Contradictions, Interpolations And Criticisms

In my reply to several comments to my post of 9th January 2010 I pointed out that the Buddha could be very critical when he thought it was necessary, and that on occasion his criticism could be quite hard. I gave as an example of this the sutta where he compared some brahman’s behavior unfavorably with that of dogs. In reply to this Yuri wrote that there could only be two explanations to this admittedly harsh comparison – that either (1) the Buddha was contradicting his own teaching or (2) that the text has got corrupted, i.e. that the Buddha never really said this. I would like to say something about Yuri’s comments as he is a regular and a valued reader of my blog and often has something useful to say.
I know of nothing the Buddha ever said or did that contradicted what he taught. Yuri thinks that the Buddha must be contradicting himself by criticizing brahmans because he (Yuri) thinks that Right Speech mean that we must never say anything unpalatable or that might challenge or upset others. (Hitler! Such a nice fellow but badly misunderstood. And anyway, who are we to speak! You must keep in mind that he had a difficult childhood. And don’t forget, he loved dogs. And Pol Pot? Lovely chap! Of course he might have made a few mistakes. But haven’t we all?). The Buddha never said that we should not criticize others or upset them. Prince Abhaya once asked him if he could ever ‘use speech that was disliked and disagreeable to others’. The Buddha replied that he could, but added the proviso that he would always do it out of compassion and at the right time (M.I,395). The Buddha was ‘a teacher of gods and humans’ and given human defilements and delusions, a teacher might sometimes have to censure, scold and rebuke his or her students. And the Buddha did not shy away from doing so. Therefore, in criticizing the brahmins, and perhaps even offending them in the process, the Buddha was not contradicting his Dhamma.
So is it possible that the ‘brahmans like dogs’ text is corrupt or ‘put in later’, and is therefore not really authentic Buddha Vacana? Perhaps, but there is no evidence for this. Yuri thinks this is must be the case because he, like many people, just can’t imagine the Buddha being changeling, upfront or critical with his appraisal of certain ideas or actions. If the text under discussion was the only one where the Buddha was critical we might consider the possibility that it is a later interpolation. But it is by no means the only one where the Buddha is depicted as being very straightforward. When Devadatta tried to take over the Sangha the Buddha called him Chavassakhelapakassa! If you want to know what this means have a look at http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/insults.html When he was comparing his Dhamma with other teachings he was usually generous, mild and restrained, but certainly not always. He considered Makkhali Gosala to be a fraud and his teaching to be harmful nonsense. ‘I know of no person who causes such loss to the many, such discomfort to the many, such loss, discomfort and sorrow to gods and humans as Makkkail, that infatuated man’ (A.I,33). And he was even harder on his ideas. ‘Just as a hair blanket is considered the meanest of all woven cloth, being as it is cold in the winter, hot in the summer, ugly to see, bad to smell and unpleasant to touch, so to, of all theories taught by ascetics, those of Makkhali are the most miserable’ (A.I,286). He could be very brisk with those who distorted his own Dhamma and was quick to rebuke them and correct them when they did. ‘Stupid man! (mogha purisa) When have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma like that? Stupid man! In many discourses have I not explained that obstructive things are obstructions..? But you, stupid man, have misrepresented me by your wrong grasp, harmed yourself and stored up much demerit which will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time!’ (M.I,132). The brahman Lohicca got the idea that one attained enlightenment it would be wrong to teach it to others ‘because what can one person do for another’. The Buddha told him that he considered this to be ‘an evil line of reasoning’ (papakam ditthigatam upannam) and a ‘false view’ (miccha ditthi) that could well result in being reborn in purgatory (D.I,227). The ascetic Nigrodha is depicted as a bit of a boaster who thinks in a debate he could send the Buddha away with his tail between his legs. The Buddha comes to hear of this boast and goes to meet Nigrodha and his cronies. After teaching them the Dhamma and trying to reassure them that his aim was to help them, not just to make converts, he waits for them to ask him more about the Dhamma. When they don’t, almost in exasperation, he says, ‘Every one of these stupid men is so possessed by Mara in that not even one of them thinks, “Let us follow the holy life under the monk Gotama”’ (D.III,56). Then he turns and leaves. There are many more examples of the Buddha speaking his mind. So the ‘brahmans as dogs’ text is unlikely to be a later interpolation because its theme of criticism is anything but out-of-place or unique in the Tipitaka.
Of course, to think that the Buddha spent all his time rebuking and criticizing others and their ideas would be wrong. But it would be just as wrong to think that he never censured, challenged or criticized, which is a modern construct just not consistent with his character as depicted throughout the Tipitaka. But returning to Yuri’s comments, we should never forget that we (or at least I) do not have the Buddha’s sensitivity and patience, his tact and wisdom, and we need to be cautious and reserved with out criticism. And as is to be expected, the Buddha gives some excellent advice we need to consider whenever we feel that a rebuke is necessary, see for example A.II,100 and M.I,395. But one of my favorite pieces of advice on this subject is to be found in the Bhaddali Sutta. Referring to monastic training, the Buddha says that if senior monks rebuke and correct a junior monk constantly and for every little mistake, he may well become despondent and lose heart. He compares the situation to a person who has only one eye. Those who care about him should guard his good eye with great care (M.I,444). I assume this simile is meant to suggest that at times, overlooking the problems and focusing on the good points is more helpful.