[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[lemmett at talk21.com]

> >Many of the Buddha's teachings are quite valuable, I've
> found, for people
> >who have already advanced in practice (i.e. been
> transformed by practice
> >to a greater or lesser degree). However, those same
> teachings cannot be
> >rightly understood, and therefore have almost no value,
> to someone who
> >only wants to "think them through" without engaging in
> serious practice
> >under a qualified teacher.
> 
> Isn't thinking things through a valid form of serious
> practice? 
> (Though, of course it would take more than that, just as
> just sitting 
> wouldn't quite cut it either.)
> 

If I may, I would like to add that I probably believe that if the truth of a teaching cannot be communicated to and understood by anyone who has not engaged in the same practices as yourself, then that may be somewhat dubious. I think a more interesting question is whether outside agencies would have to *agree*, qualified with the adept's testimony, in order for it to be a rigorously valid belief. Personally, I would understand the Buddhist insistence on the conventional not refuting the ultimate, in that sort of vein.

Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara, Clearly Manifest
"27
Whatever is perceived with dimmed, defective sight
Has no validity compared with what is seen by healthy eyes.
Just so, a mind deprived of spotless wisdom
Has no power to contradict a pure, untainted mind."

The fact that the Buddha said or is sometimes said to have only preached what helps liberate us might complicate the picture but I don't think that he taught untruths and do think we can establish how to get reasonable beliefs without relying on him / rejecting things without proper cause.

Thanks and I hope that is OK,

Luke