Does Early Buddhism affirm mainstream orthodox ideologies?

Question

I read the following on the internet by an independent (Australian) bhikkhu:

Oppositional framing is cringe

You know it when you see it. “Everyone else says that … but I say this”.

Which is invariably meant to be expanded to, “All those mindless sheep incanting orthodoxy say that … but I—a courageous and innovative truth-teller—say this.”

It’s the fundamental framing of every conspiracy theory, endlessly, tediously invoked every time someone says “do the research”. But it’s also one of the most annoying cliches of academic writing, where for purely rhetorical reasons pretty much every scholar feels the need to define themselves by what they are against rather than by what they are for.

And you also see it all the little Buddhist cultettes, which establish an in-group defined by the rejection of “the mainstream”. By definition, if you don’t agree with their stunning new breakthroughs in understanding you’re just a sheep trapped in tradition. Dear god in heaven, it’s so very cringe. It’s the rhetorical maturity of someone forever trapped in a fifteens year-old’s bedroom, Metallica posters duly blu-tacked to the walls.

A man of wit and wisdom—namely Twitter’s Sonny Bunch—once said 5 that it’s better to like something everyone hates than it is to hate something everyone likes. He’s right. Why not try liking things? It’s fun!

Are there Pali Suttas that affirm or oppose the above viewpoint? If so, which ones?

Answer 1

The title doesn't match the question.

The "above viewpoint" seems to be against "oppositional framing" such as, "I am against [this thing] which the mainstream is pro" -- because what he says is better is, "I am pro what everyone else is against".

Yes the EBT have a lot of that.

An outstanding example IMO may be the Bhikkhus' rejection of the pursuit of wealth etc. -- which ("rejection") sounds "oppositional", but I think it's not -- it's that everyone else says, "I am afraid of poverty and being homeless", and the monks say, "no it's fine, in fact it's better".

Or, "I hate doing nothing" -- "No it's good".

Or, "Corpses, I can't even bear to consider it" -- "Really? Sometimes I go to the charnel grounds."

Or the Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- even without going so far as to "like" being "insulted & cursed with rude, harsh words", it's the opposite of or at least an absence of "oppositional framing", don't you agree?

---

Another way people interpret "the above viewpoint" is as being against people who say, "I've done my own research and the mainstream is wrong" and argue for "conspiracy theories".

Um, yes and no, I suppose the Buddha himself "did his own research" and encouraged others to. There are some "mainstream ideologies" which he rejected e.g. brahmanism -- like rituals, sacrifices, and hereditary caste. But a lot of the Vinaya is to co-exist with the mainstream -- like be law-abiding, and require parents' approval.

The Sigalovada Sutta for example seems to me very conservative, orthodox -- except perhaps its emphasis on not harming living beings -- and pro-social.

---

The last statement was that "it's fun!" to like things. I don't know an example of that from the EBT, perhaps because the register is so different that I find the language is unrecognisable.

But it might follow from dukkha being some "opposition" to what is (like wanting to have what you don't have, and wanting to keep what you can't keep, etc.).

In the facial expressions in the illustration in this topic, maybe "reunciation equanimity" looks like more my idea of "fun", than "household joy" does.

Answer 2

What's wrong with opposing the mainstream/orthodoxy -- do the suttas say that the mainstream is always right?

The quote doesn't say that the mainstream is always right.

It says that, when you say something, then say what you "like" instead of what you're opposed to. It's about the "framing" of your message, the "rhetoric".

Here are some (my) examples to illustrate what I guess he's saying:

• "I felt hurt, I'm alright now but I hope that won't happen again"
• Oppositional framing: "You hurt me, etc."

Or:

• "I like using a bicycle"
• Oppositional framing: "Motor vehicles are vile, drivers must be stupid or wicked"

Or:

• "I like it that the core doctrine is coherent without even any mention of rebirth at all"
• Oppositional framing: "The mainstream view, of literal rebirth, is wrong"

The reasons he gives are:

• It's endless and tedious
• It's an academic cliche or imperative
• It creates small "cults" or "in-groups" i.e. by being exclusive
• It's conceited
• It's immature

The last sentence i.e. "It's fun!" might be meant to be attractive rather than repulsive? Anyway my opinion is that "oppositional" framing might be unskilful, assuming that your rhetoric is meant to be persuasive -- it might tend to alienate the mainstream, incline them to dismiss your message -- because its "framed" as contrary to, in opposition to, and not as an alternative or addition to -- their current belief-system.

scholarship

You tagged this topic with scholarship. I'm not an academic but re. this part of the quote:

But it’s also one of the most annoying cliches of academic writing, where for purely rhetorical reasons pretty much every scholar feels the need to define themselves by what they are against rather than by what they are for.

