New to Secular Buddhism

Enter Search Terms search

Navigate to ...

Who Is The Ultimate Authority?

Linda | July 23, 2012 | 37 Comments

The concept of authority in Buddhism shouldnt be complicated yet it is. Many of us are
already familiar with the Kalama Suttas talk about how we shouldnt rely on outside authorities but weigh what were told against our
own experience. For many here this was one of the first reasons we became interested in Buddhism, because we heard that the Buddha
didnt want to us to take his teachings on faith, but look for evidence we could see right in our own lives, here and now. Any system that
asks us to question, and to check how well it matches up to reality would seem to be a big improvement over most of the worlds
religions, to those of us who have rejected them for reason.
The question of authority gets more complicated than we might think at first glance for a good reason, though. Its because there are at
least two different kinds of authority to be considered, and though they are distinct, they intertwine and affect each other.
First of all, there is the classic question of who is the authority for each of us in our practice. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, its
fairly clear to everyone that the ultimate authority for each of us is none other than our own selves (such as those selves are). This is one
10/12/2014 Who Is The Ultimate Authority? : Secular Buddhist Association
http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/23/who-is-the-ultimate-authority/ 2/12

of those intricate little conundrums of Buddhism: even though we are not perfect, we are charged with the ability to perfect ourselves (or
at least improve, heading toward perfection). Most religions seem to be telling us that goodness/perfection comes only through outside
sources, insisting we rely on forces beyond us to get that goodness. Buddhism, on the other hand, puts the responsibility squarely on each
one of us as individuals, saying that we already have what it takes within, we just need to move the obscuring confusion out of the way to
get to it, and that we can do this with a little bit of guidance to see where the confusion begins.
And its that element of guidance that is the connection between the first ultimate authority (yourself, in your practice) and the second,
which is all about who is giving us that guidance.
A traditional Buddhist might say that the guide is indisputably the Buddha, but you and I know that we dont have the Buddha here to tell
us what he thinks we need to know, in terms that we can understand. What we have is a set of very old texts, which are based on even
older oral works, written in a foreign language describing talks that were given in a different time, place, and social context. These cant
be as effective at telling us what the originator of the ideas wanted us to know, as the actual originator would be live and in person.
Aside from those ancient works, what we have is a bunch of people telling us what those texts mean.
If we have tentatively accepted the possibility that a system that begins by saying, Come and test what Im saying against your own
experience might be a system that is actually useful in practice, because it rests on visible effects in the world instead of imagination and
speculation, then we are going to want to know more about that system. We dont have the originator of the system living now, who could
tell us more about it with accuracy.
So, when we are considering the question of this second sort of authority, we actually have two sets of answers. The first answer is the
answer to the first question: you are the authority on what the Buddha taught, because the Buddha told us that what he is talking about is
something you can see for yourself, and in fact you *must* see for yourself, because that insight is really the whole point. But we
know how easy it is for us humans to delude ourselves (that too is the point), which is why the Kalama sutta doesnt actually tell us to
*dismiss* outside opinions, but tells us to also listen to the wise, it only tells us not to *rely* on them, particularly by not accepting
their views in favor of our own experience. (< This is a key point; please remember it.)
The answer, then, of who, aside from ourselves, can give us good information about what the Buddha actually taught, is going to be the
trickiest one we have to deal with.
The traditional answer is, of course, traditional monastics. Without thinking much about it our first instinct is going to be to accept that the
teachers who have been handing down this wisdom for two thousand-odd years are going to have an accurate view; of course they are the
authorities. But lets think about this a moment.
In our first encounters with Buddhism we probably had the impression that there was just that: Buddhism. Most of us dont get introduced
at the start to a Buddhism that has many, many schools and approaches; if were lucky we learn early enough on that there are, and so get
to explore several or get another kind of lucky and have a really good encounter with just one lineage and get to know it very well
before learning of and exploring others with an open mind. Question: What is the difference between these lineages? Why are there so
many? Which one is the ultimate authority? Do we suppose that any one of them has a perfect understanding of what the Buddha taught?
Knowing what we know about what humans do with information and understanding, is it reasonable to expect perfect understanding after
2,500 years? I know I dont. I expect lots of changes in understanding occurred at many different points the same text could be
interpreted in many different ways over time and I would hope that some of the changes will have actually brought about
improvements in the system or at least in the ways it is explained and expressed. But I certainly dont expect that any one tradition has a
perfect grasp of what the Buddha said.
Which means that the traditions are ultimate authorities on their understanding of what the Buddha taught and authorities on what is in
their texts. There can be no living ultimate authorities on what the Buddha actually taught until we invent time travel. As far as I can see,
the closest we can come to an authority on what the Buddha taught is to accept that the closest approach we have is through the oldest
versions we have of the suttas (at this point that is mostly the Theravadan Pali suttas, Chinese agamas, and some very old pieces written
on birchbark found in Gandhara), so the ultimate authority on the Buddha of the suttas is the Buddha of the suttas.
If we accept that the insights in these texts are valuable and want to learn more, we can, of course, go to the monastics who disagree
among themselves about what is being said, or we can go to the texts, or try a combination approach. Having tried the first approach first,
and the last approach afterward, I am now reminded that even when I have a fairly reliable outside source for further guidance, it is still
necessary to test my understanding of what Im being told (or coming to understand) that he is saying, against my own experience. If for
you, as for me, one of the foundational reasons for investigating this approach is that we are supposed to be able to see whats being
taught for ourselves, then we must never forget that the Buddha says this: you can see it for yourself! And further back to the key point

