[Buddha-l] Selectivity

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 07:51, Christopher Fynn wrote:

> I suspect some of the 'selectivity' is simply due to fact that most of us
> are only familiar with a few parts of this mass of literature.

Yes, I think that is true. I suspect that what many people do in the beginning 
is to sample a few Buddhist texts. If they find nothing to their liking, they 
abandon reading Buddhism altogether and move on to Baha'i or Islam or Bikram 
Yoga. If they find something they like in the first couple of Buddhist texts 
they read, they feel content with that and don't explore much further. After 
all, there is not much point in reading Pure Land sutras if one is quite 
content with the Digha-nikaya, and if one finds the Pure Land teachings 
inspiring there is not much point in reading the Pali canon. Indeed, one 
could even argue that there is a danger in becoming distracted if one reads 
too widely.

As an academic I am somewhat taken aback by Buddhists who know nothing at all 
about Buddhism except what their roshi has selected for them. They seem like 
baby birds feasting on regurgitated worms. As a practitioner, however, I am 
equally taken aback by academics who seem to have become information junkies, 
so addicted to learning something slightly new that they apparently fail to 
derive the full value of anything they land upon for a few fleeting moments. 
Most of all, I am appalled at myself for being such a poorly read academic 
and such an unaccomplished practitioner.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes