[Buddha-l] Re: Meditating Buddha

[Benito Carral]

On Friday, January 20, 2006, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> EVERYONE  has  tried  to  rewrite  what  Buddhism is,
> beginning with those who compiled the various canons.

   I  don't think so. I think that some individuals, as
the  ones  who  first wrote down the Tipitaka, tried to
preserve  the Old Indian Guy's teachings for us. I also
think  that other individuals have tried and are trying
to rewrite his teachings to fit their own agendas.

> The  Buddha  is  a construction, a fabrication in the
> imaginations of editors and authors. [...] We are all
> entitled  to  construct the Buddha in whatever way we
> fancy.

   The  Buddha was an Indian Guy who said that he was a
full enlightened one and taught how to stop the rebirth
cycle.

   Maybe we are entitled to reconstruct the Buddha, but
if we want to follow the Old Indian Guy's teachings and
achieve what he achieved, would it be wise to do so? Is
it   possible   that   reconstructionists  are  not  so
interested  in achieving what the Buddha achieved as in
following  (and  write  an honorable justification for)
their own teachings?

> There  is  no  reliable  means  of saying that Jose's
> Buddha is any more or less accurate than Guillermo's.

   History  is one of those means that you believe that
don't  exist.  Who  were  the first who rejected rebith
and,  by  extension, the original goal of Buddhism? One
tragic  thing about this particular negation is that it
destroys  the  so  important  meaning-giving  aspect of
Buddhism  that  has  been  inherited  from  the broader
Indian tradition.

   Anyway,  if  Jose  or  Guillermo  wants  to be a bad
writer and live in his phantasy world believing that it
has  come  down  from the Buddha, I will be not the one
who  tries  to  stop him. But I will not buy either his
cheap  imitation  of  the  Buddha  when  I  can  have a
high-quality  and original one that has been tested for
more than 2000 years.

   Best wishes,

   Beni