Is it important to have a traditional understanding of Buddhism?

Upvote:0

We take refuge in the teachings, so it is important to know what they say:

MN117:5.1: And what is wrong view?
MN117:5.2: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

Asserting "there's no afterlife." is simply wrong view. We put that wrong view aside and ask about right view.

MN117:6.1: And what is right view?
MN117:6.2: Right view is twofold, I say.
MN117:6.3: There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:6.4: And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:7.1: And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:7.2: ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’

If the phrase "there is an afterlife" is uncomfortable to accept, simply consider that genes touch and join us all from generation to generation, from past to present. Genes do very much influence our lives. So genes are a form of past life. Genes provide a form of afterlife in the literal sense "after this life". That fact alone aligns with Buddhist teaching and allows us to avoid worrying about other views traditional or not.

To take refuge in the teachings we have to study them and learn what they actually say.

Upvote:3

Understanding is always useful. However, we need to recognize that understanding is not permanent. Change is inevitable; growth is preferred. What we are so self-assured about now we will inevitable come to look at with a rueful smile. Or if we don't, we will have missed something crucial.

Traditional understanding is valuable because it gives us a scaffold on which true understanding can be built. Nothing can give us the dharma — we have to find it on our own — but traditional understanding sets the stage for it (as it were).

Traditional understanding is problematic because it leads us too easily into dogma. The dharma is a way of living, not a mere collection of teachings, but people (sad to say) want to be told what to do. It's a trap for the ego...

I'm secular: I don't hold to much of what Buddhist tradition says. But I also don't reject it, because I see a value in it (if not the value that traditionalists see). We have this moment in which to manifest enlightenment. There's no sense worrying about tomorrow, or next month, or next year, or next lifetime; that will all take care of itself, according to things beyond our reach and understanding. Try not to undermine the dharma now, and everything else will align itself.

More post

Search Posts

Related post