Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by zavk »

Peter wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I disagree that it's a guide for finding a teacher... rather, it's a guide for finding an effective doctrine and discipline, not dissimilar to that given in the Kalama Sutta to an equally non-Buddhist audience.
There is a difference?
Ah.... again I find myself agreeing to a certain extent with both perspectives. This actually coincides with something I've been looking into recently. So if I may play devil's advocate, I'd like to attempt to expand on Peter's suggestion that the search for a teacher and the search for effective doctrine and discipline are interrelated....

I have recently read and re-read Pali/Theravada scholar Stephen Evan's essay, '‘Doubting the Kalama Sutta: Epistemology, Ethics, and the ‘Sacred’’. This essay was mentioned in a earlier thread somewhere around here about the Kalama Sutta. Tilt was kind enough to send me a copy of the essay. I find it very engaging and it is definitely worth a read if you are interested. Anyway, in this essay Evans questions the usual epistemological reading of the Kalama Sutta that interprets the Buddha's advice solely as a treatise on rational-empirical inquiry. Let me copy and paste what I have written elsewhere:
Evans begins by re-examining existing translations of key terms in the sutta to argue that the uncertainty experienced by the Kalamas is a kind of 'indecisiveness' rather than what is usually interpreted as 'doubt'. Accordingly, he argues that the Kalamas were not really asking 'What teaching is true?' but 'Whose teaching is true?' In other words, the Kalamas were not merely seeking an effective doctrine but also an effective teacher. Evans further notes that pre-existing cosmological assumptions about religious practices were condensed into ‘Who?’ such that through this simple question the Kalamas were seeking advice on the right conduct that would bring spiritual wellbeing to themselves and others (Evans 2007: 96-97). So, through the question of ‘Who?’ the Kalamas were not only asking about objective knowledge but also addressing ethical concerns.

Evans then goes on to examine the criteria given by the Buddha for accepting/rejecting a teaching (i.e.: ‘... when you yourself know: “These things are bad/good ... blameable/not blameable ... are censured/praised by the wise ...’). The Pali word that is translated as 'things' here is dhamma. The word dhamma can mean 'doctrine', 'fundamental aspects of existence', and so forth. Evans argues that in this instance it is unlikely that dhamma or 'things' refers to 'doctrine' because another word vada had already been used at the start of the sutta to refer to the doctrines of other wandering holy men. 'Things' in this instance refers to 'fundamental mindstates and actions'.

This means that an epistemological reading of the passage would be overly narrow, for ‘it is not clear what it would mean to blame or censure statements. Neither is it clear how blame or censure would bear on their truth’ (Evans 2007: 103). He further adds that the Buddha does not in fact say that one should know whether the fundamental mindstates and actions are true or false, but whether they are wholesome or unwholesome. Evans (2007: 101) thus argues, ‘We would seem rather to be in the realm of ethics than of epistemology, and the Sutta would seem to offer a model of ethical reasoning, a method rather of determining the good than the true.’

Evans also notes how later in the sutta the Buddha admits, if only tacitly, that the doctrines of kamma and rebirth can never fully be known until one attains some level of enlightenment. The Buddha appears to be saying that epistemological inquiry can only go so far and that even if we cannot prove kamma and rebirth we could nevertheless experience a virtuous life as its own reward--again we see a movement from epistemology to ethics.
-----------------------------------------------

What Evans essay reminds us is that Buddhism emerged in a context in which what is true (epistemology) and what is good (ethics) were not sharply distinguished. When the Kalama Sutta is interpreted narrowly only in epistemological terms we are overlooking the interrelationships between ethics, epistemology and possibly other categories. Similarly, we might be overlooking this interrelationship when we try to separate 'effective doctrine/discipline' and 'effective teachers' into two distinctive spheres.

