I think that this is a dangerous attitude to promote. It’s all well and good coming from Ajahn Chah, but Sogyal Rinpoche would say the same thing, Culadasa would say the same thing, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche would say the same thing.
The Buddha said to be one’s own refuge and that the teaching was verifiable by the practitioner for themselves, inviting inspection, good in the beginning middle and end - I for one have always found it to be so, and while I have always found listening to dhamma talks from learned monks edifying and inspiring, I have also come across plenty of occasions when critical thought and a skeptical attitude have been important in protecting me from unscrupulous people who use the cloak of religion to cultivate a cult of personality.
Following instructions without question will work fine if your lucky enough to be in the presence of the wise, but will lead you straight to hell if you happen to be in the presence of the devil, and if you can’t think for yourself and question things then how are you going to know which is which?
Oh and in case the examples I gave get written off as a “Tibetan” thing please read this article for a Theravada perspective, though it’s not for the faint of heart:
I realise the source here is a motivated one, however I believe the facts in each case are as reported.
"When a foolish, incompetent bad person has two qualities they keep themselves broken and damaged. They deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much bad karma. What two? Without examining or scrutinizing, they arouse faith in things that are dubious, and they don’t arouse faith in things that are inspiring. When a foolish, incompetent bad person has these two qualities they keep themselves broken and damaged. They deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much bad karma.
When an astute, competent good person has two qualities they keep themselves healthy and whole. They don’t deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much merit. What two? After examining or scrutinizing, they don’t arouse faith in things that are dubious, and they do arouse faith in things that are inspiring. When an astute, competent good person has these two qualities they keep themselves healthy and whole. They don’t deserve to be blamed and criticized by sensible people, and they make much merit.”
But I don’t think the examining should be done in an arrogant way. It should be done politely, maybe not in argumentatively but rather observing the teacher if he has strong greed hatred delusion through his action.
Also, I think the Buddha’s advice to Mahapajapati Gotami is very handy in how to recognise Dhamma. AN 8.53
Thanks @stu ill get of my high horse in a minute it’s just something I have been thinking a lot about lately and probably deserves a thread of its own which I will make shortly - I know Ajahn Brahm can be a bit cheeky and I’m sure he was not advocating blind obedience to authority, I just think that it’s important to be careful when it comes to “having faith” (personally I think confidence is a better translation as faith has Christian and even Kirkirgardian overtones in English that don’t really appear in the EBT’s)
I think it’s key that Ajahn Brahm pointed out “or what the Buddha says,” not just “what the teacher says.” You should not follow a teacher that is contracting the Buddha’s advice….this can be a recipe for abusive situations, like what @josephzizys is worried about.
That’s the lower mind. But deep inside. Into higher mind I experienced that the spirit will talk things you never knew was inside you. So I think its like clouded in this generation
True Dhamma is not the Book, nevertheless it points to Anicca, Dukha Anatta. True Dhamma has to be realised by direct knowledge. Knowing Anicca ,Dukha ,Anatta is one thing, Acceptance, and become one with Anicca, Dukha and Anatta is another. Example before knowing the Dhamma you are a big ice cube resist to dissolve in water. There is separateness hence there is suffering. After practicing the Dhamma and realised with direct knowledge, the big ice cube (self) is dissolve gradually into and becoming one with the Water (Anicca, Dukha and Anatta) Dhamma. One who sees the Dhamma, sees the Buddha. You often hear the unawaken says i want to go to the nature park so i can be peaceful. The awaken will says this body and mind right here is nature itself, it is the whole universe itself. hence it is peaceful in the here and the now.
Hope this helps
With Metta.
When one doesn’t believe in rebirth that is because he is tied up with annihilation views.
Having thought aboit it much, itt annihilation here just means a destruction & making an end to something existing in the world as to change the world to be without what was there before.
Hence they don’t believe in rebirth because they hold wrong views pertaining to annihilation of a being, consciousness & all, in a world which goes on without them.
A stream enterer can’t hold views like this for having seen the cessation of the world & all.
A better question is whether a faith follower can entertain such views. I don’t know but if they could they would think themselves out of it eventually.
Others have already touched on this topic, but to put it briefly, for a sottapana you don’t need to take rebirth as fact.
But they also cannot take rebirth not being a possibility as fact either. If they do they don’t clearly recognise that believe as just a thought and therefore they still have the fetter of self view.
My teacher sort of implied that it’s not good enough for having just open to rebirth. If I am not wrong, he believes that by the time one is a stream winner, one should have no doubt about rebirth, even if not yet have recollection of past life.
Let me breakdown the reasons for my answer to see where we agree and disagree:
What differentiates an Ariya from a non Ariya is the attitude the Citta holds to the six sense bases/five aggregates. I.e. not mine, arising on their own ceasing on their own
The view that rebirth is a fact (or isn’t) can only be held at the mano (intellect sense base) level until you can recall them yourself with psychic powers.
A sottapana, if they are being honest with themselves, can only recognise that rebirth exists is just a thought/view (as in in seen there is only the seen, heard…heard) and therefore not mine. This non assuming of self of the though is at a Citta level.
So belief in rebirth (part of mundane right view) is necessary in achieving supramundane right view (aka sotapatti) but as soon as you achieve supramundane right view you’re in a process getting your Citta to let go of all views (including, in the end, view of the Dhamma) and seeing them as just that. Views. Annica, anatta, dukkha.
Sure it can be helpful to communicate things skilfully/correctly. But unless you see your past lives yourself whether you have a thought about doubting rebirth or you have a thought about not doubting rebirth a sottapana would see them but as just that. Nothing that needs to be pushed away or welcomed.
When one doesn’t believe in rebirth there is a reason for that and it is because one believes things about the world which are not true but dear & agreeable to him.
He conceives of a world where feelings & bones exist and move about.
To him it is obvious that having died here something can not just appear to continue there. He sees a way of thinking where this statement is correct and so any expression which contradicts this statement is understood to be contradicting common sense.
In as far as he is concerned percipience after death can happen only in dreams.
He thinks that perception of dreams is mindmade and so perceived miracles are possible therein but he doesn’t think that perception of the world is mindmade in the same way because when awake the salayatana are relatively stable & convincing in comparison.
He thinks the world makes mind and mind makes the dream as it wants & in as far as possible. And because he thinks the world makes mind and not otherwise, it follows that he thinks the mind can’t make the salayatana however it wants as it is subject to “natural laws” like dreams are subject to mind’s primacy.
That sounds very reasonable to me Bhante. I also think that it is important here to differentiate between the Buddhist view of rebirth without a Self and the different view of rebirth with a Self (aka reincarnation). The Buddhist understanding of rebirth is important to the understanding of impermanence and the extent of suffering.
it’s just something I have been thinking a lot about lately and probably deserves a thread of its own which I will make shortly - I know Ajahn Brahm can be a bit cheeky and I’m sure he was not advocating blind obedience to authority, I just think that it’s important to be careful when it comes to “having faith” (personally I think confidence is a better translation as faith has Christian and even Kirkirgardian overtones in English that don’t really appear in the EBT’s)
