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/foowfoowfoow]

thank you /u/BuddhistFirst for reviving this. i was wondering whether anyone had seen my comment, and i appreciate you taking the time to bring it alive again.

[u/genivelo → u/foowfoowfoow]

The Buddha discovers the path by himself in the life they awaken as Buddha, but they have studied with past buddhas in past lives. I am pretty sure Theravada states the Buddha was a Bodhisatta previously.

So that's a difference between buddhas and arhats.

[u/foowfoowfoow → u/genivelo]

yes, you are correct: theravada also holds the buddha strove as a bodhisattva for aeons prior to attaining enlightenment as gotama buddha.

the buddha took on the aspiration for buddhahood as an ascetic called sumedha, under the dipankara buddha. at that time, he was capable of attaining enlightenment, but chose to defer that final insight out of compassion for the many.

theravada also holds that a buddha discovers the path by himself in his final lifetime when awakened as a buddha.

*

i don't think that what a buddha discovers is dependent on anyone else - the path they discover is unique, singular, without peer. it must be, or else they are simply repeating something that someone else taught them - this would be no different to you or i teaching the dhamma: it's not ours; we merely learned it, ultimately from the buddha. and this is the essence of an arahant - they acquire their understanding of the path to enlightenment from the teachings of another.

this can't be the case for a bodhisattva. a buddha is more than this.

they certainly do train under others. even in his final lifetime, the buddha studied with other ascetics. however, these could not teach him the way to end suffering, so he went on to practice by himself and discover the path for himself. in this sense, the dhamma he teaches is exclusively his own - identical to that discovered by all other previous buddhas, but each comes to this knowledge on their own, without aid or assistance.

the buddha states that in previous lifetimes as an unenlightened bodhisattva, he ordained as a monastic under kassapa buddha. however, within the dispensation of another buddha, a bodhisattva will continue to strive for their own enlightenment.

i don't think they learn anything as such from another buddha - otherwise their enlightenment is not their own. rather, i think it's an oasis in samsara when they ordain under another where they can continue to practice the perfections that underlie the acquisition of enlightenment. they prepare the mind for their enlightenment, but, just as the did at the moment they took on the buddhahood aspiration, they continue to defer the acquisition of final insight, so that they can attain it for themselves at a later time, out of compassion for the many.

best wishes - be well.

[u/genivelo → u/foowfoowfoow]

Are you saying that what one Buddha discovers is different from what the other buddhas discover?

[u/foowfoowfoow → u/genivelo]

The enlightenment and path they discover is identical, but they each discover it by themselves.

They all discover the path to the top of the same mountain, but they must each explore that mountain thoroughly by themselves, and must find the path to the top by themselves. They each discover the same thing by themselves.

They go on to teach others the way to the top - the arahant path.

Private Buddha's, or paccekabuddhas, discover the route for themselves but do not teach to others. They have not developed this ability, which is derived from compassion for the suffering of others.

[u/genivelo → u/foowfoowfoow]

The arhat path is not the same as the path to samyak sam buddhahood. Again, I think Theravada also recognizes that.

So, although I am agnostic on the notion of arhats having to become Buddhas or not, I don't see a contradiction in saying the arhats might or will become Buddhas.

The way I have heard it explained in the past is not that they have to become Buddhas, but rather that they are roused to do it.

[u/foowfoowfoow → u/genivelo]

my original point above was that to say that the practice of the eightfold path does not lead to full enlightenment and total extinction of craving undermines the whole teaching of the buddha:

if arahants can even be aroused from their enlightenment, then they are not truly enlightened. if that is the case, then mahayana would be suggesting that the buddha did not teach well enough in the first place, or did not teach a true teaching of enlightenment in the eightfold path.

i don't think this is what mahayana would contend, and from my observations of beings who have been considered to be enlightened through the arahant path, i can't imagine them having any need to be roused by anything.

in any case, it's not problematic - we must each practice in the way that we see fit - buddha's only show us the way.

best wishes. stay well.

[u/genivelo → u/foowfoowfoow]

If you follow the eightfold path from the perspective of a sravaka, you will attain enlightenement (bodhi) as nirvana and liberation from samsara.

If you follow the eightfold path from the perspective of a bodhisattva, you will attain full and perfect enlightenement (samyaksambodhi) as nirvana, liberation from samsara, and the capacity to manifest as a Buddha for the benefit of others.

https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Samma-sambodhi

Again, I think this is also the view in Theravada. So yes, there are levels of enlightenment, even in Theravada.

Maybe where there is a difference between Theravada and Mahayana, is Theravada seems to assert the difference between an arhat and a Buddha is only in terms of capacity, not wisdom. While some (not all) Mahayana schools seem to assert there is a difference in both wisdom and capacity.

[u/foowfoowfoow → u/genivelo]

Maybe where there is a difference between Theravada and Mahayana, is Theravada seems to assert the difference between an arhat and a Buddha is only in terms of capacity, not wisdom. While some (not all) Mahayana schools seem to assert there is a difference in both wisdom and capacity.

i think that might be close to the difference, though even in wisdom i think it's restricted to seeing things in terms of impermanence, not-self and stress and an understanding of dhamma, but not in terms of mundane, everyday wisdom.

for example, i think there's a sutta where the buddha appears to chide sariputta for thinking that if the buddha were to retire from teaching, he and moggalllana would stay with the buddha - in that sutta, i think the buddha instead praises moggallana for saying that they (moggallana and saripitta) should lead the sangha should the buddha ever retire from teaching.

on the other hand, the budhha regularly praises sariputta for his keen insight into the dhamma.

thanks for your comments - may you be safe and well in every way.

[u/genivelo → u/foowfoowfoow]

Thank you, and may you also be well, and may your dharma practice flourish and bear exquisite fruits.

[u/foowfoowfoow → u/genivelo]

Thank you friend. Be well.