Teachers who are Trojan horses

What the curious and beginners have to understand about Buddhism is that if they have any doubts about Gautama being the Buddha or awakened, they shouldn’t take up Buddhism.  It is okay to study Buddhism from the outside and to disagree with it completely.  But if one decides to follow the teachings of the Buddha then his enlightenment has to be accepted on faith.  

Then there is the curious and more important matter of Buddhist teachers who have taken up Buddhism but attribute a different kind of enlightenment to Gautama than the one described in his discourses.  These people pose far more of a problem than the curious and the beginners.  They are somewhat like a Trojan horse.  Once they are accepted and believed to be genuine authorities that’s when they begin to sack Buddhism, in a manner of speaking.

The sacking begins, as mentioned previously, when a Buddhist teacher attributes, for example, a different kind of enlightenment or nirvana to the Buddha than the one described in the canon (Pali and Mahayana).

Looking at this problem from the side of literary criticism in which we have a text before us, for example, J.D. Salinger’s Franny and Zooey, we can posit any theory we wish about the book and what Salinger was trying to say but the evidence for our particular theory will have to come from the text itself—not outside of it.  Turning back to Buddhism, this is saying the facts of Buddhism come from the discourses themselves.  If we have a particular theory about the Buddha’s enlightenment or nirvana the evidence has to come ultimately from the discourses themselves.  One has to provide passages from the Buddhist canon with quotation marks, in other words.  This is the evidence.  If we argue the Buddha taught this or that, but there is no evidence to be found in his discourses, then it is a lie to say the Buddha taught such.

Popular books about Buddhism that for the most part omit the facts of Buddhism (the facts being words the Buddha spoke) are not reliable for either the curious or beginners.  It doesn’t matter who the author is especially when they tell us what nirvana is.  To be honest, they have to do so from a canonical basis not pulling it out their arse.  Without supportive facts anyone can say what nirvana is—it’s up for grabs.  Here is a good example of what I mean.  When we read in Charlotte Joko Beck’s book, Everyday Zen what nirvana is, it may not be true—let the reader beware.  She says:

“Wisdom is to see that there is nothing to search for.  If you live with a difficult person, that’s nirvana.  Perfect.  If you are miserable, that’s it.  And I’m not saying to be passive, not to take action; then you would be trying to hold nirvana a fixed state.  It’s never fixed, but always changing” (p., 151).

If the Buddha in his discourses either in the Pali canon or the Mahayana canon said anything remotely like this, where is it?  Beck is not saying.  Frankly, her idea is outside of the Buddhist ballpark by miles.  Do the words of Beck chime with this passage?

“Not constructing, not developing any complexes either for becoming or de-becoming, he grasps after nothing in the world; not grasping he is not troubled, not being troubled he attains nibbana in this very self (paccattmyeva)” (M. iii. 244).

Or this passage from the Mahayana canon?

“The Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana” (Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

Or this one?

“Nirvana is the Alayavijñâna where a revulsion takes place by self-realisation.  Therefore, Mahamati, those who are stupid talk of the trinity of vehicles and not of the state of Mind-only where there are no images” (Lankavatara Sutra).

Or finally this one?

“The Self' signifies the Buddha; 'the Eternal' signifies the Dharmakaya; 'Bliss' signifies Nirvana, and 'the Pure' signifies Dharma” (Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

The curious and beginners have a simple decision to make, either accept on faith Gautama the Buddha was enlightened and attained nirvana or he wasn’t enlightened.  This is simple enough.  But how does one tell a Buddhist authority, for example, a Zen teacher, that the basis of their Zen Buddhism is factless—it rests only on their authority; not the Buddha’s words?

 

Comments

[Ognjen]

Certainly the historical Buddha advised us not simply to believe, not even him.Why? Because any belief is a thought construction difficult to discern from other like belief's.But I hope you can see that not having faith in (Buddha's) enlightenment is just on step from saying that there is no enlightenment and the Buddha is a metaphor for just sitting in other words your present state.This is precisely what is a major theme of this blog, that such belief in disbelief is not the path to the other shore(America, lol).The difficulty is to know why enlightenment is not a belief like other beliefs, well hoping that your stock value will increase is not hope but belief since it is something that can be validated through the senses.Enlightenment on the other hand is a hope and not a belief since it is a belief in something that transcends the senses.

Hope is a belief in a positive outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life.Wikipedia lol

[Ognjen]

This is my opinion for the first comment.Dear friend I think you have completely misunderstood very significant point in the above blog.The reason why we must have faith in Buddha's enlightenment is not because we should do something out of blind belief or fear of a dogmatic view, but because the enlightenment of a Buddha and for that matter of any sentient being since (and before) Buddha is a sin qua non or prerequisite for our own enlightenment. How?Faith in Buddha's enlightenment is the first outset of our journey and the first relation with truth, since it is in Buddha that we see our own future state.So when we exprese faith in someones enlightenment we express our hope for ourselves.If you heard that there was a promised land called America and it was discovered by Columbus, would you not try to find the port to take you to that shore.What if I told you that America does not exist and that Columbus is a metaphor for yourself in your present condition, what would happen then.

[ellen]

The problem with your argument is the same as with absolute belief in the bible. These are endlessly copied and interpreted texts, they have changed over time, how can you guarantee that they are the actual words precisely as spoken? Did the Buddha (not a verifiable historical figure and likely to have been an amalgamated or composite character, for the benefit of producing a concise literary picture ) have a stenographer permanently at his side?
Your argument is fundamentalist, limited whatever religion makes it.

[minx]

Many, if not countless, use scripture to justify a selfish behaviour and the human creature if any, is one of extreme selfish behaviour.

When scripture and the religion it presents becomes greater than your own true self you are in danger of loosing yourself in the aforementioned. To loose yourself in something devoid of self is always a sure recipe of inevitable error and suffering.

Now, one whom can "use" scripture as a merely decoding and confirming tool for the vast spiritual richness of the True Mind is truly on the right path to a proper first enlightenment.

[Mark Rogow]

Ornate rhetoric and meaningless talk is what I hear from some of your detractors. As the Lotus Sutra teaches, "Shame on such monks. They will create their own fictions." The Mahaparinirvana Sutra teaches,

"In the defiled times of the latter age, those who slander the correct teaching will be as numerous as the specks of dirt in all the lands of the ten directions, while those who uphold the correct teaching will be as few as the specks of dirt that can be placed on a fingernail."

Bravo Zennist. Excellent post.