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

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 14:59 +0100, Benito Carral wrote:

>    I'm not going to reply to all of your post because I
> think  that  our  respective positions are clear enough

Your position is still not very clear to me, but I can inquire
privately.

> > All I have tried to show is that the effectiveness of
> > Buddhist  practice  remains perfectly intact in other
> > frameworks as well.
> 
>    Yes, I know, and there we disagree.

What is not clear to me is whether you disagree on the basis of
empirical evidence, such as scientific studies that have been done on
this issue, or on the basis of a priori considerations. If the latter,
I'd be interested in knowing what the general principle is from which
you deduce your conclusion. If the former, I'd love to see a reference
to the studies.

Meanwhile, you might enjoy reading Steven Collins's wonderful article
called "The very idea of the Pali canon." He draws upon the observation
that in most settings that we think of as mostly Theravada (Burma, Sri
Lanka, Vietnam and Thailand), Theravada Buddhism has co-existed quite
happily with Mahayana. The Chinese pilgrims observed that in India there
were no Mahayana monasteries; rather, there were some monks in every
monastery who read Mahayana texts in addition to others. The Chinese,
Tibetan, Vietnamese and Korean canons all contained plenty āgama/nikāya
of works, along with the Mahayana works. Hardly anywhere in the Buddhist
world do we find evidence of Buddhist teachers declaring other
approaches to be illegitimate. Nowhere, except the infamous Lotus Sutra,
do we find any suggestion that āgama/nikāya works are inferior. No texts
were burned or destroyed, no one was declared a heretic for holding the
"wrong" beliefs, and indeed it is generally recommended that people
study as widely as possible. One unhappy exception to this rule is the
insistence that the Pali canon is uniquely authoritative, and Collins
suggests this took place only in Sri Lanka and that it took place as the
result of a rather specific power struggle. 

In other words, in most of Buddhist history, the attitude you are
manifesting is quite rare. It is an example of what Gregory Schopen
calls the Protestant tendency in Western Buddhist studies, that is, the
tendency to think that the only thing that really counts as authentic is
what it says in a given text or body of texts.
 
There is nothing necessarily wrong in a Protestant approach, but if one
does follow it rather than the tendencies of Asian Buddhist traditions,
it may be worth reflecting on why. Discussion is a good way to do that.
And so I have pursued it, even at the risk of being perceived by some as
tedious.

-- 
Richard Hayes
***
"To blame others for one's misfortunes is a sign of lack of education;
to blame oneself shows that one's education has begun;
to blame neither oneself nor others shows that one's education is
complete."
                                   ---Epictetus (55-135)