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

[Jim Peavler]

On Jan 28, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>
> RPH> It is very easy, and not at all helpful, just to sit around and
> RPH> recklessly say that other people are wrong. What would be more
> RPH> interesting is a detailed examination of some specific  
> passages. Please
> RPH> find something in any of my writings that you consider wrong,  
> and we can
> RPH> discuss that. Meanwhile, you're wasting everyone's time by  
> attacking an
> RPH> imagined position rather than one that has actually been stated.
>
>
> I'm writing according your views in this list. I can cite thousand of
> your commentaries against rebirth. As everybody knows.

Sorry, Bub. It simply ain't so. Stating that belief in rebirth is not  
a necessary part of Buddhist practice is NOT writing against rebirth.  
Writing against rebirth would require a person to say, "To be a  
Buddhist it is necessary to not believe in rebirth," which is  
something quite different.
>
> Here we are talking in this list context, about that view on rebirth
> present in your messages.

His stated view on this list, which is the only view of this matter I  
know about, is that one can benefit from Buddhist practice (following  
the precepts, meditation, etc.) without having any particular  
"belief" any anything beyond one's own experience. He also likes to  
talk about the importance of finding people whom one admires and  
respects and emulating those practices that one admires and respects  
in them.

Belief systems are not necessary. All that is needed is for a person  
to believe it is possible to improve herself, and to try to use the  
tools provided by Buddhism. The four truths and the noble path are  
enough without the other stuff.

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

You probably won't. He doesn't seem to think it is very important. He  
probably thinks he has more important things to think and write about.

> 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.

So why the hell am I defending Prof Hayes, I wonder? I guess this  
branch of this thread has just got on my nerves.