Buddhist History For Practitioners

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/buddhist-history-buddhist-practitioners
Login / Renew Search Tricycle... Go
Home
Magazin e
Retreats
Gallery
Blog
Community
HOME MAGAZINE FALL 2010 BUDDHIST HISTORY FOR BUDDHIST PRACTITIONERS FEATURE
Latest Magazine Comments

ginvee commented on Renunciation August 3, 2011, 9:07 am This piece is so touching, and I want to thank Pema Chodron for all her wisdom and teachings. I first read "Start...
Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners

Rita M. Gross
12 Discuss 8 Twitter 114 Facebook 22 Email
Dominic Gomez commented on Green Koan Case 54: Nichirens One-Eyed Turtle August 3, 2011, 8:47 am In 1952, the chances were one out of 2.635 billion (estimated population of human beings on Earth at the time) that... sschroll commented on Renunciation August 2, 2011, 3:25 pm This morning when I woke up, everything was dark inside. I was exhausted after following for a week the darkness in... wendy.garling commented on From the canon: The Vimalakirti Sutra August 2, 2011, 12:46 pm I'm curious what is meant by "converted" and "brought refinement" in "Within the womens quarters he was most...
I am convinced that an accurate, nonsectarian study of Buddhist history can be of great benefit to dharma practitioners. As a scholar and practitioner, I have for many years worked to bring the findings of historical scholarship into dharma centers in Zen, Vipassana, and Tibetan lineages. While many students deeply appreciate this opportunity, others find the approach unnerving. Modern historical studies challenge assumptions commonly held in Buddhist traditions, though those assumptions differ in the different forms of Buddhism. Let me illustrate my point with an example. For four years, I have been teaching a multipart course in Buddhist history at an intensive study program, or shedra, at Lotus Garden, the headquarters of Her Eminence Mindrolling Jetsn Khandro Rinpoche. Several of the other senior teachers, because of their concern that the perceived conflict between history and traditional lineage stories was too difficult for many students to resolve, urged me to desist entirely with the project. One year, I received an email after shedra informing me that a senior student had indeed left the meditation center because of what I had recently taught. I was asked what I could possibly have said that would be so upsetting. I could only guess, but I assumed that this student was upset by something that had figured large in my teaching that year, namely, the origins of the Mahayana teachings. I had said that the historical Buddha had not taught the Mahayana during his lifetime on earth; rather, those scriptures had developed, because of causes and conditions, some four hundred years later. For this student, that information meant that Buddhism was no truer than Christianity, and for the same reason: some of its beloved narratives did not hold up to historical scrutiny. Later that summer, Khandro Rinpoche addressed the issues herself, and she gave her complete support to the project of teaching history to her students. The student in question, who was experiencing personal difficulties at the time he left the center, eventually returned. The incident itself, however, indicates how important it is for Buddhist centers and groups to educate their students well and not to continue to teach legends as if they were factual accounts of history. For many, finding out that their teachers have confused legend with history and have not taught them to appreciate that legends are about meaning, not factual accuracy, can bring about a loss of confidence in dharma itself. My sense of urgency about teaching these courses at dharma centers is fueled by two SPONSOR LINKS Snow Lion Publications Contact us for a free issue of the Snow Lion: Buddhist News & Catalog for everything Tibetan Buddhist. The Eastern Buddhist Society Founded in 1921 by D. T. Suzuki and others for the purpose of relaying the true spirit of Buddhism to the modern world.
From the Wisdom Collection

The Pleasure Paradox by Daniel Gilbert in the Fall 2005 Issue Starting from Scratch by James Shaheen in the Spring 2010 Issue New Body, Old Mind by Swati Chopra in the Spring 2002 Issue
1 de 5
03/08/2011 20:23
concerns. First, I am concerned about the growing tendency toward fundamentalism in North American sanghas. Fundamentalism, briefly and broadly defined, is the urge to interpret literally the words of favorite narrativesto assume that those narratives are empirically accurate descriptions of physical occurrences. Literalists dismiss the suggestion that these stories are legends that teach profound dharma that is independent of the narratives empirical veracity. Second, I feel dismay at the sectarianism of many North American Buddhists, who eagerly praise their own lineage yet make disparaging remarks about others. Fundamentalism and sectarianism often combine in highly unpleasant ways. Some Buddhists readily dismiss other forms of Buddhism because, they claim, these other forms developed later and thus are not really the Buddhas teaching. Other Buddhists claim that the teachings followed by some are not the Buddhas full and final teachings but were merely provisional teachings intended for those with lower potential.
