[Buddha-l] Question for acedemic teachers of Buddhism

[Jackhat1 at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/24/2008 12:36:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
rhayes at unm.edu writes:

Incidentally, your description of how Eckel teaches Buddhism  captures
precisely what it was about Buddhism that first attracted me to  it. I
loved the idea of a tradition teaching that nirvana is an end to  all
rebirth and of all consciousness. If I had been taught that nirvana  is
anything but an oblivion that brings an end to tedious awareness,  I
would have thought Buddhism quite silly. So if I had heard lectures  like
the ones given by Eckel as you describe them, I would have said  "Hit
dog! Finally there is a religion for me!" 
=
It seem to me that a course in Buddhism should bring out both this view of  
nibbana and a view that nibbana is cessation of suffering in this  life. 
 



Given that one man's evangel (good news) may be another's  dysangel (bad
news), I reckon a professor should probably just try her best  to report
what the texts and the commentators have said over the years. In  the
case of Buddhism, if I feel any obligation at all, it is to report  that
there are (and apparently have been since the very beginning)  very
different views among Buddhists about almost every doctrine  and
technical term used in Buddhism.
===========
If a professor has a "museum curator" approach, he might consciously and  
unconsciously pick commentators that emphasize the more exotic and the removed  
from our everyday life. Do any professors mention the approach of, to use one  
example, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. He is perhaps the strongest and .

>>To be quite honest, I think it is a HUGE mistake for  someone from the
West to become a Buddhist if she was not exposed to Buddhist  symbols,
myths, images and practices from early childhood. Adulthood is much  too
late to try to learn and then make sense of a complex set of myths  and
symbols. Adulthood is a time to work on all the stories one was told  as
a child. I deeply regret that I never took time to do that. The  result,
I think, is that I have never become an adult in the tradition in  which
I was raised (atheistic secular humanism), and I have never  developed
more than a childish grasp of the religion I adopted as a young  adult.
Looking back on my own experience, I conclude: What a waste of life  it
is to convert to a tradition from foreign lands. In this I  agree
strongly with both Carl Jung and the Dalai Lama.<<\
===============
I don't think Jung was very knowledgeable about Buddhism. The Dalai Lama  
represents the most mythical and far out (I apologize that I can't find a better  
term. I have a tennis game in 20 minutes and have to run) type of Buddhism. 
If  one gives any credence to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's and his ilk''s 
interpretation of  Buddhism, myths and images aren't very important. And, westerners as a   
group probably have much more experience with the Buddhist practice of  
meditation than ethnic Buddhists as a group.
 
Jack
 


-- 




**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)