Teachings and teachers

[Mangaka]

Hi everyone,
I would like to ask you about teachers and their teachings. It is okay if one listens more than one teacher (if their teaching is same or at least similar) or it would be inappropriate? If there is novice in training for bhikkhu, then there is only one teacher, right? But what about lay followers, is it same?

[DiamondNgXZ]

Hi everyone,
I would like to ask you about teachers and their teachings. It is okay if one listens more than one teacher (if their teaching is same or at least similar) or it would be inappropriate? If there is novice in training for bhikkhu, then there is only one teacher, right? But what about lay followers, is it same?

Even as a monk under dependance, one can learn from other masters.

Perhaps the most important thing to be able to learn from many teachers is that your personal basics of Buddhism must be solidly firm. That is the 4 noble truths, etc. If you had read the suttas completely (with Buddha as the teacher then), you're pretty good too.

Then the next issue is if you have a main teacher, then better not to simply indulge in other teachers with slightly different views than your main teacher.

Eg. If you're under Ajahn Brahm, better not keep on listening to vipassana teachers who are very critical about Jhanas, in case you got persuaded to not want to practise Jhanas.

Some monasteries like Pa-Auk made it clear that if you're staying there, you practise their methods. That solves the issue somewhat.

Only if you're able to do some very technical surgery of views that it's safe to listen to Jhana teachers and dry vipassana teachers together and that you're able to integrate them both. However, it's a very hard path to do this with many potential mistakes and sufferings if you dunno how to harmonize different emphasis on the practise.

Even if you're main point is Jhanas, there could be dangers of Jhana lite vs deep Jhanas, and it could be confusing if you're not used to it or the doubt may hinder your practise.

When I was lay, I learnt a lot from a lot of teachers. So I don't see any issue, but I did had a strong basics and can integrate them well, seeing where does this teacher comes from and why they emphasise on this or that (maybe only partially), but I did had my fair share of suffering trying to do the technical surgery of views mentioned above.

[Mangaka]

I thanks very much for answer.
I'm just not sure if I understand correctly, aren't both jhānas and vipassanā mentioned in Tipitaka? Because in that way how I understand, both are authentic teachings of the Buddha.

[Ontheway]

I think the best teacher we can have is the Pali Tipitaka that was preserved from The First Council till The Fourth Council.

The monks or learned laypeople can be our guidance at certain time or Kalyana mittas, but when we have questions at certain important topic, it is best refer to Pali Tipitaka rather just referring to Acariyavada.

[SDC]

A beginner should listen to as many talks as it takes to find someone who makes a difference in their understanding. A sad truth is that the are many people in influential positions that are more concerned with reputation than they are of the listener gaining right view. You should stick with someone who’s words affect your experience and lead you towards understanding the themes found in the suttas.

[bodom]

This short and excellent little book below shows how to keep an open mind when practicing with different teachers and meditation techniques without becoming doubtful about the different methods:

In Coping with a Handful of Leaves, Ven Aggacitta touches on these issues with reference to the Pali scriptures and contemporary experiences. He reminds us that we should not allow our differences to become a source of disagreement and a cause of disunity. Rather, he urges us to practise unconditional love, mutual respect and sympathetic joy as a means of transmuting our discriminative energy into positive qualities such as strength and unity within the richness of diversity.

Coping with a Handful of Leaves does not only encourage yogis to be brave enough to try other methods of meditation if the first one they have been introduced to is not suitable. It would also help to bring about a paradigm shift in the mental attitude of yogis, irrespective of their methods of meditation.

https://sasanarakkha.org/2004/07/01/cop ... of-leaves/

[mikenz66]

This short and excellent little book below shows how to keep an open mind when practicing with different teachers and meditation techniques without becoming doubtful about the different methods:

Thanks for that. Ven Aggacitta visited here about ten years ago, and he was great. In one dhamma talk he led us through all possible variations on mettā practice (thinking of specific people, expanding one's focus in various ways, etc), then passed around the microphone asking us to describe our experience, and which variation seemed to work best. It's an important thing to realise that:
1. You share certain preferences and tendencies with some other people.
2. You don't share certain preferences and tendencies with some other people.

Understanding that is very helpful in cutting through the nonsense one sometimes sees...

The monastic teachers I have spent time tend to be similar, though perhaps not quite so eloquent. They've spent time trying out these variations: Mahasi, Pa Auk, Goenka, etc. They'll tell you what they think will work best for you, but are happy to answer questions about anything.

On the other hand, I do think it's best to initially pick something that seems to be helpful, and stick with it for a time (maybe a year or so, certainly months), not flitting about from week to week.


Mike

[mikenz66]

A beginner should listen to as many talks as it takes to find someone who makes a difference in their understanding. A sad truth is that the are many people in influential positions that are more concerned with reputation than they are of the listener gaining right view. You should stick with someone who’s words affect your experience and lead you towards understanding the themes found in the suttas.

Good points. As I said above, people are different, and need different help at different times. So don't be too concerned that someone else's favourites seem bland and unhelpful. That might change later...

Listening can be extremely helpful, but in my experience interacting is where you really get value from an expert. A few minutes of discussion (or other communication) with someone you trust can save a lot of time and/or rescue you from a dead end. We see this often in the stories in the suttas, where the Buddha, or someone else, gives just the right teaching at the right time.


Mike

[DiamondNgXZ]

I thanks very much for answer.
I'm just not sure if I understand correctly, aren't both jhānas and vipassanā mentioned in Tipitaka? Because in that way how I understand, both are authentic teachings of the Buddha.

Yes, you need both.

What's harmful for some teachers is the way they incorporate denigration of some practises in their talks and teachings. It's worth getting the gold from them and discarding the dirt. However, one has to have the skill to do so. Or else one can easily take on the gold and the dirt and continue denigrating some practises which are taught by the Buddha. Or one can go to the other extreme, rejecting all teachers because of some little bit of dirt in them.

Sometime too, it's not so much denigration but speaking in praise of samatha first then vipassana or the other way around, or both together. Those who advocate vipassana only all the way to arahanthood seems to violate the scriptures which does makes it clear that arahants have the Jhanas.

[cappuccino]

there is only one teacher

[robertk]

Those who advocate vipassana only all the way to arahanthood seems to violate the scriptures which does makes it clear that arahants have the Jhanas.

By those who violate the scriptures do you mean Buddhaghosa?

Sāratthapakāsinī (Commentary to Susima sutta) :

Friend, we are liberated by wisdom” points out that “Friend! We are dry
insight practitioners without jhāna, we are liberated by wisdom alone.
Spk II 126,34–127,2: Paññāvimuttā kho mayaṃ, āvuso ti, āvuso, mayaṃ nijjhānakā sukkha-vipassakā paññā-matten’
eva vimuttā ti dassent
i.

After the Buddha teaches him Susima too becomes a arahat:

Why does the Buddha start this sentence “Susīma, do you…”? [He does so] for revealing
that those bhikkhus are dry-insight practitioners without jhāna. This is the intention [of the
Buddha]: “Not only are you a dry-insight practitioner without jhāna, those bhikkhus are also
arahants of the same type”.
Spk II 127,22-26: Api nu tvaṃ, Susīmā ti, idaṃ kasmā ārabhi? Nijjhānakānaṃ sukkha-vipassaka-bhikkhūnaṃ
pākaṭa-karaṇ’ atthaṃ. Ayaṃ h’ ettha adhippāyo: na kevalaṃ tvam eva nijjhānako sukkha-vipassako. Ete pi bhikkhū
evarūpā yevā ti. SN II 127,8 reads Api pana tvaṃ for api nu tvaṃ.

The subcommentary:

For revealing” means that “Susīma, just as you are well-established in grasping the
cessation of the taints as a dry-insight practitioner without jhāna, so are those bhikkhus.
Spk-pṭ II 125CS: Pākaṭakaraṇatthanti yathā tvaṃ, Susīma, nijjhānako sukkhavipassako ca hutvā āsavānaṃ
khayasammasane suppatiṭṭhito, evaṃ tepi bhikkhū.

[DiamondNgXZ]

Those who advocate vipassana only all the way to arahanthood seems to violate the scriptures which does makes it clear that arahants have the Jhanas.

