[Buddha-l] Re: How to help the Dharma grow in the USA

[Joy Vriens]

Pedro wrote

>Richard, in principle, I agree with this assessment. However, my own experience (particularly in Chan circles; less so in Zen) is that in practice with particular Buddhist groups, one might need a great deal more faith than I can usually muster. In fact, were I to believe in karma, rebirth, Mount Meru, hungry ghosts, etc, etc,, I might was well go back and believe in the Trinity, Jesus' virginal conception and birth and Mary's ascension into heaven. Was that Benito's point? I'm not sure. I do not share his fascination with orthodoxy or return to "traditional" values. 

What attracted me to Buddhism and what keeps my interest is the idea of emptiness (more or less as defined by the Prajnaparamita sutras) plus the methods most directly connected with it. That is where IMO the real power of detachment, relativity and freedom resides. That's the anachronistic bias with which I like to look at Buddhism, including proto-Buddhism and early Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't attack beliefs, it hollows them out, it empties them of their substance. It doesn't teach karma, rebirth, Mount Meru, hungry ghosts etc. Those beliefs existed, but with Buddhism they are emptied of their substance, without losing all of their motivating virtues. It can turn yoga into "Buddhism", Shaivism, deity worship, hathayoga, taoism, shamanism. It could turn Christianity into "Buddhism". It would be ridiculous for people to have to adopt a belief, which isn't theirs naturally and that is considered orthodoxically Buddhist first, before they could reap the benefits of "Buddhism". !
 Look at what is considered orthodox Buddhism in early Buddhism and in tantric Buddhism, especially the Anuttarayogatantras. How can one bridge the difference if it isn't through emptiness? And if they have anything in common and if what they do have in common is Buddhism as one may hope, then one will have to look through their outer appearances to find it. Anything that is orthodox can only be outer, superficial. Otherwise it couldn't be apprehended. For "Buddhism" to be "implanted" in the West, it will have to do the same as elsewhere. It will have to work with the beliefs that people already have, it will have to start from there. Beliefs are an important part of people, even constitutional, although illusionary if one likes to add that. Nothing is gained by attacking them frontally. Nothing is gained by imposing other beliefs. And for Buddhism the biggest belief is that of an autonomous self. Nothing is gained by attacking that frontally either. And the Buddha didn't at!
 tack it frontally, but he gradually emptied it of its substance. I thi
nk it's not about whether a belief is right or orthodox, it is about how we believe and what we do with our belief.