Hi all as mentioned in a previous post, I’m fairly new to the EBTs having spent a decade in the Goenka tradition and am now immersing myself in the Suttas and various writings from Bhikku Bodhi, Bhikku Analayo, and Bhikku Sujato.
A question I’m grappling with is why if after stream entry a person is meant to have a firm grasp of the Dhamma and a taste of Nibanna, then why are there so many different interpretations of what the Buddha taught within the Theravada and EBT traditions.
Presumably, to this day there are numerous monastics, let alone lay people, who have at least attained stream entry or once returner or beyond.
It would be one thing if they all had different interpretations and said this is but one of many paths to the final destination, but often times there are conflicting messages about what the path is to the point of saying the other messages/path descriptions are wrong.
I may be misunderstanding what stream entry or once returner means, but shouldn’t all those who attain that and beyond converge on the same teaching and therefore largely be in accordance?
I think part of it is because even for the fully Enlightened, there is only so much about the Dhamma that can be put into words–and on the other hand, there is so, so much… So the Awakened Ones as well as Arhats and competent Disciples use various Skillful Methods to bring different types of people to the Dhamma. The Stream Enterers know, but use different Teachings for different people. All Peace.
I think this assumption is very wrong. We are extremely lucky if there are atleast 50 enlightened people (including sotapannas) in the entire world. As you might guess, the percentage of enlightened lay people is practically zero.
Isn’t it simple and obvious: if several people have conflicting interpretations of the key points of the Dhamma, then either only one of them is really right, or - brace yourself! - none of them.
People experience liberating insight in different ways, based on the approach they take. There’s a sutta in the Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN 35.245) in which a monk has the same experience you’re describing—hearing seemingly different interpretations of the path and being dissatisfied with the conflict between them. Luckily for him, he can ask the Buddha about it.
The Buddha gives the simile of the kiṃsuka tree, in which four different people describe the tree in different ways, depending on how it looked to them at a particular time.
He also gives the simile of the citadel and the four pairs of messengers (representing serenity and insight), who each come deliver their message (nibbāna) from four different directions.
Regarding the monk’s original question, the Buddha says: ‘Those superior men answered as they were disposed in just the way their own vision had been well purified.’
Among genuinely attained practitioners, the understanding of the principles of the Dhamma should be the same, and this should accord with the discourses of the Buddha. But there may be differences and disagreements among them about which approach is best, based on what worked well for each of them.
Of course, as already mentioned, there are also those trying to teach beyond what they’ve understood and experienced for themselves, and so they can’t really be trusted to describe a tree they’ve never seen.
• As Christopher said, verbal descriptions in the suttas of enlightened beings’ experience differs. There may be differences in phrasing, but the meaning is the same. In the real world, people’s speaking and teaching abilities differ. Hypothetically, you could have two equally enlightened beings who seem to be saying different things only because one of them is simply bad with words and there is a language barrier.
• Virtuous monastics follow a rule where they are not supposed to claim, even truthfully, superhuman attainments like jhana or levels of enlightenment to laypeople (rule on confession #8). Reflecting on this, it seems like an important rule to me—if monastics were able to claim attainments to laypeople, it would lead to conflict, favoritism, factionalism, jealousy, and all sorts of unwholesome states among both the laypeople and monastics. If it weren’t for this rule, their would probably have been an irrevocable schism in the Theravada Sangha long ago and we might not have the Dhamma today. So as laypeople, we are limited in hearing about true descriptions of attainments. Again, this is a good thing.
• Some persons become deluded into believing they have attained jhana or a stage of enlightenment. They confidently or surreptitiously spread their false claims. Because they haven’t actually attained what they believe they have attained, they don’t describe the same thing and their descriptions differ. They muddy the waters, confusing others.
The practical takeaway of all this: don’t worry about others’ attainments. There is too much noise out there to glean a clear signal. Use the suttas as the guide to evaluate others’ teachings and comportment, as well as your own. There are good teachers who may not have any attainments, and there are people with attainments who may not be good teachers.
If that were the case even for sotapannas that would be very disheartening in terms of what is possible on the path given the number of monastics across the world let alone dedicated lay practitioners
Thank you for the Sutta reference. It’s helpful to see that the Buddha addressed a similar issue.
That said, the examples given in the Sutta by the various Bhikkus clearly accord to various aspects the Dhamma and while describe the Dhamma in different manners are not in direct conflict with each other. This is the various path to the same destination or multitude of descriptions of the same thing.
Unfortunately, what I’ve seen in my limited time reading across the Theravada and EBT traditions are directly opposing interpretations even to the point of various teachers pointing out errors in other teachers interpretation. Errors that both sides claim are crucial misunderstandings of the Dhamma. Extending this to the simile it would be as if the various bhikkus said the other was wrong about the Dhamma.
I’m struggling to reconcile how if even the first attainment of stream entry leads to an understanding of Dhamma and taste of Nibbana then how can there be such conflicting opinions.
If two stream enterers or beyond have different descriptions or interpretations of the path, shouldn’t there still at a bare minimum be a recognition of the truth of the other’s perspectives
Similar to my response to Christopher, while there may be a difference in phrasing among enlightened beings, wouldn’t they be able to recognize the truth of the Dhamma in the other or at least acknowledge it. Instead we see directly conflicting statements oftentimes with people saying the other interpretation is wrong.
