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

[Jim Peavler]

On Jan 26, 2006, at 5:20 AM, Benito Carral wrote:

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

I must apologize for having oversimplified my presentation, and also  
of having done the CNN thing of presenting "both sides" of a matter  
which is actually a continuum (perhaps even a full circle) of  
possibilities. I was picking up on what I perceived to be your  
position (perhaps mistakenly) that either you believed all of the  
stuff from the suttas (even the self-contradictory stuff) or you  
shouldn't call yourself a Buddhist. I took the strongest possible  
position on the other side.

I also don't agree with your (on Conze's) position on textual  
traditions. I do not know anything about sanscrit or pali or Chinese,  
but I know something about textual studies. I am trained as a textual  
bibliographer, but I worked only with Old English and Middle English  
texts. If you are interested in the subject as a discipline in its  
own right you might be interested in Bruce Metzger's fine book on the  
text of the New Testament. (I think the New Testament might be an  
interesting parallel case to what we are talking about, since it is  
about the foundation texts of a religion, is based on more than one  
language, and the texts were not written until a couple of centuries  
after the object of the religion had died.) It is quite amazing how  
different the various versions are. Curt's hated First Council of  
Nicaea considered it its primary business to "freeze" the literary  
tradition, and the Church then went about a systematic purging (or  
extermination) of anybody hanging on to any of the texts it had  
excluded. Buddhism didn't have anything quite like that. Pretty much  
everything from the old materials got preserved, as I understand it.
>
>    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 find that there are two kinds of people: Those who believe that  
there are two modes of cognitive functioning and those who don't.

>
>    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.

I am not sure that I understand what folks mean by "meaningful life".  
I understand "warm". Warm is the feeling of cosmic love I get while  
eating a Natilla.


>
>    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.

I share your belief that it is important to preserve the teachings. I  
think it is also important for a person who believes the teachings  
are important to try to understand, interpret, and apply the  
teachings to the best of ones ability. I would think that slavishly  
adopting everything from the teachings is not necessarily the only or  
the best way to treat them.

>
>    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.

Now your straw-man is getting taller and fatter than mine!

I would argue that the proper way to treat the early Buddhist texts  
might be similar to the way the Supreme Court treats the  
Constitution. They all agree that the Constitution is the document  
that outlines the full range and scope of how to conduct the business  
of a nation. However, as you can tell by watching about 30 minutes of  
TV, is that nearly everyone agrees that, while the Constitution  
provides the framework and then general direction, many features of  
the Constitution need to be re-interpreted from time to time to take  
into consideration changes in nature or society, etc. The correct way  
to manage the Constitution is to preserve it, read it seriously,  
study it deeply, interpret how it applies to life today as carefully  
as possible, and to implement it wisely. Substitute "Early Buddhist  
texts" for "Constitution" in the above sentence and you might be  
approaching what I think is the role of authoritative texts. Your  
position on the early texts, it seems to me, is similar to Judge  
Bork's position on the Constitution -- the need to reconstruct in  
detail exactly what the original authors meant and enforce that (or  
as you seem to say above -- if you can't agree with it destroy it --  
enforce it or burn it.) (A hot staw-man if ever I saw one.)

I have to go out  now and jump up and down in the snow. We have only  
about a quarter of an inch, but it is the first measurable moisture  
here in several months. We should have several feet of snow here at  
the ranch by this time of year.