[Buddha-l] Re: Meditating Buddha

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 21:19 +0100, Benito Carral wrote:

>    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?

To preserve their authority and their status as people who are entitled
to make their livelihoods by begging from pious lay families.

> , (2) what is the agenda  of John or Mary for (just an example) condoning
> the eating of meat?

To follow what it says in the Pali canon and to reject the largely
unwarranted innovations found in much later Mahayana texts.

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

Because we have no evidence except the canon itself. Do you believe
everyone who comes up to you and says "I am telling you the truth."? If
you do, then I have would like to sell you the Statue of Liberty, which
is mine to sell. I'm telling you the truth.

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

See if you can figure that one out for yourself. Or give me a good
reason to believe a story that does not conform to either your
experience of the world or mine.

> > 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?

Give me a good reason to believe that.

> 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.

There is no ethnocentrism involved at all. Plenty of Europeans (from
whom I am descended) have believed in rebirth. And plenty of Asians
(from whom I am not descended) have rejected it. People who believe in
rebirth do so because they wish to believe in it for whatever reason.
People who don't believe in it cannot find reason to believe in it. It's
that simple. 

> I'm also describing his delusion consisting in mistaking his own
> version  of  Buddhism  with  what Buddhism has been for more  than
> 2000  years. 

So in your view anyone who deviates from tradition is deluded? Please
clarify precisely what you mean. Do you mean that anyone who deviates
from ANY tradition is ipso facto deluded? Or do you just believe that
anyone who disagrees with what in your opinion is the right tradition is
deluded? Sorry, Benito, but I need a stronger reason to call someone
deluded than that he doesn't happen to share your views.

> I  have said nothing negative about  the  person. 

Don't try to dodge the issue by pretending to be wise. The issue is that
you are making an accusation that there is delusion when you have no
grounds for making such an accusation, except your own prejudices and
wishful thinking.

> If  people  want  to  follow  the  Buddha's teachings,

And why one someone want to do that if they have no good reason to
believe that the every single one of the Buddha's teachings are true? It
seems to me that one can benefit enormously by following teachings that
have proved themselves to be workable and by ignoring those that have
not.

So far you have not demonstrated anything to me but your own rather
limited perspective on things. If your narrow perspective helps you,
then I rejoice. If it provokes you into calling the views of others
delusive, then my heart aches for you.

-- 
Richard Hayes

"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human
soul."
  -- Mark Twain