Mindfulness Yoga with Frank Jude Boccio Retreats, Workshops and Trainings in Mindfulness Yoga, the comprehensive integration of the Buddha's teachings on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. Upaya Zen Center Residential retreat center offering workshops and retreats focusing on practices and teachings related to engaged Buddhism, on how to live in our world responsibly. View all sponsors SPONSOR LOGOS
Many Buddhists, including the His Holiness Dalai Lama, are keenly interested in modern science. Many claim with no small amount of pride that Buddhism is compatible with modern science and like to quote the Dalai Lamas famous statement If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. Given this high regard for squaring Buddhism with findings derived from rigorous modern scholarship, I find it curious that there have been few such comments about the immense contributions Western and Japanese historians of Buddhism have made and how little impact their work has had on Buddhist self-understanding. Why is this? I suggest that it is because the findings of modern historical studies are far more challenging to some traditional Buddhist perspectives than is modern science. Modern historical studies show the contingency and historicity of developments in religions, something that traditional religions dislike intensely. Historical study of religion undercuts the claim that any specific form, any practice or verbal doctrine, could be unmediated, completely definitive, and one hundred percent an absolute truth. Instead, it fosters the view that all religious expressions and forms are relative, that is to say, they are partially the result of specific causes and conditions found in their specific environments. Even a religion such as Buddhism, which affirms impermanence as completely central, doesnt really like to hear that its core teachings and institutions have changed over the years. Additionally, despite their emphasis on reasoning and the importance of experience, Buddhists dont like to have valued miracle stories challenged. But modern historical studies of religion are based on methods that do not take stories of supernatural intervention into historical processes literally, even though they take them seriously. Thus, this project of teaching Buddhist history for Buddhist practitioners is essentially about bringing appreciation for modern historical consciousness into the Buddhist shrine room. 1 Login or register to post comments 2 3 NEXT LAST
Reply by G on January 25, 2011, 4:55 pm This is a fine article and I agree with 95% percent of it - indeed, I've been frustrated by many of the same attitudes the author repudiates. However, I have to take issue with the following: "Furthermore, Shariputra is a historical character, but Avalokiteshvara is not, and so they did not coexist in historical time and space, that is, in India in the fifth century B.C.E." Here I believe Gross has overstepped the bounds of her argument a little. According to traditional Buddhist beliefs, Avalokiteshvara can coexist in historical time and space with any historical character at any time precisely *because* he is a celestial bodhisattva and not a historical figure.
2 de 5
03/08/2011 20:23
If Gross wants to argue for a materialist view of the world in which there are no other realms, unseen beings, or rebirth, that is quite different than arguing that Buddhist history need be informed by the work of the modern academy. And, in my view, far more problematic. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Dominic Gomez on January 25, 2011, 10:58 pm Hi G, Re: "Avalokiteshvara can coexist in historical time and space with any historical character at any time precisely *because* he is a celestial bodhisattva" You bring to mind the argument put forward in certain schools of Christianity that there are angels (and devils). Whether or not they exist in reality is beside the point, since they are celestial beings unbound by earthly laws of physics. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by G on January 26, 2011, 10:25 am That is the very point I was making. You seem to misunderstand. Because celestial beings are not bound by earthly laws of physics, it is silly for Gross to argue that he could not have co-existed with Shariputra. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Dominic Gomez on January 28, 2011, 1:40 pm The operative word here is "exists". The co-operative is "as what". Perceiver of the World's Sounds (aka Avalokiteshvara) can "exist" as an idea, a symbol or a notion (e.g. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, et al.). He/She (the bi-sexual indication is in reference the Lotus Sutra's description of this bodhisattva's ability to appear as either sex in order to help human beings) can also "exist" as a quality of life: the potential for compassion manifested by those individuals so inclined. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by G on January 31, 2011, 9:57 am Or he can exist as a celestial bodhisattva who appears to historical actors in person and not as a notional fantasy like the Easter Bunny. To be reflexively dismissive of that belief is a mistake. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Dominic Gomez on January 31, 2011, 1:26 pm I totally understand your position. I went to Catholic school and was taught to believe that Christ appeared in celestial form to a select few three days after dying on the cross. