[Buddha-l] Re: Where does authority for "true" Buddhism come from?

[Benito Carral]

On Thursday, January 26, 2006, Jim Peavler wrote:

> Follow  the  path,  follow  the  precepts,  to reduce
> dukkha.  Belief,  not  possible  for  many  of  us to
> maintain, does not have anything to do with it.

   I  appreciate  the endeavour of trying to follow the
Buddhist path to the best of one's ability, but I don't
think that your description is an acurrate one.

   Reducing  dukkha  has  never  been  the  goal of the
Buddhist path, but stopping it (3rd Noble Truth). Then,
the  First Noble Truth says: "Birth is dukkha, aging is
dukkha,  death  is  dukkha"  (SN LVI.11). Since life is
dukkha,  it  is  necessary  to end the rebirth cycle in
order to stop it.

   If  one  doesn't  believe  in  Buddhism and tries to
achieve  a  different  goal  using some of the Buddhist
techniques, I think that it's fine.


> That  which  must  be believed with no evidence other
> than  a  written  authority, no matter how old or how
> authoritative,  cannot  be  part  of the equation for
> people  like  me.  You  on  the  other hand, have the
> ability  and the need to believe in the literal texts
> that you consider authoritative.

   It  seems  that  you  can't believe without rational
proofs.  As  far  as  I'm  concerned,  I  don't need to
believe nor rational proofs, I'm a postmodern orthodox,
not a modern one.

   Following  Bruner, there are two modes of thought, a
scientific   one  and  a  narrative  one.  Science  and
technology  are good, for example, for sending e-mails,
but  they are not good for giving meaning and warmth to
our lives.

   It's  not  that  believes describe reality, but that
shape  it. Again following Bruner, "There are two modes
of  cognitive  functioning,  two modes of thought, each
providing  distinctive  ways of ordering experience, of
constructing reality" (_Actual Minds, Possible Worlds,_
1986, p. 11).

   I   have   tried  different  sets  of  believes  and
disbeliefs,  and I have discovered that, as a Buddhist,
my  life  is much more meaningful and warm believing in
the traditional Buddhist teachings. I think that it's a
pity  that  the  modern  human  being  is caught in the
dichotomy between science and believe.


> There  is  no  way  we  can  meet  halfway. Hence the
> importance  of  my kind not condemning your kind as a
> bunch  of  fundamental  literalists  who  are full of
> nonsense,  and of your kind not condemning my kind as
> a  bunch  of  revisionists  who  are just making your
> religion comfortable for ourselves.

   I  think  that  it's  important  to  be  faithful to
history  and  preserve  the  teachings.  Maybe  some US
citizens don't like the US constitution, but it is what
it is.

   One  approach  would  be  trying  to destroy all the
copies  of the US constitution. Other approach would be
trying  to  delegitimize  it.  Then  it  could  also be
possible to write a new one.

   History  teaches  us  that  most  of  the  so-called
Buddhists  who  have  not  liked the old teachings have
followed  this  last  approach.  They  have written new
texts    and    call   "outdated,"   "for   beginners,"
"irrational," etc., to the old ones.

   I  think  that  this  approach  is the less invasive
since it respects and preserves the old teachings. As I
have  said  at  the  beginning, I really appreciate the
endeavour of doing to the best of one's ability. I also
appreciate what I perceive as your good will.

   I  only have problems with people who try to rewrite
(or  destroy)  history  for  fitting  it  to  their own
agendas.  If  one  doesn't  like Buddhism or only likes
some of its teachings, that's fine for me.

   Best wishes,

   Beni