In light of Evans' arguments about the interrelationships between ethics and epistemology, I would suggest that when individuals choose to place their trust in a teacher, it does not necessarily mean that they are blindly following authority. For as Evans mentions, when deciding which teacher to follow we need to observe if their teachings lead us to wholesome or unwholesome mindstates and actions. To the extent that their teachings lead us to wholesome mindstates and actions, we might then conclude that the teacher and/or the doctrine and discipline are effective. Such a mode of evaluation does not require us to give up evaluation and critical analysis (study). However, it does recognise the limits of epistemological inquiry into doctrine and discipline and shift our attention instead to ethical grounds for evaluating doctrine and discipline.

(EDIT: Oh.... hi PT, good timing! :smile: )
Last edited by zavk on Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by Ben »

Great post, Ed!
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

retrofuturist wrote:
There's no due diligence, research, investigation and analysis involved in this, only faith and destiny.
Image

Pretty scary stuff...

Metta,
Retro. :)
Good one, Retro :)

:anjali:
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by christopher::: »

zavk wrote:
.. the Western encounter with Buddhism in the nineteenth century opened up ways of engaging with the Dhamma. The Western academy facilitated the translation and publication of texts, and in doing so, made the teachings widely available and intelligible to a range of audience. Buddhist historians have noted that the development of Western Buddhism has blurred the lines between the monastic and lay communities, such that teachings and practices that were once restricted to ordained Buddhists are now available to lay people. This historical development, in turn, raised questions about the boundaries of authority and expertise.

Yet, this historical development that has blurred the boundaries of authority and expertise is the very same development which has provided us with the abilities to now debate questions of authority and expertise. Produced and shaped by certain (historical, social, cultural) conditions, we are now trying to speak about these conditions--yet, all the while we are within these very conditions. It seems to me that we are, as it were, like fishes trying to argue with one another about how the sea is 'really like'!

What this suggests to me is that, regardless of what one's position is on the importance of teacher/sangha/self-study, one's position is already from the start contingent upon various circumstances. By recognising the conditionality of one's own position, we might then see that there is no one definitive way of approaching the dhamma that can be equally applied to all. In the presence of certain conditions, a student might find one approach beneficial. While in the absence of certain conditions, another student might find another approach beneficial. And conditions being conditions, are anicca and anatta.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

....Evans begins by re-examining existing translations of key terms in the sutta to argue that the uncertainty experienced by the Kalamas is a kind of 'indecisiveness' rather than what is usually interpreted as 'doubt'. Accordingly, he argues that the Kalamas were not really asking 'What teaching is true?' but 'Whose teaching is true?' In other words, the Kalamas were not merely seeking an effective doctrine but also an effective teacher. Evans further notes that pre-existing cosmological assumptions about religious practices were condensed into ‘Who?’ such that through this simple question the Kalamas were seeking advice on the right conduct that would bring spiritual wellbeing to themselves and others (Evans 2007: 96-97). So, through the question of ‘Who?’ the Kalamas were not only asking about objective knowledge but also addressing ethical concerns.

Evans then goes on to examine the criteria given by the Buddha for accepting/rejecting a teaching (i.e.: ‘... when you yourself know: “These things are bad/good ... blameable/not blameable ... are censured/praised by the wise ...’). The Pali word that is translated as 'things' here is dhamma. The word dhamma can mean 'doctrine', 'fundamental aspects of existence', and so forth. Evans argues that in this instance it is unlikely that dhamma or 'things' refers to 'doctrine' because another word vada had already been used at the start of the sutta to refer to the doctrines of other wandering holy men. 'Things' in this instance refers to 'fundamental mindstates and actions'.

This means that an epistemological reading of the passage would be overly narrow, for ‘it is not clear what it would mean to blame or censure statements. Neither is it clear how blame or censure would bear on their truth’ (Evans 2007: 103). He further adds that the Buddha does not in fact say that one should know whether the fundamental mindstates and actions are true or false, but whether they are wholesome or unwholesome. Evans (2007: 101) thus argues, ‘We would seem rather to be in the realm of ethics than of epistemology, and the Sutta would seem to offer a model of ethical reasoning, a method rather of determining the good than the true.’

Evans also notes how later in the sutta the Buddha admits, if only tacitly, that the doctrines of kamma and rebirth can never fully be known until one attains some level of enlightenment. The Buddha appears to be saying that epistemological inquiry can only go so far and that even if we cannot prove kamma and rebirth we could nevertheless experience a virtuous life as its own reward--again we see a movement from epistemology to ethics.