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Richard Fidler on January 27, 2011, 8:17 pm Western scholarship is helpful to those of us who are not Buddhists, those who are constructing our own religious perspective, often by combining elements of Buddhism and modern secularism. As such a person, I am interested in Gautama's teachings as expressed in the oldest texts. Since religious faith is not a principle I follow, preferring to weigh new ideas against old understandings, I would like to drink from the well of the dharma directly, without bias and conviction of believers. Therein lies the value of researchers who employ modern methods of scholarship: what scholars know and what they don't know is left out for all to see. That honesty is what I must have. I suspect the discomfort many Buddhists feel when they are confronted with scholarly conclusions contrary to the tradition they subscribe to has to do with the teacher-student relationship. Throughout Asia--in India, China, South-east Asia, and Japan--the teacher is revered in a manner quite different from that of Socrates, for example. Asian teachers have realized the Truth; it is the student's responsibility to obey so that he/she can realize it in the maturation of his/her experience. Socrates would carry on dialogues with students, fully ready to give up his understanding if they could demonstrate he was wrong. It seems reasonable to me that Buddhist teachers would feel uncomfortable if a student contradicted a teaching--even if that contradiction was based upon sound scholarship. In the end, Buddhism is not a product of the West. It is not imbued with the give-and-take of teachers in the Western tradition. This is not to criticize Asian traditions, but simply to acknowledge them. Who is to say one tradition is better than another?
3 de 5
03/08/2011 20:23
LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by LeeInOK on January 28, 2011, 8:48 am "I would like to drink ... without bias and conviction" A friend raising koi wanted to find how to allow for maximum growth. Experimenting within the domain of the environment found purity of water to be the most important factor. Within the domain of Buddhist study, seeing the bare naked dhamma offered in every moment of life eliminates all bias and convictions but those we hold for ourselves. Emptying or filtering out those bias and convictions, if possible, would clear the water. Contemplation of our earliest childhood memories may reveal how the dhamma has been there teaching us all along. One tool among many. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Sharon Saw on March 31, 2011, 6:01 am This is a great article and i like the point which is in keeping with what my spiritual guide, HE Tsem Tulku Rinpoche teaches - that no religion or school of Buddhism is superior to another. They are merely different routes with different methods to the same goal. If more people respected the different choices of methods and routes that people make, there would be less conflict in the world. In Tsem Rinpoche's book, 'Gurus for Hire, Enlightenment for Sale', Rinpoche strongly advocates respect for other teachers, other religions, other schools of thought, other dharma centres etc, which is the basis of harmony for all. Regarding the relationship between history and scriptures - i personally think that if it conflicts with the scriptures, perhaps we should focus less on what really happened than on what the teaching of the incident is. As is said above, "When people focus too much on the empirical truth or falsity of the story, its sacred meanings, which should be the main point of the story, are lost." Hear, hear. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by rajbodepudi on June 11, 2011, 3:03 pm Both the Sutra Yana and the Maha Yana traditions seem to have started around the same time-the First Council. There were reportedly incidents of disagreement among Buddha's first generation students wrt way Maha Kashyapa conducted the First Council. The Maha Sanghikas (the forerunners of the Maha Yana) had a separate Council soon after the First-which either was not recorded, or the recordings were perhaps later destroyed. The Buddha was skillful in reconciling the differences between his first famous disciples who were schooled in the Vedic tradition, known for their self-conceit, and the Kshyatriyas (especially, the Sakyans), other lay followers from the lower social strata and the women practitioners. The deep-rooted Vedic prejudices against women may have been one of the reasons why the Buddha was initially reluctant to admitting women into the Sangha, despite his step-mother's pleas culminating in a famously arduous journey, and Ananda's determined interventions. Most of the early disciples were reportedly rooted in the traditions of an "eternal self". Though my knowledge of Buddhist history is narrow and very limited, I feel (intuitively) this line of inquiry may yield some clues for the divergences among the chroniclers of Buddhist history. The Buddha obviously was aware of these schisms which were but inevitable. He focused on the message ("end of suffering") and devised skillful methods in dealing with their divergent capabilities and traits. Sariputra was reported to have asked the Buddha an array of questions during their first rendezvous and the Buddha allegedly advised him to observe Him for a year, in silence, and promised to answer his queries, thereafter. Sariputra was to record later that there was no need for the Buddha to answer any of his queries since he found the answers by listening to the Buddha, and