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

[Benito Carral]

On Thursday, January 26, 2006, Richard P. Hayes 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.

   Then  I  tell  you  that  your  local  wisdom is not
applicable to Buddhism nor to many other areas. Anyway,
the  question  still  is  that  the goal of Buddhism is
dukkha-nirodha (= cessation of dukkha).

> So  I  think  we can say that the goal of Buddhism is
> reducing dukkha, as Dr. Peavler said.

   You could say it, but it would not be true.

       [Regarding   to  Alara  Kalama's  teaching,  the
       Buddha   said]   "This   Dhamma   leads  not  to
       disenchantment,   to  dispassion,  to  cessation
       [...], but only to reappearance in the dimension
       of  nothingness."  So,  dissatisfied  with  that
       Dhamma, I left. (MN 26)

       [Regarding  to  Uddaka Ramaputta's teaching, the
       Buddha   said]   "This   Dhamma   leads  not  to
       disenchantment,   to  dispassion,  to  cessation
       [...], but only to reappearance in the dimension
       of  neither  perception nor non-perception." So,
       dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left. (MN 26)

       Through the round of many births I roamed
          without reward,
          without rest,
       seeking the house-builder.
          Painful is birth
          again & again.
       House-builder, you're seen!
       You will not build a house again.
       All your rafters broken,
       the ridge pole destroyed,
       gone to the Unformed, the mind
       has come to the end of craving.

       (Dhp 153-154)

   Then we also have the latter Boddhisattva vow of the
Mahayanists,  "May  I attain Buddhahood for the benefit
of all sentient beings."
       

>> 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."

   I don't know what criteria you have used to say that
such  part  of the definition is "much more important,"
but  it  is not a question of this or that, but of this
and  that,  "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are
dukkha." (SN LVI.11)

   (Just in case some friends could think that the five
clinging-aggregates  are  the  non-arhats's aggregates,
it's  just  the  opposite, even arhats's aggregates are
clinging  ones  because  they  can be base for others's
attachments.)


> 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.

   I  will  not  go further because your premise is not
true.  You  are conveniently forgetting rebirth. If one
believes  in rebirth, he has plenty of lifes to achieve
dukkha-nirodha.


>> 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.

   Yes,  I  have  not  problems  with  that.  As I have
already  said, I have problems with people who say that
that  is  the  goal  of  Buddhism. (In fact, I have not
problems  with  the  people who say that, but with such
specific lie.)

> If one looks at the vast majority of Buddhists in the
> world,  that  is  all  they  are trying to do in this
> life.

   I  don't  tend  to  look for inspiration to the vast
majority.


>> 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.

   If  you  could  explain  me  how science (= a way of
knowing)  and  technology (= tools) can give meaning to
life, I would be glad to read you.

> 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.)

   First  of  all, you are sharing with me really break
news. I have never thought of myself as an orthodox Jew
but  as a not-yet-converted one. I don't think that I'm
a  Zen  master--nowadys I just teach non-denominational
Buddhism to a bunch of students.

   Now,  is  it  possible  to  be  a  pluralist  and  a
Buddhist?  I  think  that,  for example, one can't be a
Buddhist and a Jew (or a Christian, or a Muslim) at the
same  time, but I also think that one can be a Buddhist
and  a  Jew at different times. It's like living in two
different  cities, one can't live in both cities at the
same time, but he can live in both at different times.


>> 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.

   Your  invitation  is not welcome. I have not assumed
the stupid thing you point to, so maybe you could reuse
your invitation and send it to someone else.


>> 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. [...] just
> about  every  Buddhist  I  know  leaves  alone  those
> [teachings] that she does not take so that others can
> use them if they find them useful.

   I find it a most welcome attitude.

   Best wishes,

   Beni