Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU!mcs.kent.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddha Dharma and free thinking Message-ID: <1990Dec12.061626.10201@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 12 Dec 90 06:16:26 GMT References: <1990Dec7.011311.2389@nas.nasa.gov> <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Reply-To: tilley@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Tilley) Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept Lines: 84 Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov In article <1990Dec11.022212.10949@nas.nasa.gov> mayne@sun10.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: > >In article <1990Dec8.020416.27265@nas.nasa.gov> kde@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Keith Evans) writes: >>...In the first 42 years of Shakyamuni's preaching life, >>he taught according to the minds of the people, with his bodhisattvas >>asking questions and even answering them, too. Ignorant people in this >>day and age read them and thinking that since it accords with their mind >>that is must be the Way. Also in these earlier sutras, he taught that > -------------- >>women and men of learning could not attain Buddhahood. If he said such > ----------------------------------------------------- >>things then, how can these sutras have any value now? > >I seriously doubt that he said such things then. He may have said that >through learning *alone* men and women cannot attain Buddhahood, but >that is an entirely different statement. I challenge you to site one >reference from the Pali canon which, taken in context, supports your >claim. > >Actually I think it a preposterous and even slanderous charge against >Sakyamuni to suggest he practiced deliberate deception for most of >his life. If that were the case why would you accept something he >supposedly taught at the end of his life? If a teacher told me "I've >been lying to you and everybody else for more than 40 years, but what >I'm telling you now is the truth" I would hardly accept his teaching. > >>[The Lotus Sutra]... >>is also the first time he says that women and men of learning can >>attain enlightenment. > >If the Buddha was in fact this deceptive and inconsistent this is >quite different even than giving limited teaching earlier and >fuller teaching later. I could believe in later teaching which >expands on earlier teaching, but not flatly contradicting it. >Either the Buddha was deceptive or those who several centuries >later propagated the Lotus Sutra are putting words in the >Buddha's mouth. A third possibility is that those who, like >Nichiren Daishonen use the Lotus Sutra to denegrate all the >Buddha's other teachings are actually misinterpreting it. >I confess I don't know enough about the Lotus Sutra to evaluate >that possibility. But if Nichiren was right then Sakyamuni was wrong, >even though Nichiren depends largely on the supposed statements >of Sakyamuni. I would suggest that you read the Lotus Sutra for yourself. It is highly valued by Many sects. I find it wonderful. My opinion is that the Nichiren sect does misinterpret in some ways or ad on to it incorrectly in some ways. I don't read from it that previous teachings are wrong but that they are but mere point at the moon. I also do not get from the Sutra that chanting it's name is the TRUE teaching. I DO get that there is but one teaching. That in reality all of the teachings lead to the one teaching. I do not doubt that chanting parts of the Sutra and it's name can be a way of liberation. But that it is the ONLY way of liberation is something that I doubt. The other problem that I have with the current practices that I have seen is that the belief (at least in Rochester NY) is propigated that if one keeps firmly in mind a desire (any desire) while chanting, that desire will happen. As far as I can see (and that is not far) this encourages (beginners at least) to attach to desires. This seems against the very fiber of the Dharma. I was so bothered by this latter point that I wonder if this is actually the teaching of Nicheren or some American curruption of his teaching. I have yet to find any reference to this in his teaching. Any Ideas? Keith? > >Besides, the early teaching of the Buddha uses appeal to reason >and experience. This is why I find it so compelling. Nichiren >appeals to supernatural, unverifiable claims and promotes a cult >of personality. I find the former teaching far more plausible. > >bill mayne | mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu Many sects revere their teachers. But I do have some problems with the use of the assertion that this is TRUE Buddhism. Yech! Like the others are not. It misses the whole beauty of the Lotus Sutra. dave -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Dave Tilley cs.rochester.edu