Does full confidence in Dhamma mean one will not find wisdom in other religious texts?

The Watercooler
1

Over at Buddhism Stack exchange and on wikipedia, it lists not going to another teacher as something a sotapanna or one with full confidence in the Buddha would not do.

Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing six wrong actions:

Murdering one’s own mother.
Murdering one’s own father.
Murdering an arahant.
Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.
Taking another teacher.

However, when I look up the relevant Sutta quote, there is no mention of taking another teacher.

“Mendicants, these five fatal wounds lead to a place of loss, to hell.
What five?
Murdering your mother or father or a perfected one; maliciously shedding the blood of a Realized One; and causing a schism in the Saṅgha.
These five fatal wounds lead to a place of loss, to hell.”
SuttaCentral

I did find this from a google search:

  1. Tatiya-abhabbaññhànasuttaü- Third on impossibilities.

009.10. Bhikkhus, these six are impossibilities. What six?

It is impossible that one come to right view should. deprive the life of mother, father, of a noble one, with a defiled mind cause the blood of the Thus Gone One to spill, split the Community of bhikkhus, or appoint another, as teacher.

Bhikkhus, these six are impossibilities.

The translation doesn’t match what Sutta Central has, however and no mention of another teacher.
https://suttacentral.net/an9.10/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

I think it makes sense that one who has full confidence in the Dhamma wouldn’t take another teacher (from another religion), however, what about reading and finding wisdom in other texts and traditions; for example from Tao Te Ching, Bible, etc?

2

This is in Bahudhātukasutta MN115:

They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to murder their mother.
‘Aṭṭhānametaṁ anavakāso yaṁ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo mātaraṁ jīvitā voropeyya, netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti;
But it’s possible for an ordinary person to murder their mother.’
‘ṭhānañca kho etaṁ vijjati yaṁ puthujjano mātaraṁ jīvitā voropeyya, ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti.
They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to murder their father … or murder a perfected one.
‘Aṭṭhānametaṁ anavakāso yaṁ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo pitaraṁ jīvitā voropeyya …pe…
But it’s possible for an ordinary person to murder their father … or a perfected one.’
arahantaṁ jīvitā voropeyya, ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti;
They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to injure a Realized One with malicious intent.
‘aṭṭhānametaṁ anavakāso yaṁ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo duṭṭhacitto tathāgatassa lohitaṁ uppādeyya, netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti;
But it’s possible for an ordinary person to injure a Realized One with malicious intent.’
‘ṭhānañca kho etaṁ vijjati yaṁ puthujjano duṭṭhacitto tathāgatassa lohitaṁ uppādeyya, ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti.
They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to cause a schism in the Saṅgha.
‘Aṭṭhānametaṁ anavakāso yaṁ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo saṅghaṁ bhindeyya, netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti;
But it’s possible for an ordinary person to cause a schism in the Saṅgha.’
‘ṭhānañca kho etaṁ vijjati yaṁ puthujjano saṅghaṁ bhindeyya, ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti.
They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to acknowledge another teacher.
‘Aṭṭhānametaṁ anavakāso yaṁ diṭṭhisampanno puggalo aññaṁ satthāraṁ uddiseyya, netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti;
But it’s possible for an ordinary person to acknowledge another teacher.’
‘ṭhānañca kho etaṁ vijjati yaṁ puthujjano aññaṁ satthāraṁ uddiseyya, ṭhānametaṁ vijjatī’ti pajānāti.

1 Like
3

This indicates the early level of practice that would not correspond with the approach to stream winning:

"One approach to resolving this problem that is popular today is the eclectic one: to pick and choose from the various traditions whatever seems amenable to our needs, welding together different practices and techniques into a synthetic whole that is personally satisfying. Thus one may combine Buddhist mindfulness meditation with sessions of Hindu mantra recitation, Christian prayer with Sufi dancing, Jewish Kabbala with Tibetan visualization exercises. Eclecticism, however, though sometimes helpful in making a transition from a predominantly worldly and materialistic way of life to one that takes on a spiritual hue, eventually wears thin. While it makes a comfortable halfway house, it is not comfortable as a final vehicle.

“There are two interrelated flaws in eclecticism that account for its ultimate inadequacy. One is that eclecticism compromises the very traditions it draws upon. The great spiritual traditions themselves do not propose their disciplines as independent techniques that may be excised from their setting and freely recombined to enhance the felt quality of our lives. They present them, rather, as parts of an integral whole, of a coherent vision regarding the fundamental nature of reality and the final goal of the spiritual quest. A spiritual tradition is not a shallow stream in which one can wet one’s feet and then beat a quick retreat to the shore. It is a mighty, tumultuous river which would rush through the entire landscape of one’s life, and if one truly wishes to travel on it, one must be courageous enough to launch one’s boat and head out for the depths.”

—Bikkhu Bodhi

3 Likes
4

If you have right view, you wouldnt need another teacher for that. You could of course find some mundane wisdom pertaining to worldly matters elsewhere.

3 Likes
5

Yet, when you go into the history of any religion, you‘ll find that their tenets, myths, and practices have developed within a context, incorporating, rejecting, and modifying ideas of others. They are not closed, clearly delineated systems of thought created out of thin air by a founder or god, not to ever change thereafter. Buddhism, too, shares many concepts with different religions of the Buddha‘s day, and has developed (or mutated) after its inception.
Sure, people present their religion as a coherent whole, but you don’t have to take them at their word. I don’t think you should. The process of mutation happens constantly, even within the same sect. Looking through the, um… interpretations of the Anapanasati sutta, the instructions given are often effectively different meditation methods, sometimes radically so. Compare Thanissaro and Analayo, for example. While Analayo stays close to the text, Thanissaro (or rather, his teacher, was it Ajahn Mun?) offers what I would call an improvisation on the theme.
Bhikkhu Bodhi‘s argument is aimed at the kind of thoughtless kitchen-sink supermarket spirituality that is en vogue in the post-traditional West scrambling for any semblance of felt meaning, no matter how incoherent, and in that context it‘s just good common sense. It could probably be extended to the perennialist mindset existing parallel to the spiritual marketplace mentality in various states of partial formation. Trying to apply it to a more complicated situation, however, like a stream-winner‘s appraisal of Dhamma nuggets (supposedly mixed with wrong view) in non-Buddhist religions, it falls apart when you consider all these complications.

1 Like
6

I agree, virtually no religion evolved in a vacuum. Mahayana greatly influenced Taoism (and vice versa). As did Hindu ideas to Vajrayana and Tantra. Theravada was influenced by other early buddhist schools and Jainism (and vice versa).

7

By this is meant “refuge” — that is, final authority. Obviously a sotāpanna can learn practical skills from anyone.

6 Likes
8

A Sotapanna possibly will investigate all teachings to verify all of this. This is how the confidence is set with Buddha is the top most teacher among gods and humans.

The confidence will grow over time because they follow the exact steps (N8FP) and experience less and less dukkha in their life. More happiness (senses) and then towards samadhi happiness with higher development.

Mundane or worldly skills possibly, but ending of dukkhas teaching won’t be found outside Buddha, true dhamma and Ariya Sangha.

A Sotapanna can identify who is a common folk and/or other ariya(s) by just listening to the sermon or dhamma.

2 Likes
9

In the Buddha’s time there were plenty of sekhas who had to reborn somewhere, and in a new life as a born ariyas they are able to teach the Dhamma, it would not be as perfect exposition as we can find in the Suttas, still it will contain doctrine of anatta, and perhaps it would not be so easily recognised by a Buddhist puthujjana who does not understand Dhamma.

Regarding sotapanna, he can perhaps recognise such teaching as ariyan, but he may have difficulties at the spot to recognise a Buddhist teacher as ariya, since such teacher can just skillfully repeat the Buddha’s words without any direct understanding.

10

Easy. Just live with them, see if they think as they say as they do or not. Use sutta as the guide. Might take one for awhile to figure it out. But a wise one can spot right away.

But of course make sure you know what you are looking. :grin:

Vijjacaranasampanno

One acts (think, speak, and bodily act) with penetrated/understood wisdom

I.e. have they perfected precepts and have confidence in Buddha, dhamma and ariya sangha.

I.e. have 4 factors of stream enterer at the very least for stream enterer.

If they have samma samadhi, then check whether they have perfected sense restraint, perfected samadhi or not. The physical body also has transformed as well.

As always:

  1. only good people can spot good or bad people.

  2. A bad people (no perfected precepts) won’t be able to spot good or bad people.

This has been said by Buddha on AN 4.187 or MN 110.

Ariya also can’t lie ever, even a small mistake will be too large.

Ariya also loves true dhamma, Buddha and other ariya. I bet they can talk dhamma for the whole night without stopping. :grin:

11

Full confidence in the Dhamma does not mean there is no wisdom to be found outside, but an acknowledgement that the Buddha Dhamma is supreme. The Buddha praised Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta after his enlightenment, and the former teacher of the Buddha’s two chief disciples, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, gave them strong foundation that they could be converted by hearing one stanza from a noble one.

1 Like
12

These 2 statements are in conflict. Please provide quote of Sutta that Buddha praised his former teachers after his awakening.

I have searched up, down, left, right. I can’t find this statement.

Please provide Sutta for this. Otherwise you are puttting words into a Buddha mouth. This is a Big No No.

The Buddha praised Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta after his enlightenment

In fact Buddha said the opposite in DN 29,

But that saying of Uddaka’s is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless, as it’s only concerning a razor.

