OK to disagree?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sthiracitta
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Sthiracitta »

Hi can any one give me the sutta reference to Ajahn Chah's quote?
In the Buddha's time there was one disciple who was very astute. At one time, as the Buddha was expounding the Dhamma, he turned to this monk and asked, "Sariputta, do you believe this?" Venerable Sariputta replied, "No, I don't yet believe it." The Buddha praised his answer. "That's very good, Sariputta, you are one who us endowed with wisdom. One who is wise doesn't readily believe, he listens with an open mind and then weighs up the truth of that matter before believing or disbelieving."

Now the Buddha here has set a fine example for a teacher. What Venerable Sariputta said was true, he simply spoke his true feelings. Some people would think that to say you didn't believe that teaching would be like questioning the teacher's authority, they'd be afraid to say such a thing. They'd just go ahead and agree. This is how the worldly way goes. But the Buddha didn't take offense. He said that you needn't be ashamed of those things which aren't wrong or bad. It's not wrong to say that you don't believe if you don't believe. That's why Venerable Sariputta said, "I don't yet believe it." The Buddha praised him. "This monk has much wisdom. He carefully considers before believing anything." The Buddha's actions here are a good example for one who is a teacher of others.
Thanks in advance.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sthiracitta ,

It's not sutta based... it's from the Dhammapada commentary.

I don't remember off the top of my head which verse though, but I think it's one somewhere in the 80-100 range?

I'll try to remember to look it up once I've got ven K. Sri Dhammananda's translation back in front of me (even then though, it will be his paraphrasing of the commentary story, rather than a word-for-word translation of it).

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by mikenz66 »

We had an extensive discussion of this on E-Sangha a while ago...

As I recall, It's a rather loose telling of a story from the Dhammapada, which accoding to Ven Dhammanando, is the same story as this Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SN 48.44 Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse
I have tried to hightlight the key parts...
"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."
It seems clear that Sariputta is saying that he doesn't take it on faith because he's seen it. Not that he is going to go and check it out later...

Perhaps Ajahn Chah had it a little mixed up with some other stories...

Metta
Mike
wtp
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by wtp »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: The word "sexist" is itself sexist. It always implies discrimination against women by men, but women can equally well discriminate against men due to their sexist views.
While technically correct this is an extremely naive interpretation of sexism. It ignores the inherent power structure between the sexes in most modern societies. For example if a woman has a "sexist" view about a man it is extremely rare for her to be able to denigrate or otherwise inflict suffering on said man in Western society, on the other hand male sexist views have caused ongoing and extreme harm to women over centuries. The ones in power (in this case men) have a far more pervasive and negative effect with sexist views than the one with relatively little power (in this case women).

So while Bhikku Pesala is technically correct - women can be sexist - to suggest there is some level of "equality" in this sexism because of this technical definition, is a denial of female suffering that is sweeping, hurtful and plainly ignornant or at the least in severe denial. It is like saying slaves can discriminate "equally" against their enslavers, or that blacks in South Africa were "equally" discriminatory against the whites during aparteid. Sure women have made a lot of progress and we should not endorse female sexism, but lets get some perspective!
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Sanghamitta »

Hunter wrote:Question: If I read something in the Pali Canon and i dont agree with is that O.K.? So far I dont disagree with really any of it, but just in case! I dont like that other religions make you accept things with blind faith.

To the Theravada Buddhist is the Pali Canon like the WORD OF BUDDHA, or can one disagree with some of it?

Thanks
This is the thread topic.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
retrofuturist wrote:It's not sutta based... it's from the Dhammapada commentary.

I don't remember off the top of my head which verse though, but I think it's one somewhere in the 80-100 range?
Verse 97 it is (lucky guess!)

Faith alone cannot make one realise Nibbana

Thirty bhikkhus from a village had arrived at the Jetavana monestary to pay homage to the Buddha. He knew that the time was ripe for those bhikkhus to attain Arahanthood. So, he sent for Sariputta, and in the presence of those bhikkhus, he asked, 'My son, do you accept the fact that by meditating of the senses one could realise Nibbana?' Sariputta answered, 'Venerable Sir, in the matter of the realisation of Nibbana by meditating on the senses, I do not accept it simply because I have faith in you. It is only those who have not personally realised it who accept the fact from others'. Sariputta's answer was not properly understood by the bhikkhus, who thought, 'Sariputta has not given up wrong views yet. Even now he has no faith in the Buddha'

Then the Buddha explained, 'Bhikkhus, the meaning of Sariputta's answer is simply this: he accepts the fact that Nibbana is realised by means of meditation on the senses, but his acceptance is due to his own personal realisation and not merely because I have said it or somebody else has said it. Sariputta has faith in me. He also has faith in the consequences of good and bad deeds.'

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."
Sthiracitta
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by Sthiracitta »

thank you retrofuturist and mikenz66. I'll look into this more
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: OK to disagree?

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks for finding the Dhammapada reference, Retro.

The verse, with copious footnotes, and a shorter version of the story, can be found here:
http://home.nethere.net/dsparks/narada/ ... 0Vagga.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NOBLE IS HE WHO IS NOT CREDULOUS

16The man who is not credulous, 17 who understands the Uncreate 18 (Nibbana), who has cut off the links, 19 who has put an end to occasion 20 (of good and evil), who has eschewed 21 all desires, 22 he indeed, is a supreme man. (Verse 97)

Story

The Buddha put some questions to the Venerable Sariputta with regard to faith. Sariputta replied that as he had realized the Paths and Fruits he would not act by mere faith in the Buddha. The monks were displeased to hear that he refused to believe in the Buddha. Thereupon the Buddha explained to the monks that Sariputta was not open to censure as he believed through personal experience and not through mere faith in another.

17 Assaddho, lit. unfaithful. He does not merely accept from other sources because he himself knows from personal experience.

18 Akata, Nibbana. It is so called because it is not created by anyone. Akatannå can also be interpreted as ungrateful.

19 The links of existence and rebirth. Sandhicchedo also means a housebreaker, that is, a burglar.

20 Hata + avakaso - he who has destroyed the opportunity.

21 Vanta + aso he who eats vomit is another meaning.

22 By means of the four paths of Sainthood. Gross forms of desire are eradicated at the first three stages, the subtle forms at the last stage.
Mike
Post Reply