[Buddha-l] Re: Rational or mythological Buddhism and WesternBuddhist lay practice

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 22:24 +0200, Mikael Aktor wrote:

> I have no intention or reason to project some kind of Victorian moral to 
> ancient Buddhist, monastic rules. A silly idea. But I think it is 
> important to understand what exactly (or as exactly we are able to 
> decide) is the monastic lifestyle implied by these rules.

If all you mean to say is that the monastic rules were for people living
a monastic life, then I would surely have no difficulty agreeing with
that. I would like to add that monastic rules were formed in large
measure by the expectations of 6th century b.c.e. Magadhans of how
monastics should live if they were to be eligible for support from
householders. If, however, you mean to say, as I think you did start out
saying, that monastic life was considered essential to the practice of
Buddhist contemplative exercises and to attaining nirvana, then that
assertion is just plain wrong and is contradicted by many texts.

You live in a civilized country and may therefore have a difficult time
understanding the analogy I am about to give you, but let me give an
analogy that readily makes sense to me. There is a movement now making
itself felt in many states here in the USA whereby politicians are
drafting legislation aimed at "protecting" students from
"indoctrination" in state-supported universities. Sponsors of this
legislation give examples of what they are aiming to achieve. One
example, recently given by a legislator in the state of Florida, says
that a science professor who teaches evolution in the classroom is in
fact indoctrinating students, not educating them. His recommendation is
that students should have the right--he even says they do have the
DUTY--to sue individual professors AND the institutions who employ them
if professors refuse to teach "every side" of this controverted issue.
Now the effect that the prevalent climate in some states in the USA
could have is that a science professor might have to teach creationism
(now called Intelligent Design Theory) in order to be seen by taxpayers
as doing her job. Of course any intelligent human being (whether he was
designed or not) knows that teaching biblical mythology has nothing to
do with doing her job as a biology instructor, but the social pressure
is such that few people administering universities feel it is prudent to
go against the popular belief of taxpayers.

Now I think something very much like that was going on in Magadha at the
time of the Buddha. People believed that anyone who was serious about
achieving the goals of the samana-style religions had to abstain from
sexual gratification. Being sexually abstinent was perceived as a
necessary condition for being seen as doing one's job. No administrator
of a sangha receiving public funds (in the form of alms) could ignore
that popular belief. The Buddha certainly did not dare to go against the
popular expectations of his day. To do so would have been imprudent.

Now just as it would be ludicrous (if not tragic) for universities in
Denmark to teach Intelligent Design Theory simply because of the popular
delusions of people in Florida, it would be ludicrous for Buddhist
communities all over the world to expect sexual abstinence of all
practitioners simply because of the popular delusions of the people of
Magadha in the sixth century b.c.e. 

Similarly, it would be ludicrous for Buddhist communities in Asia to
abandon their traditional practices simply because Western Buddhists
don't adopt them. No society should be held accountable to the
particular religious, social or political tastes of another (although I
sincerely wish Americans would wake up and try to be a little more like
Europeans or Canadians and a little less like Talibani Afghans.)

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico