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

[Joy Vriens]

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>>Didn't astronomy start as astrology, physics as technology etc.?

> I'm not sure. I wasn't there when they started.

You probably were, Richard, though not in your glorious present 
terrestrial envelope of course as four out of five Buddhists would be 
quick to tell you.
But we don't need to have been there to deduce that. I think man must 
have used technology before knowing physics etc. He built his tools 
before developing the physical laws corresponding to "tool building" 
(smashing bones to bits with a stone).

>>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.

> Do you have something against judgement? Do you judge it negatively?

It depends on how I look at it. There is a reason for everything being 
the way it is. And judgement is a refusal and a measuring against an 
ideal. But judgement is necessary to live and function in the world. 
That sort of judgement I accept like I (try to) accept beliefs, hopes, 
fears etc. BTW I don't see what it would change if I didn't accept them 
or judged them negatively apart from poisoning my life. But on a 
spiritual level, I think judgements are counterproductive and not an 
indication of acceptance, peace and detachment. I guess I don't believe 
in teaching...

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

> Not only would that be fair, it would be a source of great pleasure, I
> think. Few writers could match his style. Sometimes he waxes a bit
> euphuistic for modern tastes, and he is given to vaticinations that may
> irritate some and strike others as plain nonsense, but in general I find
> that even when I disagree with Emerson, I love savoring his manner of
> expression. 

Yes, I know what you mean. I have the same thing with French literature. 
I was reading stuff written by the Jansenist Pierre Nicole lately and 
thought how clear and well written it was. But for that the thinking 
behind it needs to be clear and sober too. Stuff like that is timeless.

> Emerson, of course, was a Unitarian, as am I, so he "speaks to my
> condition" (if I may use the wonderful expression of George Fox, who was
> a Quaker, as am I).

Do you think there is a Dionysian side to the quaking and shaking in 
Quakerism? Do you actually quake?

> Unlike our friend Benito, who is quite sure one
> cannot be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time, I have never had
> any problem being in the very same moment a Buddhist, a Unitarian and a
> Quaker.

On the contrary, the more "things" one can be at the same time, the 
better I would think (e.g. Ramakrishna, Kunu Lama Tendzin Gyaltsen), 
especially if all those "things" boil down to basically the same 
"thing". I hope that doesn't sound too theosophical, but it does, 
doesn't it?

> (I guess it might be harder to be a Nichiren Buddhist and a
> Jehovah's Witness in the same moment, or a Theravadin and a Pentecostal,
> but I am not going to test that hypothesis by trying to be both myself.)

Instead of no self one would end up with a split self.

Joy