... I guess that may be because academics feel the need to:

• Show they're familiar with previous books and papers on the subject
• Reference them (explicitly)
• Show that theirs is a "stunning new breakthrough", an improvement in the state-of-the-art

IMO none of these reasons are applicable outside academia. We might read "academic" papers but we needn't "feel the need" to mimic "oppositional framing" in our own discourse.

when a 57yo buddhist monk talks using new vogue vernacular of a 19 year old western uni student who can understand the words?

I assume he learned Pali as an adult, so perhaps the venerable is (unusually for an adult) a sponge for new vocabulary.

Here's a 'principle':

be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others

If you're intolerant of messages which use e.g. newer or optional features of the language, then the (network) communication disconnects instead of being "robust".

I knew the word "cringe" though I don't remember where from. Perhaps, who knows, the venerable was "kidding", or trying to address a juvenile audience, or using self-parody to illustrate the message.

Final thoughts

A while ago, I wasn't "fifteen" but about 22. It was my first job, the start of my first development project. I lectured my new team-leader on how to design the thing, because I had a design in my head. After that meeting, our manager (who'd been present and listening) told me privately, "It isn't enough to be right" -- implying that what I'd said was technically correct, but spoken unskilfully.

So even when you think it's right to oppose the mainstream, being "right" isn't enough -- as you can see from the definition of what's "right speech".

Also, the parable of the blind men and the elephant: I guess the blind men weren't "wrong" to say what they said, they each had some good reason -- where they went wrong was when they started to "oppose" each other.

Answer 3

There are several places in the Suttas like this one where Buddha asks to be gaurded against lust , aversion and delusion :

At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the Dhamma, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the Dhamma. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.

Mind should seek joy in Dhamma. For everything else which assumes expression of passion , aversion and delusion, we should indeed do the opposite. When lust or passion arises we should restrain and remind ourselves that it is not-self. It will not last forever. Even if it is an religious orthodoxy. On the other hand if we experience aversion then we should love it because otherwise you will not be able to fill in the vacuum left by abandonment of aversion. We should not be deluded into believing that there is anything which will last forever. Love , hate are impermanent. No establishment is permanent even if it is democracy.

Answer 4

The first sermon (SN 56.11) says:

• In regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.

• I claimed to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this [unawakened] world with its devas, Mara, and Brahma, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans.

The Lokavagga 174 says:

• Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

MN 95 says:

• Suppose there were a file of blind men each in touch with the next: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. So too, Bhāradvāja, in regard to their statement the brahmins seem to be like a file of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. What do you think, Bhāradvāja, that being so, does not the faith of the brahmins turn out to be groundless? The brahmins honour this not only out of faith, Master Gotama. They also honour it as oral tradition.

AN 10.61 says:

• Hearing the good Dhamma, becoming full, fills up faith. Faith, becoming full, fills up careful attention [doing the research]...

AN 3.33 says:

• Sāriputta, I can teach the Dhamma briefly; I can teach the Dhamma in detail; I can teach the Dhamma both briefly and in detail. It is those who can understand that are rare.

AN 5.143 says:

• It is rare in the world a person who explains the teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One.

MN 38 (in reference to dependent origination) reiterates the only Dhamma Refuge found in the suttas:

• Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves? — “Yes, venerable sir.” Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’

AN 2.47 says:

• There are, mendicants, these two assemblies. What two? An assembly educated in fancy talk, not in questioning, and an assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk. The better of these two assemblies is the assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk

AN 20.7 says about future Buddhists:

• In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering. In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

Therefore, it appears Early Buddhism contains no scope; not even a foothold; for the quote in the OP, which says:

• Oppositional framing is cringe... “Everyone else says that … but I say this”. “All those mindless sheep incanting orthodoxy say that … but I—a courageous and innovative truth-teller—say this.”

• It’s the fundamental framing of every conspiracy theory, endlessly, tediously invoked every time someone says “do the research”.

• little Buddhist cultettes.... the rejection of “the mainstream”.... Dear god in heaven... it’s so very cringe... rhetorical maturity of someone forever trapped in a fifteens year-old’s bedroom, Metallica posters duly blu-tacked to the walls.... Twitter’s Sonny Bunch

So now, according to the view of the mainstream Australian monk (well learned in & devoted to worldly jargon), Buddhists who follow the instructions of the Buddha, to engage in yoniso manasikara (own research), to be well educated in questioning, to verify the Dhamma and to only speak what they have realized for themselves are now "conspiracy theorists"? Will these faithful Buddhists soon be prosecuted for "disinformation"?