above that we are told to favor our experience over what we are told. In at least one sutta the Buddha makes it clear that when he says
this, he means *no matter how authoratative you think the person is who is telling you what he teaches* (see NOTE below).
My question, then, is this: when we talk about authority in Buddhism, and some of us point out that perhaps some of the texts have been
misunderstood because we are told they are saying things that we dont see in evidence ourselves, why is the answer even among
secular Buddhists so often that The Traditions are correct in telling us what the Buddha taught and you seem to be bending what hes
saying to fit your perception of reality? Pretty much, my perception of reality, folks, is *your* perception of reality naturalist? not a
believer in gods or supernatural powers? you know the perception Im talking about, right?
Theres a major contradiction here. The acid test for whether were correctly understanding the Buddhas teaching the acid test
according to the man himself, in the greatest authority we have on his teaching, those early texts is whether we can see what we think
hes saying in our own lives. If I point out to you that some of what the traditional monastics are saying the Buddha meant *isnt* in
evidence in our lives, and that there is an extremely consistent way of interpreting those texts that sticks to just the things that *are* in
evidence in our lives, what would make you think that the monastics understood him correctly and I certainly must be the one thats
wrong? Other than, perhaps, allegiance to the ways of religious orthodoxy and great confidence in how accurately humans pass on ideas?
You, of course, all accept that religions that have survived thousands of years pass everything on with perfect accuracy, right? (Surely you
dont.)
10/12/2014 Who Is The Ultimate Authority? : Secular Buddhist Association
http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/23/who-is-the-ultimate-authority/ 3/12

I understand that quite often the perception is that the Buddha was deluded so caught up in his own time that he could not free himself
from views about the cosmos and rebirth so he actually believed things that happened when he was in altered states of consciousness. I
find it odd that people are willing to follow a man who teaches us how to free ourselves from delusion whom they believe was himself
deluded, but even aside from that, what this comes down to is a situation in which its adherents would rather believe that the founder of
the system they follow was actually crazy, and 100 generations of monks carried that message forward without distorting it in any
significant way, than accept the possibility that maybe the King of Seeing Through Delusion actually did see through it all, and some few
of those 100 generations of monastics screwed it up a bit, and the rest just perpetuated the error. Knowing what you know about human
nature, which scenario do you think is more likely? One person got it right and some few out of a hundred got it wrong? Or the founder
got it wrong and everyone else got it right?
Why, in this skeptical bunch, is there so much confidence in the Theravadan understanding of the Buddhas teachings? Why so much
resistance to even the idea of questioning it, of taking a fresh look at what is in the Pali canon, to see if a bit of confusion crept in? Why
doesnt it give us pause when we notice that the Buddha repeatedely and explicitly says You can see my dhamma in your own life, and
this is at odds with him teaching about things we dont see? Surely this cant come solely out of the (admittedly very human) tendency to
be so invested in the understanding we have achieved through our efforts in reading books and going to talks and so on that we then just
cannot open our minds up to any other way of looking at it? It cant be just ego-investment in what weve learned so far, can it? What
other factors go into certainty that the traditions know with great accuracy what the Buddha meant by all those words even when they
preach that he contradicted himself with great frequency? Especially when it flies in the face of what he said most clearly: we can see
what he teaches for ourselves. Wheres the rebirth? Im not seeing it.
When I am told that the way I am interpreting the suttas is bent to match my worldview and I contemplate the number of times the
Buddha is telling me I am actually understanding him correctly if I can actually see, in the world, what he is saying, I am continually
amused and perplexed by the inherent contradiction there, and by the view of the speaker, that our understanding of what the Buddha is
saying should be anything other than a match for our worldview. Once we come to understand even a little of what he is saying, the two
should come into closer and closer alignment over time.
*~*~*

