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

[Malcolm Smith]

On 1/27/06 8:15 PM, "Vicente Gonzalez" <vicen.bcn at gmail.com> wrote:


> instead rebirth. I write here to defend rebirth only because you and
> more people are defending non-rebirth.


Rebirth does not need any defense, since the Buddha clearly taught it.

As far as accepting it, it all depends on whether one finds material causes
sufficient for explaining the phenomena of consciousness. If one doesn't,
then one will seek another explanation.

I have to say though, that the argument that if one does not accept rebirth,
one will be less moral is a pretty poor one. People's acceptance of
conventional moral norms generally has more to do with self-interest than
metaphysical concerns about future lives.

I personally find the teaching on rebirth useful and meaningful, and so
therefore I not only acknowledge that Buddha taught it, but I personally
accept it, non-falsifiable though it may be.

I don't really understand why Buddhism would be different from Quakerism
without a doctrine of rebirth, and so on, and it is hard for me to
understand why someone would bother with Dharma, over say, Neo-confucism and
so on without a doctrine of rebirth-- but people apparently do and it is not
for me to tell them not to.

The only thing I feel compelled to remind people of is that the Buddha did
teach rebirth and so on. And as far as Richard goes, he hasn't accepted
rebirth for years, if ever, and if no one is going to change his mind in the
12 years I have known him on the net, no one ever will. And Richard does
know that Buddha taught rebirth, at least in the texts that some religious
fiction writers [according to Richard] attributed to the Buddha.

So there is nothing to defend...

M