By those who violate the scriptures do you mean Buddhaghosa?

Sāratthapakāsinī (Commentary to Susima sutta) :

Friend, we are liberated by wisdom” points out that “Friend! We are dry
insight practitioners without jhāna, we are liberated by wisdom alone.
Spk II 126,34–127,2: Paññāvimuttā kho mayaṃ, āvuso ti, āvuso, mayaṃ nijjhānakā sukkha-vipassakā paññā-matten’
eva vimuttā ti dassent
i.

After the Buddha teaches him Susima too becomes a arahat:

Why does the Buddha start this sentence “Susīma, do you…”? [He does so] for revealing
that those bhikkhus are dry-insight practitioners without jhāna. This is the intention [of the
Buddha]: “Not only are you a dry-insight practitioner without jhāna, those bhikkhus are also
arahants of the same type”.
Spk II 127,22-26: Api nu tvaṃ, Susīmā ti, idaṃ kasmā ārabhi? Nijjhānakānaṃ sukkha-vipassaka-bhikkhūnaṃ
pākaṭa-karaṇ’ atthaṃ. Ayaṃ h’ ettha adhippāyo: na kevalaṃ tvam eva nijjhānako sukkha-vipassako. Ete pi bhikkhū
evarūpā yevā ti. SN II 127,8 reads Api pana tvaṃ for api nu tvaṃ.

The subcommentary:

For revealing” means that “Susīma, just as you are well-established in grasping the
cessation of the taints as a dry-insight practitioner without jhāna, so are those bhikkhus.
Spk-pṭ II 125CS: Pākaṭakaraṇatthanti yathā tvaṃ, Susīma, nijjhānako sukkhavipassako ca hutvā āsavānaṃ
khayasammasane suppatiṭṭhito, evaṃ tepi bhikkhū.

Haven't read Buddhaghosa much. Yup. I am in the Early Buddhism camp.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.87/en/suja ... ript=latin

Take another case of a mendicant who has fulfilled their ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They break some lesser and minor training rules, but are restored. Why is that? Because I don’t say they’re incapable of that. But they’re constant and steady in their precepts regarding the training rules that are fundamental, befitting the spiritual path. They keep the rules they’ve undertaken. They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.

Arahants, even non returners onwards has fulfilled their immersion (jhanas).

[SarathW]

Hi everyone,
I would like to ask you about teachers and their teachings. It is okay if one listens more than one teacher (if their teaching is same or at least similar) or it would be inappropriate? If there is novice in training for bhikkhu, then there is only one teacher, right? But what about lay followers, is it same?

I have listened to tons of teachers mainly on Youtube. My breakthrough was starting to read Tipitaka mainly the Sutta Pitaka.
Now I have learned to appreciate any teaching as I know that each one teaches based on their experience.
Buddha's teaching is so wonderful that the same teaching will be comprehended differently as you progress in the path.
For instance, the understanding of five precepts for a layperson is not the same as the understanding of an Arahant.
Buddha taught from most gross to most subtle.
You start to notice that each teacher is at a different level of understanding.
It is like music. Once you learn music theory you understand that all singers play a different genre.

[Ontheway]

Those who advocate vipassana only all the way to arahanthood seems to violate the scriptures which does makes it clear that arahants have the Jhanas.

By those who violate the scriptures do you mean Buddhaghosa?

Sāratthapakāsinī (Commentary to Susima sutta) :

Friend, we are liberated by wisdom” points out that “Friend! We are dry
insight practitioners without jhāna, we are liberated by wisdom alone.
Spk II 126,34–127,2: Paññāvimuttā kho mayaṃ, āvuso ti, āvuso, mayaṃ nijjhānakā sukkha-vipassakā paññā-matten’
eva vimuttā ti dassent
i.

