[Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo

[Joy Vriens]

>    It's  quite  interesting how westeners are trying to
> reinterpret  Buddhism.

If I were Buddhism I would be happy that Westerners grant me that honour.

> 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)...

There is always more room in a Buddha's mouth for words he could have said.

I have hardly any doubt about the Buddha's belief in rebirth or 
non-violence. I wouldn't question that. But it doesn't make sense to me 
that he had the authority that you want to give him right from the 
start. At least Christianity is pretty honest and graphic about the 
fragile authority of a founder of a new religion.

>    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.

You are probably right, but I don't know the agenda of those Westerners
nor do I know the one of the Buddha.

>>>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.

The difference is that legends don't change, whereas historic views can.
One can also try and analyse the legends instead of taking them at face 
value. That won't result in any historic truths, but one can reflect on 
what story they tell and their possible reasons to wanting to  tell us 
whatever they tell us. Why is it important a story is told and to whom 
is it told? Stories about conflicts perhaps contain not much truth about 
what really happened, but you can be sure the conflict was real. And 
that could give us some interesting perspectives.

>>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.

Well, if they were there in the 7th century, then the Devadatta issue
was more than simply about "a jealous cousin" and then it perhaps did
play an important role in early Buddhism. Especially if the legend
mentions how Sariputta and Mogallana recuperated the/some? schismatic
monks and the Buddha hardly played any role at all. Perhaps he didn't
play much of a role, because he wasn't there anymore.

And what about all those suttas where the Buddha rests his back against 
a tree and
Sariputta teaches, after which the Buddha says "Well said Sariputta". 
Especially when one thinks of the proverb "Everything well said is said 
by the Buddha". Sariputta is also sometimes called the second founder of 
Buddhism
(Conze). I have plenty more ideas about a Buddhist Da Vinci Code, but 
this will do for today.;-)

>    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.

The eldest history was written by those minorities who were first 
inclined to write,
i.e. rather the Sariputtas than the Devadattas.

Joy