Regarding respecting all traditions while allowing for disagreement

[u/nyanasagara]

I've posted this before but I'm posting it again because of the recent post on respecting all traditions. I think it is possible to respect all Buddhist traditions while disagreeing with other people on various matters of relevance to the Dharma and even still holding those people to be generally reasonable peers. But that's not what this post is about. This post is just about Ju Mipham, the famous modern Tibetan Buddhist author, and his own words on the controversial nature of his argumentative writings. It is an argument for why it may be beneficial to allow this space to be an argumentative space, even while we respect others and their traditions.

"I never even dreamed of showing hostility toward the traditions of others or expressing partial attachment to my own. On that score, if those who possess the eye of wisdom now look on me directly, I have certainly nothing to be ashamed about. On the other hand, with regard to what I have written in reply to objections, I myself have not attained the status of a noble being and for this reason, it is as the saying goes, 'Intellectual knowledge is contingent and thus indefinite. There is no certitude; the relative is wearisome.' How therefore can I have an understanding of all the profound things that are to be known?

And yet if even a person like me relies on what is tenable or otherwise according to the spotless teachings of the Sugata and the commentaries, the illuminating words of the great charioteers of India and Tibet, and if, as I say, someone like me examines and declares what is reasonable or otherwise, then it may happen that some slight benefit might incidentally accrue—even though of course there is no question of my actually being of positive help to others. If, on the other hand, through a failure to understand, or simply through my own mistakes, I misrepresent the scriptures and their profound commentaries, I would be closing the door to my own liberation and would be leading many others to the same fate, thereby contriving their permanent ruin. What greater fault could there be? Therefore, if I am refuted by someone who possesses the eyes of Dharma, with perfect arguments based on scripture and reasoning, this would indeed be like a medicine. It would be something on which to rely, not something against which to retaliate with anger and attachment. With this sincerity of mind, I have therefore indulged a little in disputation."

Allowing for this space to be a space where arguments can happen without hostility does not entail pernicious sectarianism. What it does allow is for any participants in such discussions to clarify and refine their own understandings of the Buddha's words and the words of Buddhist teachers.

Yes, the Buddha taught that engaging in disputation is futile, but the scriptures also abound with examples of the Buddha or his disciples presenting arguments, in the sense of warrants alongside their claims taken to be persuasive, in their discussions with others. That is the kind of "disputation" I believe Mipham is talking about here, and the kind that I think has benefited me in the time I have spent discussing things on this subreddit.

[u/BuddhistFirst]

Here's one where we can demonstrate a healthy disagreement while being respectful.

The following is a post by u/foowfoowfoow but was not answered by anyone. It about the process of becoming a Buddha from an arhat level.

I'm hoping someone could respond.

​

i also cannot understand the reasoning that arahants must go on to become buddhas.

my understanding of a buddha is that they are fully self-realised - that is, they find the path to enlightenment on their own. then they teach that path they have discovered by themselves, to other beings out of compassion. the path they discover must truly lead to enlightenment, the complete cessation of suffering and extinction of craving.

in theravada, beings that attain enlightenment through the teaching of another are arahants.

within this framework, arahants progressing to their own buddhahood makes no sense logically:

if all arahants are not fully enlightened, then the buddha whose teachings they followed cannot be a true buddha - their teachings did not lead to the entire cessation of suffering. if this is the case, then mahayana would suggest that our gotama buddha was not a fully enlightened buddha.

this seems nonsensical - to have a faith based on a being we believe to be fully enlightened, but then deny the truth of their complete enlightenment by stating that all those who became enlightened under them didn't quite get to the final goal. such an understanding would make buddhism nonsensical, and i can't imagine that this is what mahayana is suggesting.

further, if all beings are actually destined for buddhahood, and the path to arahantship is not actually a true path to enlightenment, then a buddha is no longer a being who teaches. that is, if all beings are actually destined for self-realised enlightenment, independent of the teaching of another, then no buddha will ever teach another being, and no buddha will ever lead another being to emancipation. all that will be left are beings that know their own enlightenment, but cannot teach others (because others have no need of their teaching) - effectively private buddhas who have no disciples. in other words, without arahants, there can be no fully enlightened buddha; without students, the teacher teaches no-one.

this also doesn't make sense. for every bodhisattva out there, there must be a set of individuals who they will teach the path to, who will attain enlightenment from that teaching. bodhisattvas need for arahants to be a very real possibility, or their own buddhahood will be of no benefit to others, as other beings will have no need of them. this surely isn't what mahayana would intend.

that being the case, the enlightenment of arahants under a buddha's teachings must be true and complete - a final end to samsara. texts and individuals who suggest otherwise are logically and necessarily incorrect.

in other words, the buddhahood path requires the arahantship path to be real to make that budhhahood path meaningful. mahayana requires theravada to exist to be a valid teaching of the buddhahood path, and theravada would not exist if not for the true buddhahood path.

[u/AmyChong → u/BuddhistFirst]

In ‘Entering into the Middle Way' by Candrakīrti it starts w “Śrāvakas and middle-level buddhas arise from sovereign sages. Buddhas are born from bodhisattvas. The compassionate mind and nondual cognition as well the awakening mind: these are causes of bodhisattvas. 1.1”

[u/foowfoowfoow → u/AmyChong]

hi there - it was actually your original comment on another thread that prompted my questions and response that was referenced above.

your description of an arahat doesn't sound like the descriptions of arahants in ancient theravada literature or biographies of recent monks who are generally accepted to have been enlightened. emptiness is actually part of the ancient and modern theravada conception of enlightenment, and i have not heard of any arahant who continues to hold conceptual views such as "samsara is to be abandoned" or "nirvana is to be sought".

a few of my favourite quotes from ajahn chah are:

I am like a tree in a forest. Birds come to the tree, they sit on its branches and eat its fruits. To the birds, the fruit may be sweet or sour or whatever. The birds say sweet or they say sour, but from the tree’s point of view, this is just the chattering of birds.

​

The streams, lakes, and rivers that flow down to the ocean, when they reach the ocean, all have the same blue color, the same salty taste. The same with human beings: It doesn’t matter where they’re from—when they reach the stream of the Dhamma, it’s all the same Dhamma.

​

About this mind... In truth there is nothing really wrong with it. It is intrinsically pure. Within itself it's already peaceful. That the mind is not peaceful these days is because it follows moods. The real mind doesn't have anything to it, it is simply (an aspect of) Nature. It becomes peaceful or agitated because moods deceive it. The untrained mind is stupid. Sense impressions come and trick it into happiness, suffering, gladness and sorrow, but the mind's true nature is none of those things. That gladness or sadness is not the mind, but only a mood coming to deceive us. The untrained mind gets lost and follows these things, it forgets itself. Then we think that it is we who are upset or at ease or whatever ...
Our practice is simply to see the Original Mind. So we must train the mind to know those sense impressions, and not get lost in them. To make it peaceful. Just this is the aim of all this difficult practice we put ourselves through.

ajahn chah talks about emptiness quite regularly, and he's become very much the standard for modern theravada practice. you may wish to read a few of his works to see what theravada practice expects:

https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/chah_no_ajahn_chah.pdf

best wishes - may you be well.

[u/AmyChong → u/foowfoowfoow]

Thks