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

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 13:20 +0100, Benito Carral wrote:

>    Reducing  dukkha  has  never  been  the  goal of the
> Buddhist path, but stopping it (3rd Noble Truth). 

Where I come from, full cessation is a limiting case of reduction. So I
think we can say that the goal of Buddhism is reducing dukkha, as Dr.
Peavler said. Whether it is possible to reduce dukkha to zero is a
matter of faith. Even if one does not believe it is possible, one can at
least believe it is possible to reduce it quite a bit. Nothing is harmed
if one sets that as one's goal. Then, if it turns out that it's possible
to reduce it to zero, one will not be disappointed, I'm guessing.

I think it's always a good idea to recall what Socrates said about
death. None of us, he says, can know what happens after death. Those who
claim to know are only revleaing their own lack of wisdom, for they do
not know that they do not know. The person who admits that she does not
know what happens after death is wiser than one who claims to know the
unknowable. So if one wanted to be a Socratic Buddhist, as Stephen
Batchelor is, one could pursue Buddhist practices every bit as
wholeheartedly as someone who blindly accepts the doctrine of rebirth.

> Then, the  First Noble Truth says: "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha,
> death  is  dukkha"  (SN LVI.11). 

Much more important than that is the more all-embracing definition:
"Getting what one does not want is dukkha, and not getting what one
wants is dukkha."

Now let's look at two possibilities. Either it is possible to eliminate
dukkha completely (by eliminating all desires) or it is possible only to
reduce it (by reducing the number of desires one has). If one wishes to
eliminate ALL dukkha, then one will be disappointed if one cannot do it,
and hence will experience the dukkha of failure. But if believes on that
it is possible to reduce desires, then one will not be disappointed by
having reduced some, will probably go on to reduce a few more and may
even eliminate quite a few, but will never be subject to the dukkha that
goes with failure to eliminate them all. 

So the best strategy is obviously to drop all thought of perfectionism,
to start where one is and to begin working at eliminating desires,
beginning perhaps with the easy ones (such as the desire to create a
perfect Utopia that is completely free of Republicans) and then working
up to the harder ones (such as the desire for a second helping of ice
cream).

>    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.

A so you must also think it's fine to strive to achieve the Buddhist
goal of reducing dukkha by reducing desires and unrealistic
expectations. If one looks at the vast majority of Buddhists in the
world, that is all they are trying to do in this life. And those who are
wise (in a Socratic sense) are content to have made good progress along
this path in this life. Whether there is another life matters not in the
least.

> It  seems  that  you  can't believe without rational proofs. 

Oh, I doubt that very many people would make that claim. Rather, I think
there are quite a few people here who would say (as I do) that their
current beliefs are working quite well for them and that they see no
need to abandon workable beliefs without good reason. For those who are
operating quite well in a belief system that does not include any
opinions about what happens after death, we see no need to add a belief
about what happens after death. And if we were to add such a belief, we
would rather have some evidence.

> As  far  as  I'm  concerned,  I  don't need to believe nor rational
> proofs, I'm a postmodern orthodox, not a modern one.

Say, I know a president of some united states who thinks just as you do.

>    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.

Please try to be more accurate. Don't presume that what is true for you
must be true for all human beings. Some of us find plenty of meaning in
our lives without having to go very far outside the bounds of science.
And some of us, when we dip into narratives, don't feel a need to
restrict ourselves to only one. Can one be a pluralist and still be a
Buddhist? (I am asking this of someone who thinks he is both an orthodox
Jew and a Zen master.)

>  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 am happy for you. Again, I would invite you not to assume that
everyone has the same mental and emotional dispositions that you have.

>  I think that it's a pity  that  the  modern  human  being  is caught
> in the dichotomy between science and believe.

Those of us who know that that is a false dichotomy are not caught up in
it. In fact, just about the only people I know of who are caught up in
it are fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

> I  think  that  it's  important  to  be  faithful to history  and  preserve  the  teachings. 

I think just about everyone on buddha-l shares this priority with you.

> Maybe  some US citizens don't like the US constitution, but it is what
> it is.

Yes, it is a living document that is open to constant reinterpretation
as circumstances change. It is not too different from a living religious
canon in that respect.

>    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.

Aside from the authors of the Lotus Sutra, who can you point to who has
done this? I have been poking around Buddhist literature for close to
forty years now, and I can't think of anyone who is guilty of the
accusation you are making.

> I  only have problems with people who try to rewrite (or  destroy)
> history  for  fitting  it  to  their own agendas. 

Then I have very good news for you, Benito. You have no problems,
because no one seems to be destroying Buddhist texts and replacing them
with forgeries.

> If  one  doesn't  like Buddhism or only likes some of its teachings, that's fine for me.

That's mighty charitable of you, sir. There are so many teachings in
Buddhism that it's safe to say that nobody believes all of them. Every
Buddhist selects those that work for her. And just about every Buddhist
I know leaves alone those that she does not take so that others can use
them if they find them useful.

-- 
Richard