[Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo

[Benito Carral]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, Joy Vriens wrote:

>> Maha-parinibbana  sutta:  In  this case, Ananda, the
>> noble  disciple  possesses  unwavering  faith in the
>> Buddha  thus:  "The  Blessed  One is an Arahant, the
>> Fully  Enlightened  One,  perfect  in  knowledge and
>> conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the
>> paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and
>> men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One."

> But couldn't this be simply an appeal to authority by
> attributing  faith  provoking  epiteths  of  existing
> myths?  Like  saying  that  Jesus is the Messiah, the
> prophet Eli, a descendant from King David etc.?

   Yes,  it  could  be,  but  it  seems  to  me a quite
accurate  representation of the Old Guy's ways and it's
in  armony with most of the early texts. It seems to me
that  that  is  precisely  how old founders of religion
acted.

   It's  quite  interesting how westeners are trying to
reinterpret  Buddhism.  The  Old Guys could not use the
authority  recourse,  could  not take the rebirth issue
seriously,  could  not  advocate  radical  non-violence
(even if they are killing us)...

   It  seems quite clear to me that the problem is that
westerners  can  not and want not to admit that the Old
Guy had a different agenda.


>> It  is  quite easy for me to think in Devadatta as a
>> jealous cousin. He got some political support, but I
>> don't think a jealous cousin could play an important
>> role in early Buddhism.

> That's the legend.

   What's  the difference between legend and history? I
would say that history is just the accepted legend, and
it  seems  that  that  has been the accepted legend for
many centuries in the Buddhist world.

> Apparently  there  were  still traces of followers of
> Devadatta  (more  ascetism  orientated)  in  the  7th
> century (source Hiuan-Tsang, Lamotte p. 572).

   They  could  be  there, why not?, as Karaites in the
Jewish tradition or Bushes in the Christian one.

> Where  was the Buddha during that time? Why didn't he
> use his awesome authority?

   Because as the _Maha-parinibbana sutta_ says, he was
"perfect  in knowledge." :-) Maybe he was not the final
authority  for  some  little  groups  of  monks. It has
always  happened.  But  Buddhist  history, as any other
history, is not written by minorities.

   Best wishes,

   Beni