about the Kalama Sutra -- I have quoted it too, of course. It does deserve emphasis.
Faith in traditions, blind acceptance -- well, sure, if it serves you, but not if it binds your or others. I guess it depends on the person.
Buddha taught that both understanding-based and faith-based practitioners and that both are valid approaches.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I had to write a post for my take on this.
ReplyDeleteIgnoble truths! Ignoble truths!
ReplyDeleteThanks for this post, Justin. It and its related posts on other blogs have had me thinking all night!
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, isn't your argument nonsensically circular? To try to sum it up, you have to be a 'Buddhist' to pose the questions that you have posed, but how can you be a 'Buddhist' without approaching Buddhism through the Dharma? (Of course, the Dharma is a raft and can be thrown away once the river has been crossed - but that's a slightly different point.) I think it was Steve Hagan who said that once you've set foot on the path you become the path.
As to Karma and rebirth, these have been made difficult issues, but isn't the central question is really whether you apply them literally or to phenomena?
And one final thing on this subject: isn't the whole faith/scepticism divide that's been posited simply a dualistic formulation? There is a point at which speculation becomes unhelpful.
Lorem; I'm not sure about your circularity point. My questions were about what we 'accept' of the Dharma and what we might, as lovely wonderful modern progressives, reject as old silly notions.
ReplyDeleteThere is no simple answer I know, but it's a question I find worth asking quite often.
I often think back to a quote by Michel de Montaign that "he who is believed in his presuppositions is your god and your master." It is so easy to simply accept the presuppositions of our particular teacher or tradition (or simply our own) and fail to hold them to the light of critical analysis.
Many people fall off the path or seem to distort it to unhealthy ends.
As with your circularity question, I'm not sure about the dualistic nature of faith/scepticism. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on it. Of course there can be too much speculation (which is a bit of a loaded term in many circles, perhaps we could say 'contemplation' or 'analysis'). Many thanks to you and others as always. jw
You may be interested in (or already aware of) Stephen Batchelor's 'Buddhism Without Beliefs' - among other things he refers to the 4 'ennobling' (as opposed to 'noble') truths. The distinction being the difference between a call to act in 4 ways as opposed to 4 propositions that require belief in. If you aren't aware of the book, I think it very much speaks to one the issues you are raising- there is a very thoughtful review of the book here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/buddhism_without_beliefs.html
Stephen Batchelor's book is indeed excellent. Consult it;consult the many other fine books coming out every month on Buddhism. I think, in reality, Buddhism is not a religion, but a way of thought. Gautama taught, or tried to teach his followers to negate everything, throw away what does not meet with your reason. Follow the thread of your own thought; examine every thing.The four truths he discovered do not require belief. You will not exhaust the way unless you reduce it to practices, methods, myths, Theravada, Mahayana, etc.
ReplyDeletethen you have frozen it and exhausted it's meaning.
You will no longer be a seeker, but a follower full of beliefs and expectations sitting and waiting for an enlightenment that never comes.
May I just add these words from the Sutta Nipata:
ReplyDeleteThe way to liberation is to train yourself to live in the present without wanting to become anything. Give up becoming this or that, live without cravings,and experience the present moment with full attention, then you will not cringe at death or seek repeated birth.
Add to this only the Bodhisattva's "compassion for all living beings" and,perhaps,this is the way we all look for.Namaste.