-----------------------------------------------

What Evans essay reminds us is that Buddhism emerged in a context in which what is true (epistemology) and what is good (ethics) were not sharply distinguished. When the Kalama Sutta is interpreted narrowly only in epistemological terms we are overlooking the interrelationships between ethics, epistemology and possibly other categories. Similarly, we might be overlooking this interrelationship when we try to separate 'effective doctrine/discipline' and 'effective teachers' into two distinctive spheres.

In light of Evans' arguments about the interrelationships between ethics and epistemology, I would suggest that when individuals choose to place their trust in a teacher, it does not necessarily mean that they are blindly following authority. For as Evans mentions, when deciding which teacher to follow we need to observe if their teachings lead us to wholesome or unwholesome mindstates and actions. To the extent that their teachings lead us to wholesome mindstates and actions, we might then conclude that the teacher and/or the doctrine and discipline are effective. Such a mode of evaluation does not require us to give up evaluation and critical analysis (study). However, it does recognise the limits of epistemological inquiry into doctrine and discipline and shift our attention instead to ethical grounds for evaluating doctrine and discipline.
You raise a lot of very interesting and important points, zavk.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings zavk,
Evans begins by re-examining existing translations of key terms in the sutta to argue that the uncertainty experienced by the Kalamas is a kind of 'indecisiveness' rather than what is usually interpreted as 'doubt'. Accordingly, he argues that the Kalamas were not really asking 'What teaching is true?' but 'Whose teaching is true?' In other words, the Kalamas were not merely seeking an effective doctrine but also an effective teacher.
I'm not sure whether it's the same article or not, but I've also heard it speculated that the Kalamas did indeed want to know the "who?", but not so that they could take that "who" as a teacher, but so that they could maximise the returns on their dana, by giving to those who were the most enlightened (believing that the merit generated was proportional to the spiritual greatness of the recipient).

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by DNS »

In another thread, Ben just posted this great passage which reminded me of this thread:
One should cultivate a friend who is intelligent,
learned, a master of the dharma, noble.
(*Having understood the dharma)
[and] abandoned doubt, (*one should wander) alone (*like the rhinoceros.)

If one should find a wise companion,
a well-behaved, strong fellow,
[then] (*overcoming) all dangers,
one should wander along with him, satisfied at heart, mindful.


If one should not find a wise companion,
a well-behaved, strong fellow,
[then] (*like a king who) has abandoned (*the realm) [which he had] conquered,
one should wander alone like the rhinoceros.


-- Gandari version of the Rhinoceros Sutra: http://www.ebmp.org/p_wrk_samples.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have placed in bold the relevant parts, which make the case for both sides in this discussion. If one can find a good teacher, great! If one cannot, then it is better to go alone, study and practice.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings TheDhamma,

I see that sutta extract more referring to acquaintances, even spiritual acquaintances, than anything to do with a student/teacher relationship (for or against).

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by kc2dpt »

TheDhamma wrote:In another thread, Ben just posted this great passage which reminded me of this thread:
...
If one can find a good teacher, great! If one cannot, then it is better to go alone, study and practice.
Good quote.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by zavk »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings zavk,
Evans begins by re-examining existing translations of key terms in the sutta to argue that the uncertainty experienced by the Kalamas is a kind of 'indecisiveness' rather than what is usually interpreted as 'doubt'. Accordingly, he argues that the Kalamas were not really asking 'What teaching is true?' but 'Whose teaching is true?' In other words, the Kalamas were not merely seeking an effective doctrine but also an effective teacher.
I'm not sure whether it's the same article or not, but I've also heard it speculated that the Kalamas did indeed want to know the "who?", but not so that they could take that "who" as a teacher, but so that they could maximise the returns on their dana, by giving to those who were the most enlightened (believing that the merit generated was proportional to the spiritual greatness of the recipient).

