[Buddha-l] Re: Meditating Buddha

[Benito Carral]

On Saturday, January 21, 2006, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> Everybody,   without   exception,  who  has  told  us
> anything  at  all about the Buddha has done so to fit
> his [sic] own agenda.

   Yes,  and  I  have  recognized it. As I have already
said,  the  agenda of the monks and nuns who wrote down
the  canon  was  to preserve and transmit the teachings
that they so beloved for our benefit.

> One  can  either believe them or not, but it would be
> tragically  naive  to believe that they were any less
> guilty  than  anyone  else  has been in rewriting his
> teachings to fit their own agenda.

   Even  if  we  bought this view of you, the questions
would  still  be,  (1) what was the agenda of the monks
and  nuns  who  wrote  down the canon?, (2) what is the
agenda  of John or Mary for (just an example) condoning
the eating of meat?


> It  would  be  hopelessly naive to take at face value
> what his [the Buddha] followers report he achieved.

   Why?

> There  is  no good reason to believe that he was able
> to float in the air [...]

   Why?

> Nor  is there any good reason to believe that he was,
> as  he  is  described  to  be,  fully  and  perfectly
> awakened and free of all kilesas.

   Why?


>> Who  were  the  first  who  rejected  rebith and, by
>> extension, the original goal of Buddhism?

> If  I had to make a guess, I would say the people who
> did  that  were  those  who  were capable of thinking
> clearly  enough  to  achieve  some  freedom  from the
> bondage of dogmatic traditionalism.

   So  you  believe  that  all the monks, nuns, and lay
followers since the time of the Buddha until Westerners
rejected   rebirth   have  been  enslaved  in  dogmatic
traditionalism. A curious form of ethnocentrism.


>> 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.

> No,  but  you  will  descend  to the level of passing
> negative judgement on another person by calling him a
> bad writer who is living in his own fantasy.

   Not  at  all.  I'm  expressing  my opinion about his
writing  skill  and  the  content  of  his  writing  in
comparison  to  the  canon  and the tradition. I'm also
describing his delusion consisting in mistaking his own
version  of  Buddhism  with  what Buddhism has been for
more  than  2000  years.  I  have said nothing negative
about  the  person.  In fact, according to the Buddhist
tradition I couldn't do it even if I wished.

> But why do that?

   Simple.  If  people  want  to  follow  the  Buddha's
teachings, I think that it is useful that they know the
difference between the canon and tradition's Buddha and
the  John's  or  Mary's  one. It's like if one wants to
read  _Romeo  and  Juliet_  and he takes Craig Pearce's
screenplay (1996) for the real thing.

   Best wishes,

   Beni