Comments on: In defence of Buddhist sectarianism http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/in-defence-of-buddhist-sectarianism/ Philosophy through multiple traditions Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:23:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Amod Lele http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/in-defence-of-buddhist-sectarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-619 Amod Lele Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:16:26 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=662#comment-619 Interesting - Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism may well be less teacher-centred than the <i>?stika</i> traditions. But I think there is in those traditions an emphasis on correct ideas (dhamma alongside buddha and sa?gha); it's not something limited to Western traditions by any means. But even in something like Advaita Vedānta, a guru's ability to teach properly is limited by his correct or incorrect grasp of the truth. Someone who believes that the ?tman and brahman are entirely different is not going to be a trustworthy guru. Interesting – Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism may well be less teacher-centred than the ?stika traditions. But I think there is in those traditions an emphasis on correct ideas (dhamma alongside buddha and sa?gha); it’s not something limited to Western traditions by any means. But even in something like Advaita Vedānta, a guru’s ability to teach properly is limited by his correct or incorrect grasp of the truth. Someone who believes that the ?tman and brahman are entirely different is not going to be a trustworthy guru.

]]> By: Amod Lele http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/in-defence-of-buddhist-sectarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-618 Amod Lele Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:11:11 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=662#comment-618 I don't think it's a Judeo-Christian conceit to assert a single truth, or emphasize belief of some sort - right belief/view (<i>sammadi??hi</i> or <i>samyagd???i</i>) is a key feature of the Eightfold Path, for one. And in the present context, the authors of the Lotus Sūtra were pretty clear that the Mahāyāna (with its determinate content, including an emphasis on universal liberation) is superior to any other Buddhist path. On history: well, it's interesting to speculate, but I think that in this case the grounds are rather mundane. As I understand it, Gross interacts mostly with Western Buddhist centres, so she didn't have much of a chance to bring these ideas into Asian practice. She did give some stories, if I recall correctly, of Asians who offered similar resistance. I don’t think it’s a Judeo-Christian conceit to assert a single truth, or emphasize belief of some sort – right belief/view (sammadi??hi or samyagd???i) is a key feature of the Eightfold Path, for one. And in the present context, the authors of the Lotus Sūtra were pretty clear that the Mahāyāna (with its determinate content, including an emphasis on universal liberation) is superior to any other Buddhist path.

On history: well, it’s interesting to speculate, but I think that in this case the grounds are rather mundane. As I understand it, Gross interacts mostly with Western Buddhist centres, so she didn’t have much of a chance to bring these ideas into Asian practice. She did give some stories, if I recall correctly, of Asians who offered similar resistance.

]]> By: elisa freschi http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/in-defence-of-buddhist-sectarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-612 elisa freschi Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:02:45 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=662#comment-612 Amod: I suppose you meant "reliable" instead of "not reliable" in "Gross was ready to say that on historical questions Western methods (like stylistic analysis) were not reliable." Amod+Michael: I agree with Michael, the idea of an orthodoxy which is always the same independent of the various believers is –I believe– not typically Indian. The role of the intermediation of a teacher is, instead, a major one. I agree with the possible objection that this role is less significant in Buddhism (where the Buddha is considered as everyone's teacher) –and in similar founder-related religions, such as Sikhism. Apart from that, I agree with your last point. Pluralism (every -y?na leads to bodhi, they only differ because they accord to one's karmic presuppositions) is also a post-modern concept and cannot be used as if it were an obvious device. Amod: I suppose you meant “reliable” instead of “not reliable” in “Gross was ready to say that on historical questions Western methods (like stylistic analysis) were not reliable.”
Amod+Michael: I agree with Michael, the idea of an orthodoxy which is always the same independent of the various believers is –I believe– not typically Indian. The role of the intermediation of a teacher is, instead, a major one. I agree with the possible objection that this role is less significant in Buddhism (where the Buddha is considered as everyone’s teacher) –and in similar founder-related religions, such as Sikhism.
Apart from that, I agree with your last point. Pluralism (every -y?na leads to bodhi, they only differ because they accord to one’s karmic presuppositions) is also a post-modern concept and cannot be used as if it were an obvious device.

]]> By: michael reidy http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/11/in-defence-of-buddhist-sectarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-611 michael reidy Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:06:58 +0000 http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=662#comment-611 Amod: Interesting and wide ranging post. I offer tentatively: A single truth, a single creed that one can assent to or not may be a peculiarly Judeo-Christian concept of religion. In the Guru - Sishya initiation of the vedic/Buddhist tradition truth is transmitted from heart to heart at the level at which it is capable of being received. What is important there is not an assent to a corpus of belief but to a relationship. The game of more primative than thou may well be an interpolation arising out of the cult of the authentic. Significantly you ascribe the greatest resistance to historical criticism to the Western Buddhists. Is it that they are more subject to the claims of an historical understanding or is the ahistorical Hindoo an orientalist fable? You I suspect have gone more closely into this than I. Amod:
Interesting and wide ranging post. I offer tentatively:

A single truth, a single creed that one can assent to or not may be a peculiarly Judeo-Christian concept of religion. In the Guru – Sishya initiation of the vedic/Buddhist tradition truth is transmitted from heart to heart at the level at which it is capable of being received. What is important there is not an assent to a corpus of belief but to a relationship. The game of more primative than thou may well be an interpolation arising out of the cult of the authentic. Significantly you ascribe the greatest resistance to historical criticism to the Western Buddhists. Is it that they are more subject to the claims of an historical understanding or is the ahistorical Hindoo an orientalist fable? You I suspect have gone more closely into this than I.

]]>