by following the Buddha's methods leading to deep states of meditation 7 realization. Perhaps this may help answer some of the Buddhist history-related queries. Through meditation and the resulting insight perhaps one may find the answers that otherwise can (and did) end up as divergent views of Buddhist history LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by mpuenteduany on July 25, 2011, 7:14 pm I guess there are academics, and there are practitioners. Some people might even be both. But while the histories of the various schools of Buddhism are interesting and helpful in understanding where Buddhism came from, the only thing that really matters is practice and results. It doesn't matter whether any of the stories about the historical Buddha are true of fiction. If they're useful in teaching lessons or setting examples, fine. If not, let them go. If you're seeing your life transformed by whatever it is you are practicing, keep doing it. If not, try something else. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
4 de 5
03/08/2011 20:23
Reply by ran_see on July 31, 2011, 7:51 pm This is fascinating. For many of you who have given up on your childhood Christianity and for all who may be unfamiliar with modern Christian thought and its attendant controversies, you may be surprised to know that these same discussions take place between the "defenders of the faith" (actually, they are defenders of some knd of literal empirical truth) - and those Christians who see religious truth as more deeply important than empirical/ historical fact. For a growing number of Christians, the historical facts of the Bible are hardly worth arguing; we tend to concentrate on poetic metaphorical truths of the Biblical texts and practices of Christianity as we see these most clearly - whether or not the narratives are historically accurate. I refer readers to Marcus Borg who makes many if the same arguements Rita Gross makes. To sum up his point of view I will quote Dr. Borg: "The Bible is true - and some of it happened." I think mquenteduancy on July 25 at 7:14 hit the nail on the head. (And I don't mean that literally, despite whether he/she may have actually hit a nail on the head.) LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Advertise Privacy Policy Contact Us Classifieds Customer Service About Reproduction of material from any Tricycle pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. Tricycle.com
5 de 5
03/08/2011 20:23
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/buddhist-history-buddhist-practitioner...
Home
Magazin e
Retreats
Gallery
Blog
Community

ginvee commented on Renunciation August 3, 2011, 9:07 am This piece is so touching, and I want to thank Pema Chodron for all her wisdom and teachings. I first read "Start... Dominic Gomez commented on Green Koan Case 54: Nichirens One-Eyed Turtle August 3, 2011, 8:47 am In 1952, the chances were one out of 2.635 billion (estimated population of human beings on Earth at the time) that... sschroll commented on Renunciation August 2, 2011, 3:25 pm This morning when I woke up, everything was dark inside. I was exhausted after following for a week the darkness in... wendy.garling commented on From the canon: The Vimalakirti Sutra August 2, 2011, 12:46 pm I'm curious what is meant by "converted" and "brought refinement" in "Within the womens quarters he was most...

Rita M. Gross My attempts to convince Buddhist practitioners that historical consciousness regarding Buddhism is both helpful and necessary emphasize that there is no radical disjunction between traditional Buddhism and the results of modern scholarship. Instead, I emphasize that despite adjustments to how one interprets some central narratives of ones tradition, traditional Buddhism and the results of modern historical scholarship are deeply consonant. I delineate five aspects of historical consciousness that are crucial for understanding what modern historical studies contribute to an accurate, nonsectarian history of Buddhism. I also argue that each of these five can deepen ones dharmic understanding. The first principle is that all relevant sources must be considered and none can be prioritized. In other words, familiar lineage stories are only part of the database that must be taken into account, and these familiar sources cannot automatically be deemed more authoritative or relevant than other sources. When studying history, it is hard to imagine a criterion by which one would exclude any source, whether near or far, familiar or unfamiliar, that would shed light on any aspect of Buddhist history. Two things should be emphasized here. First, accurate Buddhist history cannot be different for different Buddhist denominations, though different parts of the whole story of Buddhism will be highlighted by different denominations. Thus historical studies could be a gathering point for Buddhists across sectarian boundaries. Second, no living form of Buddhism possesses all the sources needed for a full and accurate history of Buddhism. Working within a sectarian Buddhist context, one can derive only a partial history of Buddhism, a version of Buddhist history that most scholars would regard as deficient. What traditional Buddhist values and teachings would encourage widening the canon and critically reexamining familiar sources? I locate them in right speech and right view, two elements of the Eightfold Noble Path. Basic to right speech is telling the truth, which involves including all relevant information. We cant omit material just because it is unfamiliar, nontraditional, or would upset previous conventions. The connection with right view may be less direct. Fundamentally, if we lack curiosity and are unwilling to look afresh, without preconceptions or fixed, ideological opinions, it is impossible to develop right view. The second axiom for those who work with historical consciousness concerns change, or what Buddhists call impermanence. Both for Buddhists and for historians, change should be regarded as normative, to be expected. However, there is often a marked contrast between the attitudes of traditionally religious people, Buddhists included, and those with developed historical consciousness. Religions often present themselves as offering protection from the change and vicissitudes that are characteristic of life, and they fiercely resist any internal change, such as new wordings of familiar liturgies, new translations of authoritative texts, or the development of new movements and practices. Historical consciousness, on the other hand, regards change as inevitable and does not evaluate that reality either positively or negatively. Given the easily observable fact that living religions are always changing, it is evident that historical consciousness is more cogent and realistic on this point. Buddhist resistance to the reality of historical change commonly emerges as the firm conviction that whatever form of Buddhism we practice is the best version of teachings of the (historical) Buddha. This is the basis for Mahayana and Vajrayana claims that they were actually taught by the historical Buddha during his lifetime and for Theravada rejection of those forms of Buddhism because they were not. In both cases, it is presupposed that Buddhism cannot and should not ever change from what was established by Shakyamuni Buddha in India in the fifth century B.C.E., that there should be no Buddhist history at all but

Appreciate Your Life by Maezumi Roshi in the Spring 2001 Issue A Perfect Storm by Andrew Olendzki in the Spring 2011 Issue When the Student is Ready, the Teacher Bites by Larry Rosenberg in the Fall 2009 Issue
SPONSOR LINKS Snow Lion Publications Contact us for a free issue of the Snow Lion: Buddhist News & Catalog for everything Tibetan Buddhist. The Eastern Buddhist Society Founded in 1921 by D. T. Suzuki and others for the purpose of relaying the true spirit of Buddhism to the modern world.
1 de 5
03/08/2011 20:24
Discuss 8 Twitter
only the constant presence of the same forms lasting for all time. This strongly held view seems a bit odd in a religion that also teaches that resistance to all-pervasive change is a root cause of misery. By contrast, Buddhists thoroughly informed by historical consciousness would not use a
114 Buddhist sects age as the basis for accepting or rejecting it. Historical consciousness frees us Facebook from the common prejudices that whatever is newer is better or whatever is older is better. Different schools are just different, and the date of inception does not make one better or 22 worse, higher or lower. With historical consciousness intact, Buddhists would not have to Email resort to ahistorical arguments that attempt to make their form of Buddhism older than it is, nor would they feel compelled to regard newer forms of Buddhism as invalid or irrelevant. Knowledge of Buddhist history can go far to counteract Buddhist sectarianism, especially the mutual misunderstandings so prevalent among both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists. An overarching Buddhist history would have to be the same for both, meaning that with such a history in place, each could understand how one came to deviate from the other without either the rancor of Mahayana supersessionism or Theravada dismissal of non-Theravada Buddhists. If change, impermanence, is as basic as the Buddhadharma proclaims it to be, then one should expect that new movements, such as Mahayana, would develop from time to time. Change in religious forms is so constant that I correlate this dimension of historical studies with central Buddhist teachings about all-pervasive impermanence, which some consider the lynchpin of all Buddhist teaching. Thus, regarding change and impermanence, there is not even the slightest conflict between traditional Buddhist teachings and historical consciousness. In fact, they are deeply consonant. Not accepting all-pervasive impermanence is the root cause of suffering according to all forms of Buddhism. We suffer even more when we forget to apply this core teaching of impermanence to Buddhist forms themselves. If the reality of impermanence applies to all phenomena, then it applies to Buddhisms formsits institutions, practices, and verbal formulations of the dharma. The third point that is affirmed by historical consciousness follows closely from the second: accepting change as inevitable and normative brings the realization that diversity is also normative and inevitable. Not only do things change, but in a large, geographically and socially varied region such as that covered by Buddhism, they change in different ways and at different rates. The internal diversity of Buddhism is therefore to be expected. Though the point may seem obvious, it has profound implications. Religions, including Buddhism, have long suffered and caused suffering because of their illusion that if people would only behave and think correctly, wed all practice the same religion. Simple observation of phenomena should convince us that religious diversity is here to stay and that our task is to learn how to live well with it. The only other option is perpetual sectarianism the mutual aggression, hostility, and competitiveness that has long plagued religions. Religious diversity itself is not a problem, but sectarianism is. At the heart of sectarianism is the tendency to regard difference as deficiency. If difference equals deficiency, then ranking will occursome different things are better and others are worse. While discriminations are necessary and appropriate in some cases, discrimination between groups of people leads to feelings of superiority by people who regard themselves as better and denigration of those whom they regard as inferior. Conflict inevitably results. FIRST PREVIOUS 1 2 3 NEXT LAST
Login or register to post comments
Reply by G on January 25, 2011, 4:55 pm This is a fine article and I agree with 95% percent of it - indeed, I've been frustrated by many of the same attitudes the author repudiates. However, I have to take issue with the following: "Furthermore, Shariputra is a historical character, but Avalokiteshvara is not, and so they did not coexist in historical time and space, that is, in India in the fifth century B.C.E." Here I believe Gross has overstepped the bounds of her argument a little. According to traditional Buddhist beliefs, Avalokiteshvara can coexist in historical time and space with any historical character at any time precisely *because* he is a celestial bodhisattva and not a historical figure. If Gross wants to argue for a materialist view of the world in which there are no other realms, unseen beings, or rebirth, that is quite different than arguing that Buddhist history need be informed by the work of the modern academy. And, in my view, far more problematic.
2 de 5
03/08/2011 20:24
LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Richard Fidler on January 27, 2011, 8:17 pm Western scholarship is helpful to those of us who are not Buddhists, those who are constructing our own religious perspective, often by combining elements of Buddhism and modern secularism. As such a person, I am interested in Gautama's teachings as expressed in the oldest texts. Since religious faith is not a principle I follow, preferring to weigh new ideas against old understandings, I would like to drink from the well of the dharma directly, without bias and conviction of believers. Therein lies the value of researchers who employ modern methods of scholarship: what scholars know and what they don't know is left out for all to see. That honesty is what I must have. I suspect the discomfort many Buddhists feel when they are confronted with scholarly conclusions contrary to the tradition they subscribe to has to do with the teacher-student relationship. Throughout Asia--in India, China, South-east Asia, and Japan--the teacher is revered in a manner quite different from that of Socrates, for example. Asian teachers have realized the Truth; it is the student's responsibility to obey so that he/she can realize it in the maturation of his/her experience. Socrates would carry on dialogues with students, fully ready to give up his understanding if they could demonstrate he was wrong. It seems reasonable to me that Buddhist teachers would feel uncomfortable if a student contradicted a teaching--even if that contradiction was based upon sound scholarship. In the end, Buddhism is not a product of the West. It is not imbued with the give-and-take of teachers in the Western tradition. This is not to criticize Asian traditions, but simply to acknowledge them. Who is to say one tradition is better than another? LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
3 de 5
03/08/2011 20:24
Reply by ran_see on July 31, 2011, 7:51 pm This is fascinating. For many of you who have given up on your childhood Christianity and for all who may be unfamiliar with modern Christian thought and its attendant controversies, you may be surprised to know that these same discussions take place between the "defenders of
4 de 5
03/08/2011 20:24
the faith" (actually, they are defenders of some knd of literal empirical truth) - and those Christians who see religious truth as more deeply important than empirical/ historical fact. For a growing number of Christians, the historical facts of the Bible are hardly worth arguing; we tend to concentrate on poetic metaphorical truths of the Biblical texts and practices of Christianity as we see these most clearly - whether or not the narratives are historically accurate. I refer readers to Marcus Borg who makes many if the same arguements Rita Gross makes. To sum up his point of view I will quote Dr. Borg: "The Bible is true - and some of it happened." I think mquenteduancy on July 25 at 7:14 hit the nail on the head. (And I don't mean that literally, despite whether he/she may have actually hit a nail on the head.) LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
5 de 5
03/08/2011 20:24
Home
Magazin e
Retreats
Gallery
Blog
Community

ginvee commented on Renunciation August 3, 2011, 9:07 am This piece is so touching, and I want to thank Pema Chodron for all her wisdom and teachings. I first read "Start... Dominic Gomez commented on Green Koan Case 54: Nichirens One-Eyed Turtle August 3, 2011, 8:47 am In 1952, the chances were one out of 2.635 billion (estimated population of human beings on Earth at the time) that... sschroll commented on Renunciation August 2, 2011, 3:25 pm This morning when I woke up, everything was dark inside. I was exhausted after following for a week the darkness in...

