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

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 02:15 +0100, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> RPH> You have it backwards. The science of buddhology in the hands of the
> RPH> selfish becomes Buddhism.
> 
> no, you have it backwards.

I have it both ways, since I am primarily a Buddhist and only
secondarily a historian of philosophy and a translator of Sanskrit
texts. But I do think the more consistent interpretation of Emerson's
saying would say that the approach to a subject (such as the history of
Buddhism) with an impartial mind is less selfish than a practice that is
taken up in order to get particular results. So if you wished to coin a
dictum parallel to Emerson's other observations it would be that the
impartial study of Buddhism turns into the practice of Buddhism when it
is done by someone who is selfish.

> Read Hume, Voltaire and many others.

Yes, I do read those gentlemen from time to time. I don't see how you
think they are relevant to this discussion. Could you elaborate?

> And when we don't stop the false belief in that non-rebirth, another
> being can appear to fix the error. 

Now I have no idea who you are talking to. I have never advocated a
belief in non-rebirth. Although I have read quote a few Western Buddhist
authors, I have never found a single one who insists that there is no
rebirth. So I am unaware of anyone who has the belief that are saying is
false. Can you recommend some writers to me who insist that there is no
rebirth? Then at least I would have some idea what you are talking
about.

> Because you are defending the insertion of non-rebirth in Buddhism
> instead rebirth. I write here to defend rebirth only because you and
> more people are defending non-rebirth.

I have never attacked the doctrine of rebirth. Read some of my writings
on the subject. Go to my website and download some of my articles or
(un)popular writings. What you will find is that the only thing I have
advocated is EXPANDING the number of people to whom Buddhist practices
are made available by teaching it in a way that people who do not
believe in rebirth can benefit from Buddhist teachings without having to
pretend they believe in something that they find it difficult to
believe. 

I have been teaching in Buddhist temples and dharma centers for twenty
years, and I have met many Western people who say they find it
impossible to believe in rebirth. What do you recommend doing with them?
Should I send them away and say "Sorry. I won't show you how to meditate
on your breath and cultivate love for all sentient beings until you get
down on your knees and swear on the Pali canon that you believe in
rebirth."?

> You and more people know that rebirth drives to -self but at same
> time ignoring that such non-rebirth also drives to the -self.

Again, I would ask you to read some of my writings so that you know what
I say. It is much more profitable to talk to people about what they say
than to talk to them about what you imagine they might be saying. 

> Are you a democrat?

I have voted a few times, if that is what you were asking. If you are
asking fro whom I voted, that is really none of your business.

>  In the claims about death as the end of the -self. It is pure nihilism. 

Yes, it would be cessationism to claim that there is a self and that it
ceases at death. But I have never said anything even remotely like that.
Yet again, I would ask you to read some of my writings. You will never
find any passage written by me in which I say that there is a self that
ceases at death. I don't believe in the self at all, except as a
construct, a fiction that has some uses when one applies for a drivers
licence or a passport, but a fiction that causes considerable dukkha
when one takes it too seriously.

> Buddha never teached these things.

I think if you will read what I have written with care, you will find
that 1) I really don't give a bucket of turkey turds what the Buddha
taught or didn't teach, because it is not my habit to form my beliefs on
the basis only of what others say, and 2) despite that admittedly
cavalier attitude, what I teach is remarkably similar to what the Buddha
taught in almost every detail. In fact, if he had not said it first, I
would be tempted to accuse him of plagiarizing me!

Now Señor Gonzales, you have some reading to do. Please take your time.

-- 
Richard
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/
http://home.comcast.net/~dayamati/