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

[Joy Vriens]

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> Emerson makes the observation that for those who cannot escape the
> prison of the self, astronomy becomes astrology, mathematics becomes
> numerology, physiology becomes phrenology and palmistry, and physics
> becomes technology.

A certain return to their sources so to speak. Didn't astronomy start as 
astrology, physics as technology etc.?
I do not entirely agree with Emerson's observation and probably don't 
agree at all. Any human activity can be a prison of self and I would 
rather speak about the prison of hopes and fears. Having spoken about 
that, I would immediately regret it and drop the prison bit and speak 
only about hopes and fears. Then I would think that escaping hopes and 
fears is nearly impossible and I would start wondering who the "those 
who can" could be in Emerson's eyes.

> Bhikkhu Buddhadasa would add that for those who
> cannot escape the prison of the self, dependent origination becomes
> rebirth.

But putting my mauvaise foi aside I think I do see what Emerson, Bhikkhu 
Buddhadasa and you meant. It's about detachment isn't it? Although I am 
not sure about Emerson, because apart from that he also seems to believe 
in some sort of objective (= incontaminated) science, which should be 
served selflessly.

I guess what bothers me about Emerson and your rendering of Buddhadasa 
(although he could have probably said so himself), is that I feel some 
sort of judgement implied in the statement. "Those who cannot 
escape...". And that the detachment somehows seems to be inherent in the 
"incontaminated" sciences and in dependent origination. As if attachment 
to beliefs were impossible in "proper" sciences and "proper" views.

But I guess it would be fair I build a proper idea about Emerson by 
having a look at the website you indicated.

> (N.B. I am paraphrasing Emerson. The actual quotation can be found by
> searching the complete works of Ralph Waldo Emerson at
> http://www.emersoncentral.com )

"By fault of our dulness and selfishness, we are looking up to nature, 
but when we are convalescent, nature will look up to us. We see the 
foaming brook with compunction: if our own life flowed with the right 
energy, we should shame the brook. The stream of zeal sparkles with real 
fire, and not with reflex rays of sun and moon. Nature may be as 
selfishly studied as trade. Astronomy to the selfish becomes astrology; 
psychology, mesmerism (with intent to show where our spoons are gone); 
and anatomy and physiology, become phrenology and palmistry."
http://www.emersoncentral.com/nature2.htm

I prefer the pantheistic, less antropocentered, more ecological approach 
of Danielou when speaking about Pashupati. "There is no god without 
animality, no animal without humanity and no man without a part of 
divinity." "The only morality is the link of paasha, the interdepency 
between the animal, the divine and ourselves, while realising the place 
we occupy in the divine works (Efficient Nature, natura naturans if one 
prefers- the equation is mine, inspired by Marcel Conche), the 
affinities that link us to animal and vegetal species and the 
responsibilities that those links imply." Nature doesn't look up to us, 
nor should we expect that. I see that wish as a reminiscence of God's 
making man the master of his creation, or Descartes' exhortation to 
exploit nature and set it to our hand.

Joy