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

[Benito Carral]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2006, Jim Peavler wrote:

> Please consider the following ideas.

   I'm glad to do it since they are offered in a polite
way.


> Nothing  much  was  written  down,  particularly  the
> "words of the Buddha" until more than 200 years after
> his death [...]

   I don't know how you have arrived to that "200 years
after  his death" date, but even if we accepted it, the
question  would be a different one, how accurate is the
canon?


> Now,  oral  traditions have the notorious tendency to
> undergo  changes as the word is passed from person to
> person.

   As  you  surely know, the fact that most of X-ers do
something  doesn't indicate that a particular X-er also
does it.


> 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?

   I  think  that this is not a good way of considering
the  issue.  I  have already quoted Conze about it. Now
let  me quote A.K. Warder (_Indian Buddhism,_ 2000, 3rd
revised edition, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers):

            [T]here  is  a  central  body  of _suutras_
            (dialogues),  in  four  groups, which is so
            similar  in all known versions that we must
            accept  these  as so many recensions of the
            same  original  texts.  These  make  up the
            greater  part of the _Suutra Pit.aka_ [...]
            (p. 5)

            [In  the  Chinese  canon,  f]or the _Vinaya
            Pit.ka_  the  position  is  more favourable
            than  for  the  _Suutra_  since we have (in
            Chinese) the Mahaasam.ghika recension. This
            when  collated  with the Sthaviravaada will
            carry us back to the first schism among the
            Buddhists  (in  the 4th century B.C.) [...]
            (p. 7)

            In  the  heyday of extreme scepticism as to
            whether we knew anything at all of what the
            Buddha  taught this exercise was useful; it
            still   helps  to  emphasize  some  of  the
            important  features  of  his  [the  Buddha]
            doctrine. (p. 12)


> 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 [...]

   It's possible that you have not used a good argument
after  all.  It's  useful  to  keep in mind the textual
evidence  we  have  and  use a good methodology. Having
done that, Warder writes:

            They   [early   Buddhist   historians]  are
            unanimous    that    after   the   original
            collective  rehearsal  of  the _Tripit.aka_
            the  Buddhists remainded united for about a
            century [...] (p. 3)

            We  have  mentioned  the  early  schools of
            Buddhism, supposed to have been eighteen in
            number,  and  that they agree substantially
            on a central body of texts representing the
            teaching of the Buddha. (p. 9)


> 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.

   This is just false, as Conze and Warder among others
have  explained.  When the early texts agree, we can be
quite sure that they are relating the original teaching
of the Buddha. All the early schools taught rebirth, so
it's safe to say that the teacher taught it.

   If Muslins had finished their work of Buddhist texts
destruction  in India, we could not talk about history.
Fortunately,  history,  although seriously damaged, has
survived the Muslim crusade.


> 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.

   I doubt very much that the Buddha has given you such
authority,  but I think that it's fine if you decide to
reject rebirth or anything else. You are free to decide
your  own  way and, contrarily to what Richard seems to
think, I don't have any problem about that.

   For  me,  the  problem  arises when someone tries to
hijack  history  (as  Muslims  tried to do) and insists
that  rebirth,  karma,  or some other teachings are not
integral  parts of Buddhism. Maybe there are still some
retrograde  and  stupid enough individual, not yet full
suffused  with  enlightening reason, who feels that the
teachings of the Buddha, as a whole, make more sense to
him  than  some of them out of context. It's clear than
such  an  individual  has not been lucky enough to meet
the teenagers that Curt informed about.

   Best wishes,

   Beni