The Second Jewel

This lesson was about the Dharma or the Teaching. It is divided into two parts. One part talks about the scriptures as documents; how old they are, where they came from, how they should be treated. It is hard for me to ascribe much value to a piece of paper. I guess I can understand if a Bible were being burned how a devout Christian might react. I am not devoid of that feeling. I get a twinge of irritation if I see the flag spat upon or burned. But I realize it is a symbol and cannot ascribe a lot of value to it. I think the origin of those irritations is really seeing people hate the country not the flag or seeing people hate the religion not the Bible. Ultimately these acts boil down to people showing their hatred of Americans or Christians and I just don't like seeing people hate people.

The second part was about the scriptures as the teachings of Buddhism. This is what I think rightly is called the Dharma. The focus should not be on the one teaching but what is taught.  A particular person may have charisma and people may believe what is preached because of that. Buddhism warns against this, emphasizing the focus should be on the teaching not the teacher. Also, the focus should be on the meaning of what is written and not on the words. It is a pet peeve of mine how arguments often are about semantics. Someone says something and rather than looking at whether what is meant is true the argument becomes whether the right word was used. Some of that is good but it can be a misused distraction too. Some other warnings are listed in what is known as “The Kalama Discourse” summarized as follows:

"Do not believe a spiritual teaching just because:
1. it is repeatedly recited,
2. it is written in a scripture,
3. it was handed from guru to disciple,
4. everyone around you believes it,
5. it has supernatural qualities,
6. it fits my beliefs anyway,
7. it sounds rational to me,
8. it is taught by a respectable person,
9. it was said to be the truth by the teacher,
10. one must defend it or fight for it.

Only when the teaching agrees with your experience and reason, and when it is conducive to the good and gain of oneself and all others, then one should accept the teachings, and live up to them."

This is important. In Buddhism there is little room for faith. Everything should be tested and agreed upon. I think it is great to have a teaching that teaches the importance of deciding for yourself if it is true or not. It is open minded in that way. I think the Dali Llama has said recently that if science proves something is true that runs counter to Buddhist teachings then it is the Buddhist teachings that must change. That is such a relief to be free from any brow beating or thought that you have to believe this or you go to hell. Buddhism really respects the individual's mind not with a take if or leave it attitude but with a take as much as you like and agree with attitude. Pretty Cool.