1. Could the fact that the Dharma was not written by the Buddha himself be problematic? If so, in what ways?
Clearly, the fact that the Dharma was not written down by the Buddha himself is problematic and likely to lead to disputes as to the authenticity of some of the content. This is by no means confined to Buddhism but has probably, to a greater or lesser extent, plagued most religious and philosophical movements throughout history. The teachings of Jesus were collected and disseminated by others after his death and for nearly three hundred years, there were heated discussions as to what writings did or did not form part of his message, a process only alleviated after the conversion of Constantine and the deployment of imperial power to create a monolithic church which had sufficient power to cow most dissident movements with relative ease. In the process, many contemporary 'scriptures' such as the Infancy gospels, the gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary, various non-canonical acts of the apostles,and many more failed the 'cut' and were rejected and suppressed in the interest of a particular institutional agenda. In Islam, many of the problems over time and today are attributed to the existence of many thousands of hadith or alleged sayings of the Prophet (which were recorded some 250 years after his death by non-Arabs).Although the Koran repeatedly states that the Koran is sufficient in itself and that there is no need for supplementary legal authority in Islam, most traditional Muslim clergy assert that one cannot be a true believer without the hadith. This then is a portal for the importation of precepts which are not contained in the Koran or vastly exaggerate moderate in junctions.
One would suggest that Buddhism has suffered less in this respect partly because so much emphasis is placed upon the individual and his or her reaction rather than upon adherence to a creed, partly because the Buddha denied himself any divine status and played down the role of teachers, and partly because Buddhism has always seemed to be more of a way of life than a form of worship. Where divisions exist, they tend to co-exist peaceably and not result in violent schism as history has witnessed so often elsewhere.
2. Imagine that you are preparing to go for refuge. What changes would you need to make in your life first?
It is arguable that the main change you need to make has already been made by virtue of the decision to go for refuge which indicates a dissatisfaction with one's present path and the desire to open oneself to the new. Much would depend too, on the level of refuge upon which one is embarking; the provisional refuge requires an openness and clearing of the mind as a preliminary to embracing the new, whilst the effective and real refuges represent more advanced stages which presuppose a familiarity with both the practice and the underlying philosophy of dharma. The word 'refuge' may also give an erroneous impression rather suggesting an asylum or escape from the world, perhaps akin to a retreat in Christian terms, whereas it can be seen more as a new outlook which has a transformative effect upon one's life and relationship with others.
3. When going for refuge, are you relying on forces outside yourself for peace of mind or are the three levels ultimately found inside yourself?
In the essence, the three levels, or the potentiality to develop them, are found within the individual but they need to be identified and brought to the fore. This involves inner readjustment but will also require assistance by way of example, spiritual advice or 'pairing' and practice. The final commitment has to come from within the supplicant but on the way outside influences are helpful. The relationship is perhaps the same as that sketched out by the Buddha himself in the way he counseled and encouraged those who came to him in order to follow his example and follow his way.
No comments:
Post a Comment