Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?

[BubbaBuddhist]

LOL! Skeptic's Dictionary is one of those examples of thought-style biases taken to the extreme. Carroll is a fanatic dis-believer who gleefully (along with the PSICOP witch-hunters) debunks everything. He's been after me for years to contribute something to his website but I've declined, preferring not to further add to internet fanaticism.
BB

[Kusala]

Buddhists can't seem to agree on anything, including agreeing on what they agree and disagree about. Even within traditions, views are highly individualized (despite the efforts of traditionalists to keep and/or make orthodoxy and orthopraxy uniform).

On one end of the spectrum, interpretations of this situation include claiming that the Buddha did not intend strict uniformity and/or that he wasn't a traditionalist. On the other end of the spectrum, interpretations inlclude claiming the idea that the teachings of the Buddha are validated by the nature of their absoluteness and that preserving them as much as possible is important because otherwise it reflects poorly on their veracity.

So, does disunity among Buddhists reflect poorly on the Buddha Śāsana (religion, teachings). If so, why? If not, what does it say about the Śāsana?

Buddhists are humans...and humans are full of defilements. Does that make sense?

[Sambojjhanga]

Buddhists can't seem to agree on anything, including agreeing on what they agree and disagree about. Even within traditions, views are highly individualized (despite the efforts of traditionalists to keep and/or make orthodoxy and orthopraxy uniform).

On one end of the spectrum, interpretations of this situation include claiming that the Buddha did not intend strict uniformity and/or that he wasn't a traditionalist. On the other end of the spectrum, interpretations inlclude claiming the idea that the teachings of the Buddha are validated by the nature of their absoluteness and that preserving them as much as possible is important because otherwise it reflects poorly on their veracity.

So, does disunity among Buddhists reflect poorly on the Buddha Śāsana (religion, teachings). If so, why? If not, what does it say about the Śāsana?

Buddhists are humans...and humans are full of defilements. Does that make sense?

More than you can even imagine, friend.

Metta!

[danieLion]

Thanks everyone, especially Dave, Mike & Geoff. Circumstances prevented me from logging on for a few days, and things are still a bit unpredictable. I'm going to try to reflect some and try to post later.

[danieLion]

Hi Danial,
serious now
Can you expand what you mean here please. particularly the underlined words.

On one end of the spectrum, interpretations of this situation include claiming that the Buddha did not intend strict uniformity and/or that he wasn't a traditionalist. On the other end of the spectrum, interpretations inlclude claiming the idea that the teachings of the Buddha are validated by the nature of their absoluteness and that preserving them as much as possible is important because otherwise it reflects poorly on their veracity.

but If we agree on every detail it does not lead to expanding our tools. how we explain things may not refect in one persons understanding exactly what is meant yet something else said by another which is totally missing 90% of the meaning may fill in the blanks in understanding.
unfortunately the pill Thanissaro Bhikkhu talks about in the Boddhisatva talk where he says "under" and the audience says "stand" does not exist.

So, does disunity among Buddhists reflect poorly on the Buddha Śāsana (religion, teachings). If so, why? If not, what does it say about the Śāsana?

I think running off making new factions left right and centre reflects poorly. there isn't many people here I would not consider part of the Buddhas Dispensation.

Expansion on "did not intend strict uniformity": he didn't teach a one-size-fits-all practice, BUT...
Expansion on "validated by the nature of their absoluteness" e.g., as this Access to Insight glossary entry puts it:

ariya-sacca: Noble Truth. The word "ariya" (noble) can also mean ideal or standard, and in this context means "objective" or "universal" truth. There are four: stress, the origin of stress, the disbanding of stress, and the path of practice leading to the disbanding of stress. [MORE]

I don't get the "under-stand" reference.

[danieLion]

As for the Dhamma, there are said to be 84000 versions, and there are probably as many interpretations as there are people.

But didn't the Buddha say something like, "the truth is One"?

[danieLion]

...I agree it can get dramatic.

That's an understatement. E.g., the creation of the Mahavihara (according to Rev. Analayo anyway) was basically reactionary and the history of Buddhism (not to mention the history of Dhammawheel) is replete with conflicts. Soap opera's got nothing on that drama.

[danieLion]

Until the day of enlightenment, guess we're still like the blind men of Savatthi (or at least partially blind) ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html )

Quote from the above sutta link: "They don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma." Can we unpack this without disagreement?

[danieLion]

Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?

Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.

[BubbaBuddhist]

Heh. I'm reminded of a favorite quote of Charles Fort:

"If there is a Universal Mind, must it be sane?"

BB

[danieLion]

Certain disagreements are over altogether useless matters, so at first blush I wonder which sorts of disagreements in particular are being found irksome. At the current level of generality, there is a danger of building castles in the sky.

In my mind, it's also about building dungeons in the earth; but either way--castles or dungeons--I'm not particularly "irked" so much as curious as to how others deal with (the apparently paradoxical nature of) pragmatic truth within the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana.

[danieLion]

Disunity is unavoidable, and in fact could be useful.

Could you provide at least a couple of real life examples of how disunity is useful?

[mikenz66]

Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?

Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.

You have a large enough Theravada community to have arguements about the sort of issues I mentioned?

I don't often seem to come across people in "real life" arguing that so-and-so is rubbish because he/she has the wrong understanding of mindfulness/anatta/jhana/reality/whatever or is too traditional/not traditional enough/too much of a fence-sitter...

Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi Daniel,

Disunity is unavoidable, and in fact could be useful.

Could you provide at least a couple of real life examples of how disunity is useful?

It allows people to seek out groups that they are comfortable with. And if they fall out with one group they can join a different one...


Mike

[daverupa]

how others deal with (the apparently paradoxical nature of) pragmatic truth within the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana.

I strive to do so thusly:

"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.'

[mikenz66]

Dave, Daniel, etc,

I strive to do so thusly:

"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.'

Well said! To me, disagreement is not a problem, problems arise from insisting that a particular opinion is the only possibly correct one.

Hearing different opinions can be helpful and stimulating. Hearing that anyone who disagrees with some particular opinion is wrong is not usually helpful. It tends to turn a discussion into pointless gain-saying that is not only no less productive than this famous TV sketch from Monty Python but is much less enjoyable...


Mike

[danieLion]

...specious sources like Wikipedia...

And libraries are specious free?

[danieLion]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry for Fleck:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fleck/

Fleck's historical philosophy and sociology of science seems like an elaborate ad hoc explanation to me.

See also Feyerabend's (and I suppose Kuhn's, if you must) views on science as constructivist, and especially Feyerabend's use of Mill's "marketplace of ideas" as support for his view of science as a collectivist "reality maker." See also Robert Anton Wilson's notion of "reality tunnels" in Prometheus Rising and his rants against So-Called-Scientific-Experts in Cosmic Trigger III--and attribution theory in social psychology.

Still, all these just seem like differerent ways of painting the same bowl of fruit--very ad hoc-ish.

[danieLion]

Consensus isn't necessary, and should definitely not be desired.

Please continue...go on...elaborate.... Please.

[danieLion]

You have a large enough Theravada community to have arguements about the sort of issues I mentioned?

I know of no way to measure this, and am not sure what you mean by "large," but the drama here is ridiculously thick.