[Buddha-l] Protestant Buddhisms

[Bradley Clough]

On Mar 25, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Richard Nance wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:39:52 -0700, Richard P. Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> 
> wrote:
>
>> Similarly, if one is
>> interested in what Buddhists do and did, then reading texts about what
>> they ought to do is quite silly.
>
> This seems like an obvious point -- and it's one that Schopen raises
> repeatedly -- but I'm not sure it's right. Why assume that norms and
> practices can be separated so neatly?


I agree, and I'm not convinced that the whole body of Pali texts, for 
instance, are merely normative with no connection to actual practice. 
For example, there are several instances of monks disputing over right 
practice or references to arhats who took different paths (AN Tika 
Nipata, Kaya-Puggala Vagga;  AN III 355-356; SN II 115ff; SN 119-123). 
etc.). In none of these episodes is one way deemed better than the 
other. it doesn't seem that any "norm" is being preached. Why dismiss 
the possibility that debates such as these or like these did happen, 
and that the different approaches discussed weren't actual paths that 
different practitioners adopted? Yes, we have to be careful about 
assuming that the scriptures are direct descriptions of practice, but 
that doesn't mean that the texts don't contain many references to what 
was likely practiced by the people mentioned.


Brad Clough
The American University in Cairo
bclough at aucegypt.edu