[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

Stefan Detrez stefan.detrez at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 01:12:25 MDT 2011


2011/9/25 Federico Andino <dingirfecho at gmail.com>

> I´m not saying to debate, but rather to determine.Really, do you think
> that academicians should be in charge to determine what is buddhism
> and what is not?
>

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.



> Who would care, really? I mean, for example, there´s a good case to
> say that Won (or Nichiren, or in fact the whole Vajrayana) is not
> "essential" buddhism as you term it. So, let´s say that we debate and
> get to the point that we can successfully argue that Dharmapala cults,
> or Nichiren nihon-centric perspective or Won reliace on Confucianism
> is not buddhism. Do you think they will care?
>

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.

>
> Once, when I was a student, an assistant professor was trying to
> create a kind of chamber of orientalists to determine if all the
> centers that taught Yoga were in fact doing so, instead of teaching a
> mixture of Theosophical ideas and physical postures. He even went to
> some of those places and tried to "correct" them. Unsurprisingly, they
> laughed and threw him out. Remember e-sangha and Namdrol´s position on
> reincarnation? How´s this "essential buddhism "any different?
>
> 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.

Stefan


More information about the buddha-l mailing list