Where does authority for "true" Buddhism come from?: Was: [Buddha-l] Re: Jesus is Buddha?

[Jim Peavler]

Howdy to my good friend Benito!

On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Benito Carral wrote, responding to  
Richard Hayes:

*****************
Hayes:
>
>> But  their  account  is  already an interpretation, a
>> rewriting of history.

Benito:
>    I  don't  know  what  proofs  you have about this. I
> think  that  the  followers  of  the  Buddha could well
> memorize his sermons as they claimed they did. It seems
> that  they  were  better  memorizing that we tend to be
> nowadays.
>
Hayes:
>
>> Everything  we  have,  and the only thing we can ever
>> have, is a fictional representation.
>>
>
Benito:
>    That's your belief.
******************

Please consider the following ideas.  Nothing much was written down,  
particularly the "words of the Buddha" until more than 200 years  
after his death (similarly to the words if Jesus). This means that  
for at least that length of time the words were in an oral tradition.  
Now, oral traditions have the notorious tendency to undergo changes  
as the word is passed from person to person. Lots of studies  
beginning in the 19th century and continuing to this day, indicate  
that oral traditions, whatever facts they may begin with, tend to  
drift toward archetypical forms. So, there is simply a natural drift.

However, let us suppose that Buddhist teachings have moved a bit less  
that way than Jesus' teachings. I think perhaps the monastic  
tendencies of Buddhism, the first buck out of the chute, may have  
slowed that movement a bit.

The people passing on the Buddhist teachings were groups with an  
intention to preserve and teach the words the best they could.  
However, we all know that sincere, serious people are likely to make  
some slight modifications to the received wisdom if they think it  
strengthens it, or if it will help separate them from some other  
bunch over the mountain who are claiming to also preserve and teach  
the same received wisdom, but with whom we have a disagreement or a  
quarrel.

Lets imagine, best case, that all of the parties who received the  
wisdom agreed absolutely on exactly what they had heard, and never  
had any need to try to make their version more popular than the  
version over the mountain. Well, over a period or 200 or 300 years of  
oral transmission from mouth to ear to brain to mouth, do you not  
think that some change might happen to the received wisdom? (While  
contemplating this question, remember what the Buddha apparently said  
about human perception, memory, judgement, etc. How accurate do the  
early Buddhist texts you know about say a person's memory (or even  
perceptions) are likely to.

Now consider the more likely case. People on different sides of the  
mountains DID develop differing beliefs and versions of the received  
wisdom. And, being sincere, earnest, and right, they felt they had to  
compete with the folks who had missed the path. So they enhanced a  
few sections, and they dropped mention of a few words here and there  
to strengthen their case. The inconsistencies amongst even the  
earliest (and sometimes within a single work) show that this happened.

It seems to me to follow that there is no possible chance that even  
the earliest writings on the subject of the teachings of the Buddha  
can be an accurate representation of what the Buddha (given there was  
an actual human teacher of that name who originated and said all that  
wonderful stuff we have the privilege to read and read about) himself  
actually originated and said.

The reason there are so many sutras and so many versions of most of  
them is that early folks calling themselves Buddhists collected huge  
amounts of wise stuff of which there were slightly different  
versions, or that honest, sincere, earnest men (maybe some women) who  
loved and cared about us some thousand plus years behind them (more  
than we seem to care about our own grandchildren) heard slightly  
different things, interpreted what they did hear slightly  
differently, or had good reason to enhance some parts and forget  
others. Not to mention the possibility (I admit this is a real  
stretch) that some authors and editors of the received wisdom wanted  
to make new stuff or new versions of the received stuff to enhance  
their own fame, power, or popularity amongst their peers or their kings.

In short, it seems likely that whatever version of whatever writings  
you take to be authoritative, it is simply not possible that those  
writings (by whatever mysterious method you have selected the "true"  
canon and rejected the false howitzer) can represent a very accurate  
version of what the teacher originally said.

Not  to mention, of course, that one of my favorite teachings of the  
Buddha is to never never ever accept anything on authority (written  
or spoken) that does not make sense to my own experience and what I  
have tried to learn from the very best exemplars. So, on the  
authority vested in me by someone called the Buddha himself, I reject  
rebirth, kharma, several hells (though not necessarily all of them)  
and any pure lands whatsoever.




Jim Peavler

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755