While were on the subject, Id like to make just one last (personal) point about authority not really to do with the two questions
above, but to do with deference to authority or appeals to authority. I quite often cite examples of what the Buddha has to say, and
sometimes this causes people who arent paying attention to think Im making an appeal to his authority, when Im actually doing quite
the opposite. What I am, quite often, saying is that I can see this happening in my own life and whoa! cool! the Buddha talked
about it too. I am not saying, We should see it this way because he did. I am saying, We can see this in our lives and see, he was
not deluded! because he saw the same things you and I see.
I sometimes get mistaken for a Buddha-worshipper; I get accused of seeing him as absolutely correct in everything, and deferring to his
authority, but that is so far from what is happening that it gives me that dizzy feeling of dissonance between my view of the world, and the
view others have of my view of the world.
As I pointed out in a rant on this subject elsewhere, recently, I dont actually give a damn whether the Buddha was an historical person or
not, whether he did the things described in the suttas, or not, or whether he was perfect or not (he was not!). In my investigations of the
texts, the only thing I am really concerned with is getting the most out of the insights that are in there, because I do find wisdom in them.
The insights have authority not because they belong to the Buddha, but because I have investigated them and found them to be valid. I
keep pointing these valid insights out not as an appeal to authority, but as supporting evidence for the Buddha of the suttas having insights
we can see for ourselves.
As it happens, recognizing the possibility that there was an historical person who became known to us as the Buddha, and seeing evidence
that supports the texts as actually having originated with one person, makes it easier to understand the way the texts got to us in the shape
they are in and to see a uniform message against the interference of what would seem to be other (probably later) voices. But it is the
text and the message that are my prime interest, not the Buddha himself.
When I do approach the Buddha as any kind of an authority, I am seeing him in something like the way an adult child sees a parent. When
I was very young, I thought my parents knew everything. When I was a teenager, I thought my parents knew nothing. When I went out on
my own, I found myself sometimes calling back home to ask for advice, and began to discover that my parents did know things after all.
Does their insight into life arrived at through long experience make them an authority to me? Do I do what they say just because
they say to do it? No, I listen to what they say, and measure it against my own knowledge, and if it seems at all likely, I try it out to see if

it works. I respect what they have to say because I have seen how often it works for me. This makes a fairly good parallel to my
relationship with the Buddha of the suttas.
NOTE: The Buddha speaks of comparing what we are told to what is in the suttas (which means we should also compare what we are told to the
many, many times he points out that we can see his dhamma for ourselves he doesnt make this point just the time it appears in the Kalama Sutta,
but many times in many ways). In this sutta (DN 16) he talks about monks who say they heard (whatever) first-hand, or from a someone who heard it
from a group, or from a well-established group, or from an individual I do believe hes trying to say *from anyone no matter what they give as their
authority*. A translation of the sutta can be found at the following link:
http://www.palicanon.org/en/sutta-pitaka/transcribed-suttas/digha-nikaya/149-dn-16-mahparinibbna-sutta-the-great-passing-the-buddhas-lastdays.
html
and you can locate the relevant portion by searching on the phrase:
4.8. Suppose a monk were to say: Friends, I heard and received this from the Lords own lips