I read a sutta where Ven Ananda says that teachings of other teachers can be practiced if they are conducive to reducing craving, aversion and delusion. Do you know where this sutta is?
Anguttara Nikaya 3.72
Thanks. Your answer lead me to the solution I was looking for AN 3.78.
Thank you for your topic. I have a question for you. Do you think this sutta means that it is possible to follow a teacher whose spiritual doctrine and practices are different from those of the Buddha, but still lead to the end of suffering?
The difficulty with this question is that, if I’ve understood the Buddha’s teaching correctly, the end of suffering only comes if we put an end to our belief in the Self. So the doctrine of the spiritual teacher, even if it’s different from that of the Buddha, can’t lead to belief in the Self, but must lead to the end of that belief.
Hey @DeadBuddha not to be rude, but did you read the question? …conducive to reducing craving, aversion, and delusion …? Answer: AN 3.78
Do you not think that in reducing those three toxins you would not be reducing suffering?
I’m not sure if when the sutta talks about “other spiritual paths”, it includes “other spiritual doctrines/philosophies”.
Also, I’m not sure if the sutta talks about reducing illusion. The term is not used.
It’s an interesting question. I don’t think that in general “theory” and “practice” are separated in Indian philosophy. The sutta certainly seems to support that. And I think akusalā dhammā includes all the habits that go up into making delusive thinking.
There’s something in here about acting the part, versus genuine transformation. Are you just making a face to meet the faces that you meet, in a mechanical way, because that’s the right thing to do or whatever, but holding onto a bunch of things that meanwhile may sooner or later come out like a bunch of snakes, or have you applied yourself. Are you using the practice as what Foucault would call it, a technology of self, for genuine transformation into a better way of being?
There is a very famous Buddhist scholar who converted back to Catholicism, because he loved his wife so dearly he couldn’t imagine not being with her - in a future world. What is anyone going to say to that? Who cares, deluded. No. That would be a selfish thing.