Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hi Ed,
I had the same thought too!
kind regards

Ben

Yuk!

manasikara, You are making a basic mistake by assuming the Buddha is not to be trusted, but saying you follow the teachings anyway. Do you see the problem inherent in this position? It will always lead to uncertainty.
It's up to you to read and understand the suttas. Proclaiming an innocent agnosticism is not an acceptable position if you are really serious.

alan wrote:Yuk!

manasikara, You are making a basic mistake by assuming the Buddha is not to be trusted, but saying you follow the teachings anyway. Do you see the problem inherent in this position? It will always lead to uncertainty.
It's up to you to read and understand the suttas. Proclaiming an innocent agnosticism is not an acceptable position if you are really serious.

Hi alan,
I never said that the Buddha is 'not to be trusted'. I ask you to withdraw that comment. I ask that you do so voluntarily, rather than a moderator having to intervene. Because that's a serious accusation to make, and - since I never said such a thing - an untrue one.

manasikara wrote:How do we know that the Buddha was really enlightened, either? We can't see him now, or hear his words directly, other than through suttas recorded millenia ago and handed down by monks, whose integrity and/or accuracy of memory we must rely upon if we are to assume that they are basically unaltered...?

We don't really know, unless we have seen (the truth he speaks of) for ourselves. Believe me, if I see for myself (within) the self-less nature of the five khandhas, I will throw myself to the ground before the Blessed One's feet in gratitude, a thousand times (metaphorically speaking), knowing that he was right all along, and that it was only because he so carefully established his Dispensation here (on Earth) that I had the good fortune to do so; and I will finally feel totally comfortable with calling myself a Buddhist. But if or until that happens, I can't say with certainty that the Buddha is indeed 'rightly self-awakened, blessed and holy'. I follow the Path he (is said to have) laid out for us, because in all my searching over my 42 years, I just can't find a better teacher. I've tried; but no-one else knows as much about the human condition and the ways of the heart-and-mind, as the Buddha does (as recorded in the suttas).

Maybe only the enlightened can truly recognize the enlightened, and the rest of us kind of just muddle along and do our best...?

Perhaps then manisikara you could parse your above post and give the correct interpretation. ?

Sanghamitta wrote:

manasikara wrote:How do we know that the Buddha was really enlightened, either? We can't see him now, or hear his words directly, other than through suttas recorded millenia ago and handed down by monks, whose integrity and/or accuracy of memory we must rely upon if we are to assume that they are basically unaltered...?

We don't really know, unless we have seen (the truth he speaks of) for ourselves. Believe me, if I see for myself (within) the self-less nature of the five khandhas, I will throw myself to the ground before the Blessed One's feet in gratitude, a thousand times (metaphorically speaking), knowing that he was right all along, and that it was only because he so carefully established his Dispensation here (on Earth) that I had the good fortune to do so; and I will finally feel totally comfortable with calling myself a Buddhist. But if or until that happens, I can't say with certainty that the Buddha is indeed 'rightly self-awakened, blessed and holy'. I follow the Path he (is said to have) laid out for us, because in all my searching over my 42 years, I just can't find a better teacher. I've tried; but no-one else knows as much about the human condition and the ways of the heart-and-mind, as the Buddha does (as recorded in the suttas).

Maybe only the enlightened can truly recognize the enlightened, and the rest of us kind of just muddle along and do our best...?

Perhaps then manisikara you could parse your above post and give the correct interpretation. ?

To sum up: Knowing, having seen and realized for oneself, is better than just believing. I don't think the Buddha would feel offended by this statement.

Hello Dhamma friends. Please remember the "Kalama Sutta"...

Dear Kusala friend,

Kusala wrote:Hello Dhamma friends. Please remember the "Kalama Sutta"...

I do. Is there something about the Kalama Sutta you would like to share?
With reference to the Kalama Sutta, is there a point you would like to make that is germane to this discussion?
kind regards

Ben

I read that sutta recently. This thread is about bogus gurus/teachers. That sutta is about learning how to recognize bogus teachings/teachers and learning how to identify the real thing.

Jhana4 wrote:I read that sutta recently. This thread is about bogus gurus/teachers. That sutta is about learning how to recognize bogus teachings/teachers and learning how to identify the real thing.

Thanks Jhana4.
That sutta was a defining moment for me, as I felt I had finally found a Teacher of the ancient world who was not only connected with the highest Truth and understanding, but was also reasonable and non-dogmatic. If there was a point at which I first took refuge in the Buddha, that was it.

But, following the Buddha's instructions as they have been handed down to us, and believing in his sammasambodhi, is still not the same as knowing it. In fact, there is a sutta (I am trying to find it again) where the Buddha says that it is only upon attainment of arahantship that a disciple can truly claim that the Buddha is 'the perfectly enlightened one, awake and holy' etc. Until then, he or she doesn't really and fully know. So actually, I was inaccurate to claim that I would have knowledge of the Buddha as being Enlightened to the degree that he was, upon Stream-Entry alone. It actually happens later! (so I read). What I mean is, that apparently with stream entry, doubt is overcome. I do have faith in the Buddha, but I also have some doubt. I can claim to have a measure of conviction, based upon my experiences in the path of practice confirming what is said in the suttas. That's still not the same as saying 'I know and I see'. I'm just being honest about where I'm at. If there are ariyans reading this, you have my respect for having crossed beyond that lingering uncertainty. I aspire to join you some day!

That is what I was trying to get at in my post that has seemed to cause offence to some. In deference to the sensibilities of others, I will word it differently in future, and I really need to find that sutta, as well, so I can post the link here.

You are the only one who seems to feel offended here.

Come on everyone... I think it's time to depersonalise this a bit.



Metta,
Retro.

Hi All. For the record:
I don't attack people. I attack ideas. I attack poorly formed arguments, irrational statements, and nonsensical assumptions. I do this to provide clarity, introduce context, and to keep the discussion focused. I don't do it to make people feel bad.

Ok, now let's talk Kalama.
This is easily the most misunderstood of all the frequently quoted suttas. The typical (and always out of context) take is that "we should just trust our own judgement", or
"The Buddha says not to trust anyone", or "Buddhism is a religion that proclaims the individual should decide. You can choose your own path".
None of these are correct, but most have seeped into the ideology of Popular Buddhism to the degree that they are now taken as a given proposition.
This is just another reason to read the suttas for yourself. There is no substitute for an overall understanding of context.

This sutta supports manasikara's opinion:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And about believing, I think we should be open minded, judge things based on facts, reason and logic. We can have our own conclusions but should change them if there are new facts and evidences. And for unclear things, we should use probability science. And for things that we don't have any clue, we could gamble and let the dice (or kamma) decide

Regards.

alan wrote:Hi All. For the record:
I don't attack people. I attack ideas. I attack poorly formed arguments, irrational statements, and nonsensical assumptions. I do this to provide clarity, introduce context, and to keep the discussion focused. I don't do it to make people feel bad.

But people sometimes do feel badly, given that it is not always easy to separate out one's feelings from what is being said. We could all, at times, be a bit more sensitive to that.