[Buddha-l] Re: Protestant Buddhisms

[Richard Nance]

Richard Hayes wrote:

> There are usually at least a few people in any organization
> that strive to live up to the norms. At the same time, it would be naive
> to think that the norms of any religion state the actual behavior of
> that religion's followers. Even a quick reading of the vinaya rules
> shows that monks were in practice very innovative at finding ways to
> adhere to the letter of the law while violating its spirit. That, I
> suspect, may be human nature (or a reasonable approximation thereof).

I agree completely: what actually happens isn't always -- or perhaps
even typically -- what is held to be worth happening. I think I could
have probably made my point a bit more clearly; I wasn't aiming to
challenge the idea that norms and practices can't be distinguished at
all. Rather, I was trying to emphasize the fact that articulating
norms is itself a practice (though it's a practice that tends to be
forgotten both by those who take themselves to be focusing on
"practices" as opposed to "norms," and those who take themselves to
focusing on "norms" as opposed to "practices").

> I also confess that I have almost no interest at all in actuality. 

Spoken like a true philosopher; I'll try not to quote you. 

> My
> principal interest is norms. Some people are "is" men. I am an "ought"
> man. 

I'm surprised that no one around here has yet quipped that you ought
to become an "is" man, given the Buddhist emphasis on coming to
understand things such as they are (yathaabhuuta.m). But, of course,
there's nothing wrong with trying to understand Buddhist *norms* such
as they are -- or such as they were.  That was one of the points that
I was clumsily trying to stress in my original post, anyway.

Thanks, as always, for your lucid take on the subject at hand.

Best wishes,

R. Nance