[Buddha-l] Re: selectivity

[Michael LaTorra]

I quite agree with Richard that far too many Buddhist practitioners have a very 
narrow view of the variety of "Buddhisms" actually practiced around the world. 
As a Zen teacher, I instruct my personal students to read "The Story of 
Buddhism: A Concise Guide to its History & Teachings" by Donald S. Lopez Jr. 
After having been directed by other Zen teachers to only read Zen texts, it is 
quite a revelation for them to see, for example, what Pure Land devotees 
believe.

By the same token, I also find great value in reading the Pali canon and 
Vipassana texts, as well as the results of recent scientific research into the 
neurophysiology of meditational states, and the cognitive science of positive 
psychology (so-called "happiness studies"). 

Unlike some folks on this list, I find science to be quite helpful in learning 
to "see things as they really are." I have no qualms about suffering from less-
than-pure spiritual motivations for wanting to know how the "aggregate" called 
matter can give rise to sensations, perceptions and mental formations (and 
let's not forget consciousness). I'm really not interested in philosophical 
disputations about which came first, the material "chicken" or the 
consciousness "egg." But I do have intense interest in knowing what careful, 
precise measurement of actual physical entities can reveal about the mechanical 
workings of it all. Whether these physical measurements of, for example, brain 
states merely correlate with subjective conscious states or cause them is of 
less import than knowing the physiological parameteres of the brain states, in 
my view, because such knowledge may someday lead to improved techniques for 
teaching meditation (and perhaps even devices to aid in learning it).

Regards,

Michael LaTorra

mlatorra at nmsu.edu

Department of English
New Mexico State University
PO Box 30001 MSC 3E
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001



Quoting buddha-l-request at mailman.swcp.com:


> Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:29:56 -0600
> From: Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Selectivity
> To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
> Message-ID: <200705301129.56524.rhayes at unm.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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