It is not possible for the Anuttaro Purisa-Dhamma-Sarathi to praise outsiders. This is the reason Buddha taught.

In fact on SN 6.2, it is very clear:

… Then it occurred to him:

“I’d honor and respect and rely on another ascetic or brahmin so as to complete the entire spectrum of ethics, if it were incomplete. But I don’t see any other ascetic or brahmin in this world—with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—who is more accomplished than myself in ethics, who I should honor and respect and rely on.

I’d honor and respect and rely on another ascetic or brahmin so as to complete the entire spectrum of samadhi, if it were incomplete. But I don’t see any other ascetic or brahmin … who is more accomplished than myself in samadhi…

I’d honor and respect and rely on another ascetic or brahmin so as to complete the entire spectrum of wisdom, if it were incomplete. But I don’t see any other ascetic or brahmin … who is more accomplished than myself in wisdom …

I’d honor and respect and rely on another ascetic or brahmin so as to complete the entire spectrum of freedom, if it were incomplete. But I don’t see any other ascetic or brahmin … who is more accomplished than myself in freedom …

I’d honor and respect and rely on another ascetic or brahmin so as to complete the entire spectrum of the knowledge and vision of freedom, if it were incomplete. But I don’t see any other ascetic or brahmin in this world—with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—who is more accomplished than myself in the knowledge and vision of freedom, who I should honor and respect and rely on.

Why don’t I honor and respect and rely on the same Dhamma to which I was awakened?”

This is why the last statement is mentioned. Only one who honor, respect, and rely on the same dhamma to which Buddha was awakened can be found full spectrum of Sila, Samadhi, Panna, Vimutti and vimutti ñāṇa dassana.

Hence, Buddha only honor, respect to person who rely on his same dhamma that lead to his own awakening. This means only Ariya Sangha.

But If you said Buddha never said bad things about outsider who doesn’t care about his teaching. That probably true.

13

It is in MN26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, ‘To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?’ Then the thought occurred to me, ‘This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.’ Then devas came to me and said, ‘Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.’ And knowledge & vision arose within me: ‘Alara Kalama died seven days ago.’ The thought occurred to me, ‘A great loss has Alara Kalama suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.’

"Then the thought occurred to me, ‘To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?’ Then the thought occurred to me, ‘This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.’ Then devas came to me and said, ‘Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.’ And knowledge & vision arose within me: ‘Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.’ The thought occurred to me, ‘A great loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.’

There is no contradiction, unless you overlook the role of kamma and its relationship to the gradual training. Among the six recollections, three present the triple gem of which we take refuge, and the other three can include interactions with outsiders.

1 Like
14

I venture to think that if you actually read through the whole of the Vinaya and the Suttas you would be aghast at some of the things a real live sotāpanna is capable of. As a bhikkhu he is capable of suicide (but so also is an arahat—I have already quoted examples); he is capable of breaking all the lesser Vinaya rules (M. 48: i,323-5; A. III,85: i,231-2); he is capable of disrobing on account of sensual desires (e.g. the Ven. Citta Hatthisāriputta—A. VI,60: iii,392-9); he is capable (to some degree) of anger, ill-will, jealousy, stinginess, deceit, craftiness, shamelessness, and brazenness (A. II,16: i,96). As a layman he is capable (contrary to popular belief) of breaking any or all of the five precepts (though as soon as he has done so he recognizes his fault and repairs the breach, unlike the puthujjana who is content to leave the precepts broken).

There are some things in the Suttas that have so much shocked the Commentator that he has been obliged to provide patently false explanations (I am thinking in particular of the arahat’s suicide in M. 144: iii,266 and in the Salāyatana Samy. 87: iv,55-60 and of a drunken sotāpanna in the Sotāpatti Samy. 24: v,375-7). What the sotāpannais absolutely incapable of doing is the following (M. 115: iii,64-5):—

To take any determination (sankhāra) as permanent,
To take any determination as pleasant,
To take any thing (dhamma) as self,
To kill his mother,
To kill his father,
To kill an arahat,
Maliciously to shed a Buddha’s blood,
To split the Sangha,
To follow any teacher other than the Buddha.

All these things a puthujjana can do.

Why am I glad that you are shocked to learn that a sekha bhikkhu can be fond of talk (and worse)? Because it gives me the opportunity of insisting that unless you bring the sekha down to earth the Buddha’s Teaching can never be a reality for you. So long as you are content to put the sotāpanna on a pedestal well out of reach, it can never possibly occur to you that it is your duty to become sotāpanna yourself (or at least to make the attempt) here and now in this very life; for you will simply take it as axiomatic that you cannot succeed. As Kierkegaard puts it,

Whatever is great in the sphere of the universally human must…not be communicated as a subject for admiration, but as an ethical requirement. (CUP, p. 320)

This means that you are not required to admire a sotāpanna, but to become one.