After the Buddha teaches him Susima too becomes a arahat:

Why does the Buddha start this sentence “Susīma, do you…”? [He does so] for revealing
that those bhikkhus are dry-insight practitioners without jhāna. This is the intention [of the
Buddha]: “Not only are you a dry-insight practitioner without jhāna, those bhikkhus are also
arahants of the same type”.
Spk II 127,22-26: Api nu tvaṃ, Susīmā ti, idaṃ kasmā ārabhi? Nijjhānakānaṃ sukkha-vipassaka-bhikkhūnaṃ
pākaṭa-karaṇ’ atthaṃ. Ayaṃ h’ ettha adhippāyo: na kevalaṃ tvam eva nijjhānako sukkha-vipassako. Ete pi bhikkhū
evarūpā yevā ti. SN II 127,8 reads Api pana tvaṃ for api nu tvaṃ.

The subcommentary:

For revealing” means that “Susīma, just as you are well-established in grasping the
cessation of the taints as a dry-insight practitioner without jhāna, so are those bhikkhus.
Spk-pṭ II 125CS: Pākaṭakaraṇatthanti yathā tvaṃ, Susīma, nijjhānako sukkhavipassako ca hutvā āsavānaṃ
khayasammasane suppatiṭṭhito, evaṃ tepi bhikkhū.

Haven't read Buddhaghosa much. Yup. I am in the Early Buddhism camp.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.87/en/suja ... ript=latin

Take another case of a mendicant who has fulfilled their ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They break some lesser and minor training rules, but are restored. Why is that? Because I don’t say they’re incapable of that. But they’re constant and steady in their precepts regarding the training rules that are fundamental, befitting the spiritual path. They keep the rules they’ve undertaken. They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.

Arahants, even non returners onwards has fulfilled their immersion (jhanas).

Hi, Bhante.
Sorry to say that Early Buddhism generally refers to many schools of Buddhism: Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, Sauntrantika, etc.

From historical point of view, orthodox teachings were preserved in the line of Theravada from The First Council till the Fourth Council.

The first Council was dealing with set forth the Dhamma-Vinaya scriptures to be orally recited by monks.

The second Council was organised to defend the purify of Sangha. Arahant Sabbakami Thera refuted all ten allowable practices proposed by Vajjian monks. These Vajjian monks upset about the result, form their own Sangha called "Mahasangiti". From both Theravada and Mahasangiti, there arose 18 schools of Buddhism in total due to schismatic understanding on scriptures.

In Third Council, wishing to defend true Sasana from the misinformed teachings, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera pointed a definite term "Vibhajjavada" or "Doctrine of Analysis" to describe and distinguish Theravada from all other schools of Buddhism such as Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, etc. With the help of King Asoka, misguided monastics were banished and organized Third Council to rehearse Dhamma-Vinaya, there in order to further preserving orthodox teachings by Lord Buddha and refute wrong teachings, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa set forth "Kathavathu" and set this book among other 6 books, forming Abhidhamma Pitaka.

From the Third Council, Theravada Pali Tipitaka was preserved and brought to Sri Lanka by Arahat Mahinda Thera and strengthened by Arahant Sanghamitta Theri. There King Devanampiya Tissa founded the Mahavihara, the stronghold of Theravada. Since then, a lot of Sri Lankan Theras developed themselves and attained Arahantship. And this further strengthen the foundation of Theravada in Sri Lanka.

Then, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera went to Mahavihara and translated all Atthakatha left over by ancient Arahants from Sinhalese back to Pali language, under the guidance of wise Mahaviharavasins, who teach nothing else but only what Buddha taught.

We are lucky to have these great Arahant Theras put so much effort in protecting True Sasana.

[DiamondNgXZ]

By those who violate the scriptures do you mean Buddhaghosa?

Sāratthapakāsinī (Commentary to Susima sutta) :


After the Buddha teaches him Susima too becomes a arahat:

The subcommentary:

Haven't read Buddhaghosa much. Yup. I am in the Early Buddhism camp.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.87/en/suja ... ript=latin

Take another case of a mendicant who has fulfilled their ethics, immersion, and wisdom. They break some lesser and minor training rules, but are restored. Why is that? Because I don’t say they’re incapable of that. But they’re constant and steady in their precepts regarding the training rules that are fundamental, befitting the spiritual path. They keep the rules they’ve undertaken. They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.

Arahants, even non returners onwards has fulfilled their immersion (jhanas).