Perhaps, although I’m not sure why that would be the case. It seems like in the Suttas there’s open talk about whatever attainments are achieved. Understood that some may falsely claim attainments, but not sure how that prevents schisms.
Presumably the only schism that would occur would be between those who have not attained and those who have. As wouldn’t those who have attained have an experiential understanding of the Dhamma and tasted Nibbana and therefore should see the truth in each others teachings.
According to AN3.21 if you found someone who in truth had such attainments, still there might be difference between them due to their faculties:
one attained to view: their faculty of wisdom is outstanding
direct witness: their faculty of immersion is outstanding
one freed by faith: their faculty of faith is outstanding
So take someone freed by faith - he might tell you to believe to be saved! I’m not sure which suttas focus on people freed by faith - if someone knows, I’d be curious to know, however in Bible freedom through faith is predominant, I believe.
Now, take someone, who is a direct witness or attained to view, if they are not at all accustomed to people freed by faith or any other combination of the three - you can imagine that there could be quite some disagreement between them or if not, then at least their approaches could seem quite contradictory.
In this age there is a lot of people deluded, but if two people say two different things that apparently are in contradiction… there is the case where one is right and the other is wrong, but also both can be right, both can be wrong, or both can be partially right and partially wrong.
Stream enterers are not beyond delusion. Not being subject to the three lowest fetters means having tasted of the dhamma, not that they fully comprehend the teachings. Different people can advance by different paths… sometimes they conclude that the path they took is the only viable.
Even for the arahants, is there any sutta where Buddha says that they are infallible?
Sometimes people find that they are in conflict with someone else, because one interpret that what he said and what someone else said are in conflict.
To put an silly example; there are two persons. One believes in God, he thinks God as everything that it is, The other does not belives in God, he thinks God as a human-like being who is the creator of everything. Are they necessarily in conflict? They both use the same word to point to different concepts…
To put it different; in speech, ultimately, everything is a figure of speech.
A disciple of Ramana said
The various theories taught by Bhagavan (regarding karma, prārabdha, surrender, God, guru and so on) will often contradict each other, but will never contradict the need for self-attention. All such theories are merely clues or aids that help us cling to self-attention. They are each suited to different moods of the mind.
It probably depends on the individual(s). I imagine that some stream-enterers would still be argumentative and disagreeable if that was a strong part of their personality. These tendencies would decrease as the mind is further purified.
I was envisioning unvirtuous, power-hungry monastics claiming attainments in order to receive support, praise, and fame from laypeople and other monastics. Given human beings’ defilements and tribal nature, other monastics may be mislead or may deliberately (for the sake of their own power) follow one or another charismatic claimant. This could lead to factionalism which could lead to schism. It’s not a pleasant scenario to think about. If the rule is followed, this is far less likely to happen.
I guess my thought would have been that since they have all tasted Nibanna and understood the Dhamma then while there would be differences they would be able to recognise the essence of Dhamma in each other.
I just thought that anyone who’d reached an attainment would be able to see the essence of Dhamma in another that had attained as well since by definition both has understood the Dhamma and tasted Nibanna.
Therefore while the exterior may differ the essence would be the same and therefore there wouldn’t be significant disagreement about the path the amongst them and at most they’d acknowledge both works.
Fair, would’ve hoped that amongst the monastic community there were plenty who’ve attained beyond stream entry and therefore the exterior differences would diminish as they graduate up through the various attainments.
Ah I see and yes I could see how that would happen.
My hope was that amongst those who’ve attained there wouldn’t be much daylight as mentioned above so in the end the schism would be between those who’ve attained vs those who haven’t.
But based on what you think so? I have not found anything conclusive at all in the suttas.
Even if one has no attainment whatsoever, but sincerely and humbly follow the teachings of the Buddha… one would speak in the following way They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony. They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people. They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.
I’ve seen monks that are able to explain useful things about the practice and have real knowledge about the dhamma. Most likely, some of them are stream enterers, and/or consider them to be so… and yet, they do not seem to comply with this kind of “right speech”, but seem to be attached to their views, narratives, and interpretations of the dhamma.
Does all this matter from a practical point of view? It seems to be a source of doubts. One should pay no heed to the faults of others, what they have done and not done, rather should one consider the things one has oneself done and not done.
Buddhism, as a whole, has long being impure. You will be your own saviour, you are the one who must decide what path take.
That’s fair. Perhaps my understanding of the various attainments and the implications of them vis a vis the depth of knowledge of the Dhamma and Nibbana is mistaken.
If that assumption is not correct, that one who as attained stream entry, once returner, none returner, or arahant does not have the depth of knowledge to recognise the essence of Dhamma in the teaching of another who as attained then yes my supposition is no longer a problem.
That’s right, it is a source of doubt.
To commit to the Dhamma is a lifetime practice that involves plenty of effort let alone determining which teacher/teaching to follow given the many interpretations.
For me, it would help strengthen my commitment if the Dhamma has a set of internally consistent and logical core concepts, which quite often among the base teachings it seems it does.
However, to me, it feels as if this issue regarding the at odds interpretation of key Dhamma concepts is in conflict with my understanding of what it means to attain and the ability to recognise the Dhamma in others given the conflicting interpretations among various traditions within Theravada and the EBTs.