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

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 13:26 +0100, Benito Carral wrote:

> Anyway, the  question  still  is  that  the goal of Buddhism is
> dukkha-nirodha (= cessation of dukkha).

The goal of Buddhism is nirvana, and nirvana is defined in various ways.
The two ways I am most familiar with are kilesa-nirodha (the cessation
and prevention of further afflictions) and bhava-nirodha (the cessation
and prevention of further desire for continued existence or for non-
existence). Both of those make perfect sense in more mythological
framework than one. One can strive for both without any reference to the
mythology of rebirth.

> > 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.

So you believe it is possible to eliminate something without reducing
it? (Have you ever thought of reducing your apparent need to consider
people wrong who are capable of seeing more than you do?)

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

Well, yes, there is such a vow. But what exactly is your point?

>    I don't know what criteria you have used to say that
> such  part  of the definition is "much more important,"

A definition that embraces everything is more important than a list of
particular instances of things that meet the definition. The definition
of dukkha as being in contact with what one does not find pleasant and
not being in contact with what one dies find pleasant embraces every
possible kind of dukkha.

>  "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." (SN LVI.11)

Yes. And one can believe that without any reference whatsoever to
rebirth.

> > 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.

Which premise is false? Are you suggesting that one is not disappointed
if one fails to achieve what one wishes to achieve?

> You  are conveniently forgetting rebirth.

No, I have not forgotten it at all. I have never denied that rebirth is
part of the mythological narrative of classical Buddhism. All I have
tried to show is that the effectiveness of Buddhist practice remains
perfectly intact in other frameworks as well. I am trying to show that
the four noble truths remain perfectly meaningful, valid and (yes, even)
true in a framework that has no reference at all to Buddhism. And this
means, in practical terms, that a person can practice the foundations of
mindfulness and metta-bhavana and make it all the way to nirvana without
ever once believing in rebirth.

>  If one believes  in rebirth, he has plenty of lifes to achieve dukkha-nirodha.

Not necessarily. One may BELIEVE that one has plenty of lives. But that
belief could be false. One can't be certain about such things.

I'm sure you know the story of the Zen master who was asked by a lay
person whether there really is such a thing as rebirth. "Of course there
is," replied the Master. A monk happened to be outside the door of the
Master's room, and he overheard the conversation. Next time he saw the
Master, the monk asked whether there really is such a thing as rebirth.
"Of course there is not," roared the Master. "Aha! I have caught you
contradicting yourself," said the monk. "You told the layman that there
is rebirth, and you tell me there is not." The Master said "If I tell a
layman there is no rebirth, he will not behave himself well, and he will
get into all kinds of mischief. If I tell a monk there is rebirth, he
will become lazy and postpone his effort to achieve enlightenment in
this very life." 

I think that story has a degree of wisdom in it. If people have not yet
attained stream entry, then they still ask "Why should I follow the
precepts? What's in it for me? What do I have to gain by being moral?"
So it may be wise (as Plato suggested) to tell them some juicy myths
about the dire consequences that await those who misbehave. (They might
go to hell, for example, or be reborn in Kansas.) Not everyone benefits
from every myth. So one should develop a certain amount of flexibility
and an awareness that a myth that works in the context of some kinds of
delusion will not necessarily work in other contexts.

> 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.

Perhaps science could not give meaning to you. It gives a great deal of
meaning to me and to many other people I know. I don't know how anything
gives meaning. I'm not a psychologist. But I can report the empirical
fact that science does give life to me and to many people I know. So for
us, it is perhaps not necessary to avail ourselves to a narrative that
you say gives meaning to you. I think we can all have our narratives,
and there is no need to call another person's meaningful narrative a
delusion or a lie (as I'm afraid you have done several times). Neither
you nor the person you call a fool or a liar is likely to benefit from
your narrowness of vision.

-- 
Richard
http://home.comcast.net/~dayamati/