Hi, Bhante.
Sorry to say that Early Buddhism generally refers to many schools of Buddhism: Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, Sauntrantika, etc.

From historical point of view, orthodox teachings were preserved in the line of Theravada from The First Council till the Fourth Council.

The first Council was dealing with set forth the Dhamma-Vinaya scriptures to be orally recited by monks.

The second Council was organised to defend the purify of Sangha. Arahant Sabbakami Thera refuted all ten allowable practices proposed by Vajjian monks. These Vajjian monks upset about the result, form their own Sangha called "Mahasangiti". From both Theravada and Mahasangiti, there arose 18 schools of Buddhism in total due to schismatic understanding on scriptures.

In Third Council, wishing to defend true Sasana from the misinformed teachings, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera pointed a definite term "Vibhajjavada" or "Doctrine of Analysis" to describe and distinguish Theravada from all other schools of Buddhism such as Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, etc. With the help of King Asoka, misguided monastics were banished and organized Third Council to rehearse Dhamma-Vinaya, there in order to further preserving orthodox teachings by Lord Buddha and refute wrong teachings, Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa set forth "Kathavathu" and set this book among other 6 books, forming Abhidhamma Pitaka.

From the Third Council, Theravada Pali Tipitaka was preserved and brought to Sri Lanka by Arahat Mahinda Thera and strengthened by Arahant Sanghamitta Theri. There King Devanampiya Tissa founded the Mahavihara, the stronghold of Theravada. Since then, a lot of Sri Lankan Theras developed themselves and attained Arahantship. And this further strengthen the foundation of Theravada in Sri Lanka.

Then, Bhandatacariya Buddhaghosa Thera went to Mahavihara and translated all Atthakatha left over by ancient Arahants from Sinhalese back to Pali language, under the guidance of wise Mahaviharavasins, who teach nothing else but only what Buddha taught.

We are lucky to have these great Arahant Theras put so much effort in protecting True Sasana.

I assume you're writing the above for the general public. I roughly know the story above. I also write the below for the general public, maybe you know the story below already too.

The thing which makes the different schools disagree with each other is their Abhidhammas. Comparing Theravada vs Sarvastivada Abhidhamma, we get that there's some differences in doctrines already.

Besides that, there's some points here and there that the Abhidhamma and commentary position of Theravada contradicts what seems to be very clear statements in the suttas. Here's some of them off the top of my head, please don't ask me to cite sources, you can put another new topic in Early Buddhism page if you want.

1. Sutta: There's in-between rebirth, Theravada: there's no in between rebirth. (Instantaneous rebirth)
2. Sutta: One doesn't end suffering without experiencing all kammas (can be watered down kamma, also kamma meant to produce rebirth can be transformed to less for stream winners onwards), Theravada: defunct kamma.
3. Sutta: There's wrong mindfulness, Theravada: Mindfulness is classified under wholesome mental formations.
4. Sutta: Arahants and non-returners all have Jhanas, Theravada: possible to become arahants without Jhanas.

I am sure there's more. Anyway. So the early Buddhism movement is the attempt to reconstruct original Buddhism as much as possible, one way is to do comparative studies like what suttacentral does. Parallels to the Pali suttas are compared to the Agamas preserved by the Mahayana, so that the suttas of various early Buddhism schools can be compared and contrasted. If most of them has some information, we can be more confident that it belongs to original Buddhism. Roughly, the Pali suttas is mostly well preserved.

If you're under the spell of the story that there's no conflict between sutta and Abhidhamma/commentaries, then do properly read the suttas first, then read the rest, to see if you can find support of the above points of differences in favour of Theravada using sutta alone, not relying on Abhidhamma or commentaries.

I had recently just read the 4 Nikayas, and it's pretty much all sutta points, Theravada got some doctrines wrong. Just because Theravada won the debates in the 3rd council, doesn't mean that it's automatically has the Abhidhamma which doesn't contradicts the sutta.

It's not that we are ungrateful to all who preserved Theravada. But it's more of a matter of principle. If later works (Abhidhamma) contradicts the earlier works, it's better to stick to earlier works (sutta), instead of overwriting the Buddha's words with later compilation.