[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[Federico Andino]

Ah, so we´re not talking about buddhism and non-buddhism, but rather
epistemological considerations. While I agree with that a lot more,
somehow it seems to me to be reductionist in extremis. Let me ask you
something, is there any kind of buddhism which you would think its
essential buddhism only?

F

By the by, dibs on calling it "core buddhism". Hey, it worked for Harner...

> Yes, I think they should. Accurate knowledge is gathered by people with a
> lot of experience and knowledge. They are in the best position to determine
> stuff.
>
> This is not about trying not to hurt someone's feelings, but to establish a
> solid hypothesis about how things are and how things work. It's functional
> to speak of 'primary forms' of Buddhism, which share essential tenets, and
> 'secondary forms', which are derivative of the primary forms. The secondary
> forms, which as you say would make Nichiren's dharma 'non-buddhist', share
> common characteristics and/or develop supplementary theories and/or
> practices strange to the primary forms.
>> I don't remember his position, I'm sorry. I'd say 'essential Buddhism' is
> that kind of Buddhism, whose practices and rituals can be traced in the core
> texts. To be laughed at is not a valid counterargument in scientific
> circles, as far as I know.