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hi Retro,

Yes Evans does discuss this in his paper. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that back then such cosmological attitudes and religious practices were the norm. By pointing this out, Evans is drawing attention to the fact that any interpretation of the sutta must be sensitive to the context within which it was written. By doing so, he draws attention to the fact that assumptions about rebirth always already frame the sutta. This means that we cannot easily evoke the 'method' suggested by the Buddha as a means to explain away the thorny issue of rebirth (as some people have from time to time). Anyway, this is tangential to the discussion at hand. So back to the topic....
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by christopher::: »

I really like that wandering rhino analogy....

A question- How do you all view the Zen & Tibetan views of Sangha and teacher?

If I understand correctly (and i might not) what you all have said in the Theravadin tradition the term "Sangha" is primarily used to refer to the Noble Sangha (those who have actualized the Buddha's dhamma to a high degree) and the ordained Sangha- bikkhus, monks, those who choose to live the way of the Buddha, completely. Also, we use the term to refer to communities of practitioners, like ourselves.

A "teacher" is not something existing outside or above this, teaching is a component or function of Sangha. Members of the Noble Sangha and ordained Sangha live and also "teach" the dhamma as discovered and taught by the Buddha.

In Zen and TB, in Mahayana i guess, it seems like there is the view that added wisdom has been learned since the time of the Buddha, wisdom which is understood best by "teachers" and so at times a "teacher" is placed separate or above sangha...

I don't mean to make waves, and my understanding could be inaccurate. But somehow the idea of teacher as primary seems to have taken root in Zen and Tibetan schools. Maybe its not even an important difference, as there is no problem with this, as long as the teacher is indeed highly realized and lives the dhamma....

Your thoughts?
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Chris:::,

I think your Theravada summary is pretty good.

I'll leave it for those of other schools to comment on your characterisation of other traditions.

"The view that added wisdom has been learned since the time of the Buddha" is questionable in Theravada as the Buddha is revered as a sammasambuddha (fully enlightened Buddha) and in terms of enlightenment is thus unsurpassable. Attempting to elevate any such newfound wisdom over the words of the Buddha is risky business indeed. To me at least, it seems inconsistent with the notion of going for refuge to the Buddha.

Perhaps back to the more general topic at hand slightly, the Buddha also gave the instruction that those skilled in vipassana should seek complementary guidance from those skilled in samatha, and that those who are skilled in samatha should likewise seek guidance from those skilled in vipassana. Thus, two people could reasonably be teaching different aspects of the Dhamma to each other. The most important thing is that we learn - not the formal hierachial relationship between subject and object (which is obviously void of any inherent existence).

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Paul,

I'm not really sure how important my questions may or may not be. I just seem to find myself at a decision point now, being drawn closer to Theravadin Buddhism... with roots still firmly planted in Zen... stuck perhaps forever between worlds, lol....

BTW, as you probably know, in Zen and Chan the focus is on Dhyana with meditation....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a discussion over at ZFI comparing Vipassana and Zen meditation, which I have not read yet. I'll take a look at it.

Are Vipassana and zazen the same or different?

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Chris:::,

If you were going to look at your question from a Theravada angle, it would be "To what extent is zazen vipassana, and to what extent is zazen samatha?"

For example, anapanasati (mindfulness of breath) is neither exclusively samatha or vipassana but can be geared more towards one than the other.

Satipatthana (foundations/frames of mindfulness) is primarily vipassana, but does have an element of samatha about it too.

Maybe you would like to create a new topic to explore this angle, as would best suit your current line of enquiry? That said, the best way to answer your question for yourself would be to go an a meditation retreat where you start with anapanasati and then switch to vipassana... such as a 10-day Goenka retreat.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by christopher::: »

Hi Paul.

While i would love to do that a 10-day retreat is not a possibility, presently. But I do think its a good idea for me to seek some guidance here with the approach i've been taking, and how i can improve on it.

Thanks for your input..!

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
appicchato
Posts: 1602
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: Sangha or Teacher: Which is Most Essential?

Post by appicchato »

christopher::: wrote:I just seem to find myself...being drawn closer to Theravadin Buddhism...
:thumbsup:
Post Reply