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

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 18:53 +0100, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> I'm writing according your views in this list. I can cite thousand of
> your commentaries against rebirth. 

If there are thousands, then you should have no difficulty finding one.
I would be more than happy to discuss any passage with you to clarify
any ambiguities that may have caused confusion.

> I cannot find in your website any paper around rebirth. 

There is a search facility on
http://home.comcast.net/~dayamati/squibs.html
Type in the word "rebirth" and you'll get references to passages.

> If you don't give concrete references, then I understand that your views in this
> list are a mere speculation, not enough to be transposed to your academic writings.

There is no need for speculation. My position (which I have stated many
times) is that I do not think there is sufficient evidence to settle the
question whether or not the doctrine of rebirth as given in classical
Buddhist texts is true. Of course I know that the doctrine of rebirth is
found in classical Buddhism. But not every doctrine taught in the
Buddhist canon is necessarily true. Each doctrine requires independent
verification. Some questions are impossible either to verify or to
falsify given the evidence available to us. 

Rebirth, I believe, is one of those unverifiable and unfalsifiable
teachings. And when a question cannot be settled one way or the other,
when a person has a definite view, that view is more likely to be a
declaration of personal faith than anything else. I have nothing against
declarations of faith. I make them all the time. But I do try to be
mindful that they are simply declarations of faith and that if I give
myself the privilege to blurt out, without warrant or justification,
what I believe, then I must allow others to do the same. When, however,
it seems to me that people are not fully acknowledging that what they
are saying is merely their own personal credo---when, in other words,
they assume that their credo is The Truth---then I am likely to play the
gadfly. 

Most people, I'm sorry to have to report, act like children when
gadflies are around. One of the things I appreciate about buddha-l is
that most people here, with only a few exceptions, are quite civilized
and mature around gadflies.

> In this case, I hope that some of my comments can be of some help to
> polish your view in this matter.

Nothing you have said so far on this issue has been of any help at all.
But I thank you for making the effort.

>  Also I hope that still you have an open mind to extract what you
> think it can be useful from any source. 

A few years ago I participated in a Buddhist news group, which was
probably the most ugly and mindless venue I have ever seen on the
Internet. After I had posted a few dozen messages, one of the people
began to complain that I was "all of the map." Sometimes I argued one
way, he said, sometimes another. He could never tell which point of view
I would take, because I seemed to be determined to see things from every
point of view, even the wrong ones. Obviously, in the minds of this
person, this trait was a great failing. I was trained, both by my
academic mentors and my Buddhist teachers, to look at issues from
several points of view. Like you, I hope never to lose that skill.

-- 
Richard