[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[Federico Andino]

> >awareness of the broader picture. "Buddhists are nonviolent, except
> wherever
> >I happen to be looking..."
>
> >As for "original Buddhism," what might that be? The acceptance and
> condoning
> >of what a ruler needs to do to preserve the Dharma and protect his people
> >goes back to the earliest layers. The extreme deference given the ruler


Dear Dan:
I agree with most of your points. Given that "ideal buddism" is as much a
fact as an ideal christianity, it seems strange to me how some people expect
buddhist nations to be more enlightened as a whole than, say, hindu or
muslim nations. Not one nation, I think, would reflect the words of the
founder of its religions closely, at least nowadays. To keep using
christianity as an example, what would be a christian nation? Italy? Jesus
would weep at San Pietro´s square. USA? Must have skipped over "Thou shalt
be millitaristic and offer the other bullet" part when I read the new
testament. Christianity is as multifaceted as Buddhism, and I think that
most of us, who live in a nominally christian nation would see a lot of
difference between, say, baptist, roman catholics and syrian catholics.
However, my point was (and is!) that this attitude shows more of our need to
glamorize and project rather than truly understand buddhism. It creeps under
our radar, like using the west-east divide. No one who has read of Chögyal
Phagpa and his support of Kublai Khan, or the sohei of Mii-dera can truly
think that buddhists as a whole are devoted to annica, despite the rethoric.
But the fact that most buddhist teachers are asians shows us how we´re still
trapped in a Victorian understanding of the world. See, that man is a
chinese/korean/tibetan/thai teacher, hence he must be perfect and show us
truth by strange apphorisms (something I think accounts for the popularity
of the koan). How we howl when the teacher tell us that we must study
pramana and the sutras! If we wanted to study, we would have gone to get a
degree in philosophy, we think and we perpetuate the myth: he must not be a
true teacher. Somewhere, in the pure land of Rampanism, there sits a White
Master, who reincarnates as the king of all fat cats, who can enlighten us
with a mere glance.

This attitude is prevalent, I fear, in Tibetan buddhism. There´s a lot of
temples where serious study is discouraged, and only devotion to a guru is
seen right. While no one disputes the place devotion to a guru has in a
tantric framework,  the effect that not studying the root texts and
commentaries is to concentrate power and authority on the hands of the
(usually tibetan) teachers. While happily there are exceptions, there´s not
a lot of drive to make the tibetan dharma truly local. And this works to
reinforce the conceptual divide of west-east. It´s just a blind devotion to
an authority figure, which has better public relations than, say, the pope.
But in effect, it´s just Truth in Authority (tm); it is as isomorphic to say
"I belive in the Pope since he has access to a divine truth (in god)" than
to say "I belive in X Asian man because he has access to a divine truth (in
some text/sadhana/etc)". Until there´s people in each country who take the
trouble to meditate, study, and make the Dharma their own, we will be
somewhat in thrall of this conceptual east-west divide.

I think that the Dalai Lama has a great point in saying that we need more
people who show great ability at meditation outside Asia. Siddhas (or
Arhats, or true Bodhisattvas) are one of the selling points of Buddhism. Who
hasn´t been inspired by, say, Shinran, or Milarepa, or Mahatera? Where are
people in the Americas who can match them? Until we produce such people, we
will somewhat held in awe by the idea than in Asia, buddhism is more "true"
or more "pure" and the romanticism associated with those concepts.

F

>
>