I've had same thought about a lot of Buddhist writings. One main point is to not need the writings. Understanding is beyond the writings itself. It seems like maybe a lot of the writings, are people working out their own path, their own understanding, and then wanting to share, even if the main point is not needing the writing to begin with.
Same thing in philosophy. Very loos interpretation, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. You need language to communicate, but it is flawed and can't really communicate what you want, but language is all you have, but when the other person does eventually understand, they realize how incomplete the language description was.
As you mention Buddhism, there are actually a few things both in the Pali canon and modern teachings that come to mind and illuminate the present discussion:
- in the Pali Canon (the oldest recollection of "discourses" attributed to the Buddha), the Buddha teaches very different things to different people. There are very technical suttas about advanced meditation practices for monks, but there are also suttas that are very down to earth and centered on "earthly" concerns. There is for instance a touching one where the Buddha teaches to an old couple how to accumulate merit in order to be reborn in a life where they could meet and mary again.
- clinging and attachment are two of the "three poisons" in Buddhism. Stopping to cling to things and get attached to them is a big portion of the goal of Buddhism. This is why most teachers repeat to "let go, let go, let go". This includes letting go of concepts (such as the "three poisons") or attachment to experiences (such as calm born from meditation). This can be confusing. A Theravada Abbot named Thannisaro Bikkhu has an interesting twist: he compare the path to a ladder. Obviously, once you are at the top, you should let go of the ladder. But on your way up, you need to cling to the steps of the ladder, otherwise you fall. So he advocates "skillful clinging": cling to the teachings, cling to meditative experiences, get attached to them, this is fine. This will give you the motivation to practice and progress. Just be ready to identify when this is not useful anymore, when you can let go of that step of the ladder to reach for the next.
The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path. Part of the misunderstanding might be that one fails to see that one is not at the point of understanding that allows to actually get what is expressed. This kind of participates in the beauty of learning and teaching, but also means that one will likely never really understand deeply anything anyone communicates to us. We are just left to experiment on our side, and see if what we understand kind of fits the imperfect descriptions from others, and use those to inform back our search.
> The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path.
well said, i think this applies to meditation too. Often people get into debates about what meditation actually is, as if there was one perfect answer, but the reality is that meditation can be different things depending on an individual's skill and their path.
One almost paranormal ability some seasoned spiritual teachers have is pointing at things that are happening in your experience, i.e. something is described and that phenomenon is experienced directly. I have experienced this so-called transmission not only in the Buddhist context, but also with qigong masters and with Hindu teachers.
I've experienced what I believe is a very minor form of this in music lessons, where a teacher would say some phrase or metaphor and it'd click and suddenly I'm able to move a drumstick better. I know that wouldn't happen if there wasn't direct interaction with someone.
I always liked the image of the finger pointing to the moon: "The teaching is merely a vehicle to describe the truth. Don’t mistake it for the truth itself. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. The finger is needed to know where to look for the moon, but if you mistake the finger for the moon itself, you will never know the real moon."
Same thing in philosophy. Very loos interpretation, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. You need language to communicate, but it is flawed and can't really communicate what you want, but language is all you have, but when the other person does eventually understand, they realize how incomplete the language description was.