3 Likes
15

What is wisdom ‘paññā’ in Dhamma, according to EBTs?
But, according to SN (and SA) suttas, paññā is one fully knows and sees the four noble truths, an understanding of anicca, dukkha, suñña, anatta, and the middle way.

16

The error with your current way of thinking is that your understanding of dhamma is based within ambiguity. What do I mean?

By the way you have proposed your statement, it highlights that you have not uncovered the core crucible of what ‘dhamma’ actually is. Dhamma, is, ‘that which is actual or true, natural law, the way something is as it is’, and when implemented in one’s life ‘makes sense, and works to give rise to a result that is beneficial to oneself and all’ & is ‘able to be realised by anyone who is earnestly and diligently striving’.

It is another way for saying ‘the facts’. It’s definition is multimodal meaning numerous, and can refer to ‘a process’ or ‘the means that lead to the ends’ (I.e. that which leads to the identifying and cessation of suffering).

The Tao Te Ching is full of wisdom parables that make sense when inspected and put to the test to see if they have any crucible of actuality in them.

Many people hear of the word dhamma, and it is a Pali term, and so they associate dhamma with what they have been told dhamma is, and their image of what they think dhamma is and this idea that it only comes from ‘buddhist-y’ looking texts and people. In fact, it is a universal principle, but what Buddhism and some of its proponents do well, is pointing towards the window of awakening, the moment of zen, otherwise known as the moment of learning which makes the tradition strong. It is not exclusive to Buddhism but is ‘Buddhisms’ focus. Still, even within Buddhism, it is a mixed bag of the awakened, awakening, and those who are unaware yet believe based on faith. The same applies for the denizens of the World who are not apart of the Buddhist community. Buddhadhamma just does a great way of mapping the mind and creating the skillful means to point towards awakening. It is because of the benefit and success that the Buddhist tradition is very much alive but the next step is realising the realisations aren’t owned by the tradition - as to circumvent this US vs THEM attitude.

In short, if you realise what the dhamma is in it’s core essence, one has roused the eye of dhamma, and can see what is ‘actual and what is not’ when Inspecting other texts. Many of the well-known Ajahn’s in the Thai Forest Tradition have sometimes referenced other people who were not of Buddhist stock but referenced because they have identified X person has some degree of realisation. The truth, the facts, or the principle of dhamma (law), is not owned by Buddhism or it’s proponents. It is a universal principle able to be realised by All who have a need to do so.

1 Like
17

Wisdom, defined by me, is knowledge that has been discerned to be true or actual which when applied to one’s life benefits oneself & All without bringing harm to oneself or all.

1 Like
18

Looks like you have not read SN 55.40 or you might exclude it.

…“Nandiya, someone who totally and utterly lacks these four factors of stream-entry is an outsider who belongs with the ordinary persons, I say.
… Unshakable confidence in triple gems. (Buddha, dhamma and ariya sangha)

Furthermore, a noble disciple’s ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones, unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to samadhi.

These are 4 minimum requirement for sotapanna.

What are the ariyan precepts? Look at SN 45.8.

And what is right speech? Stop speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical. This is called right speech.

And what is right action? Stop killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual activity. This is called right action

What are minor precepts? Well these related to senses restraint. Many can be found in vinaya. Worldly rule created by human also included.

Actually sotapanna is quite doable for most people. It is basically hear true dhamma from ariya and practice perfecting precepts to achieve the fruits here and now.

he is capable of disrobing on account of sensual desires

Well as long as the samadhi is not perfected, there is no way to be able to stop the sensual desire completely. This also include perfected sense restraint and fully established satipathana.

I.e. only a non returner and arahant can do it. Outsider free of sensual pleasure also can do it.

19

Ah… praising in his thoughts instead of talking to others about how great his previous teachers.

Well i guess we both can be right in a sense.

But Buddha will never praise other outsider teaching ever. Otherwise he wouldn’t have leave his old teachers.

20

Bhikkhus, these two qualities lead to the decline of a bhikkhu who is a trainee. What two? (200) Anger and hostility … (201) Denigration and insolence … (202) Envy and miserliness … (203) Deceitfulness and craftiness … (204) Moral shamelessness and moral recklessness. These two qualities lead to the decline of a bhikkhu who is a trainee.”

There is so called hierarchy of truths, without knowing it, some descriptions in Suttas may seem contradictory. In this particular case you just quote general description, which has -so it seems to me -a didactic value, setting up the high standard; while quote from Anguttara Nikaya deals with details.
The point is that to recognise ariya isn’t as easy as you suggest, since you can find many monks who’s outside behaviour is blameless, and yet they are puthujjanas.