[Buddha-l] Re: Diversions, distractions and off-topic discussions

[Chan Fu]

On 10/8/05, Mike Austin <mike at lamrim.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <002601c5cc46$206f28a0$2930cece at charlie>, jkirk
> <jkirk at spro.net> writes
>
> >Like much found in ancient scriptures, what is said can be
> >contextualized and then a slightly different reading appears. The
> >Buddha and his sangha did not live in democratic societies with civil
> >rights, they lived in kingships and were dependent on kings from time
> >to time for protection, alms, public support, donations of land for
> >monasteries, and so on. Kings in those days maintained spies, and my
> >guess is that it was dangerous to criticize the monarch, even as today
> >in Thailand, in a sort of democratic kingdom where the King's public
> >persona and roles are modeled on Brahmanic patterns of yore,  if one
> >criticizes the King, one is subject to the death penalty. Thus, it
> >behooved the monks and their leaders to mind their own business and
> >concentrate on the vinaya. In those days, the idea that public comment
> >and or participation (demonstrations?) could affect politics was
> >unthinkable. Times have changed, and to my mind the sutta quoted here
> >is mainly applicable to monastics, although it is also good advice in
> >some contemporary contexts as well.
>
> Are you of the opinion that Buddha's words on the topics of conversation
> were merely tailored to sustain sponsorship and avoid punishment? Do you
> not see anything in these words  that could provide us with guidance for
> this day and age - or indeed any day and age?

Are you of the opinion that we know even a single sentence of
"Buddha's words?" Perhaps it would be better to take the entire canon
as a collection of generalities, many of them gross.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the entireity of Buddhist literature was
manufactured. And very often by people who hadn't a clue -
completly after the fact - in fact, without even the fact.

Further, I'm suggesting that any number of arhats contributed
by interpolation and revisionism. That's what the evolution of religion
(or philosophy, or science) does. That's what humanity does.
We are iterative and recursive, genetically, philosophically,
religiously. Buddhism is no different.

There is no need to retrace those phantom steps again and again;
there is no need to preserve the largely imagined past. We
have some bits and pieces that we can smile at, but that's
not here and now. That's not Buddhism.

A huge number of Buddhists are afraid of karma (action), so
they preach and practice inaction - a collection of foolish lizards
basking in the sun. But Buddhism isn't that. Selfless action
is real action and Buddhism actually demands action, it *is*
action - that's what being implies, that's what being is.

As I said to Richard, there's hardly a difference between Buddhism
and rationality. Our own minds are the very tools for understanding
ourselves. It's time Buddhism was forgotten as a "thing" and just
put up on the shelf as a fond memory - like grandma's quilt - and its
legacy - the essence of it, the science of it - imbued in our basic
education and understanding of ourselves.

It's time to grow up.