Rita M. Gross For many Buddhists, including most Mahayanists, several deeply entrenched habits of speech 12 must be relinquished if we are to move beyond sectarianism. Almost all Mahayana Buddhists Discuss regard themselves as practicing a superior form of Buddhism, the large vehicle of greater 7 aspirations, higher view, and deeper compassion, which they contrast to a so-called Twitter Hinayana or smaller, inferior vehicle. Many Theravadins regard themselves as practicing a pure or original form of Buddhism, rather than degenerate Mahayana. Because the term 114 Hinayana originated in Mahayana sectarian polemics and has never been a self-designation Facebook used by any Buddhist group, I make a special effort to discourage use of this term whenever I 22 teach Buddhist history in a Mahayana or Vajrayana context. Many Westerners who practice a Email Tibetan-based form of Buddhism find it difficult to accept and assimilate this change into their speech habits no matter how many times the reasons for doing so are explained. Nevertheless, I continue to argue that the term Hinayana simply needs to be dropped from our vocabulary. In a pluralistic, diverse Buddhist world that is informed by an accurate understanding of Buddhist history, the term Hinayana is deeply inappropriate. I also suggest that the idea of progressive stages of development from lower to higher may not be the best way to understand Buddhist internal diversity. Knowing how to let things be different without needing to rank them is a highly valuable skill, given that religious diversity, both external and internal, is inevitable. Letting things be, without obsessing to change or improve them, could be seen as a highly developed form of compassion, one of the most central of all Buddhist virtues. Many wise people have commented that praising ones own sect and disparaging that of another does nothing to improve our own denomination and may actually harm it. For those of us who have thought deeply about how to become more at ease with religious and cultural diversity, it is painful to witness the hurtful, ignorance-based sectarianism so often found in Buddhist sanghas. Accurate, nonsectarian histories of Buddhism could go far to explain how Buddhism became so diverse and also provide tools for regarding that diversity as a virtue, not a problem. The need for mutual understanding and respect in a religion that values friendliness and compassion as much as Buddhism does should be self-evident. Its connection with right speech should be so obvious as not even to need explanation or comment. The fourth intersection between traditional Buddhism and historical consciousness also involves change. Here, the emphasis is on explaining changespecifically, to call upon the fundamental Buddhist tool of pratityasamutpada, or conditioned genesis, to explain the development of new lineages and movements within Buddhism rather than citing supernatural intervention into historical processes. That is to say, Buddhist understandings of cause and effect could be employed to explain that a movement such as Mahayana Buddhism developed because of social, cultural, and historical events. Most Mahayanists ignore such explanations, preferring a story whose empirical validity is highly questionable. According to legend, in the presence of the historical Buddha, Avalokiteshvara instructs Shariputra on emptiness. If the story is taken literally, Mahayana Buddhism originated during the lifetime of Shakyamuni Buddha, a claim that historians find unconvincing. Furthermore, Shariputra is a historical character, but Avalokiteshvara is not, and so they did not coexist in historical time and space, that is, in India in the fifth century B.C.E. Many students become intensely upset when the story they have usually been told about the origins of Mahayana Buddhism is critically evaluated. It is very difficult for them to understand that I am not asking them to question the validity of these stories, only their historicity. Fortunately, modern ways of discussing myth/legend and history provide tools for appreciating the vast corpus of Buddhist legend while, at the same time, recognizing that a legend is not the same thing as empirical history. For both, the overarching, major category is story, or narrative. History and legend/myth are different kinds of stories, but both are stories. While philosophy is important for all religions, story or narrative is also central to communicating what the religion is about. Stories are easier for most people to get than philosophical teachings. However, for religions, the most important thing about a story is its message, its meaning, not its empirical verifiability. Its truth lies in the meanings it
wendy.garling commented on From the canon: The Vimalakirti Sutra August 2, 2011, 12:46 pm I'm curious what is meant by "converted" and "brought refinement" in "Within the womens quarters he was most...

Cyborg Buddha by in the Summer 2010 Issue Starting from Scratch by James Shaheen in the Spring 2010 Issue Welcome to the Real World by Judith L. Lief in the Winter 2001 Issue
SPONSOR LINKS Snow Lion Publications Contact us for a free issue of the Snow Lion: Buddhist News & Catalog for everything Tibetan Buddhist. The Eastern Buddhist Society Founded in 1921 by D. T. Suzuki and others for the purpose of relaying the true spirit of Buddhism to the modern world.
1 de 5
03/08/2011 20:26
communicates, not in the facticity of the events used to communicate those meanings. Because the story communicates profound meaning, its empirical verifiability is somewhat beside the point. Thus the same story could be empirically false, in that it did not happen that way in empirical space and time, but also true because of what it means. In addition to invoking the Buddhist notion of the two truths (absolute and relative perspectives on a single reality), in this context one could also invoke the common Buddhist distinction between words and meaning. One could ask why Buddhist practitioners need to assimilate this somewhat complex method of understanding the relationship between traditional legends and modern history. I would respond that all Buddhists who are deeply affected by the paradigm shift engendered by the European enlightenment need to become clear about the relationship between symbolic legends and empirical history. People educated in cultures in which this paradigm reigns become empiricists by default. As a result, they tend to assume that traditional narratives are empirically accurate descriptions of events, which explains the modern heresy of fundamentalism. For many Westerners, truth is highly valued but is also limited to what is empirical. But demanding that sacred narratives be literally true is a losing proposition. When people focus too much on the empirical truth or falsity of the story, its sacred meanings, which should be the main point of the story, are lost. The relevance of Mahayana Buddhism does not rise or fall on the empirical accuracy of the Heart Sutra narrative but on whether or not the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism are in accord with the foundational teachings of Buddhism. Finally, we come to the fifth and final point, which is where traditional Buddhadharma and historical consciousness find their deepest resonance. For historians, the present consensus about historical development is a hypothesis subject to revision as new information and perspectives become available. In other words, historians are eminently flexible and willing to change their conclusions in the light of new evidence. Flexibility of mind, rather than rigidity, is also regarded as a supreme virtue for meditators. Thus, both historical consciousness and Buddhadharma stress the importance of being comfortable with an open-ended, unfinished version of how things are. Both recognize that true confidence lies in being comfortable with process rather than needing a fixed, final conclusion. Attaining this flexible, nonideological, nonfixated state of mindwhat Zen practitioners might call beginners mindis the whole point of meditation practice. Rather than being something that detracts from our commitment to Buddhadharma, to some almost a heresy, an accurate, nonsectarian history of Buddhism can enrich and improve ones dharma practice immensely. This alone is a sufficient recommendation for such study. But the study of Buddhist history brings other benefits as well, such as providing tools to appreciate Buddhist internal diversity and thus promote greater communication within the greater Buddhist community. Perhaps most important, it allows us to develop a seamless account of Buddhism and modernity. For nothing is sadder than a religions demand that we turn off our critical intelligence when its traditions conflict with well-established results of modern science and history. The depth of Buddhadharma does not need such mindless acquiescence to convention. Rita M. Gross is an author, dharma teacher, and professor of comparative studies in religion. Her best-known books are Buddhism after Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism and A Garland of Feminist Reflections: Forty Years of Religious Exploration. She teaches workshops on meditation and buddhadharma at many meditations centers in the United States and Canada. Artwork by Leigh Wells FIRST PREVIOUS 1 2 3
Login or register to post comments
Reply by G on January 25, 2011, 4:55 pm This is a fine article and I agree with 95% percent of it - indeed, I've been frustrated by many of the same attitudes the author repudiates. However, I have to take issue with the following: "Furthermore, Shariputra is a historical character, but Avalokiteshvara is not, and so they did not coexist in historical time and space, that is, in India in the fifth century B.C.E." Here I believe Gross has overstepped the bounds of her argument a little. According to traditional Buddhist beliefs, Avalokiteshvara can coexist in historical time and space with any
2 de 5
03/08/2011 20:26
historical character at any time precisely *because* he is a celestial bodhisattva and not a historical figure. If Gross wants to argue for a materialist view of the world in which there are no other realms, unseen beings, or rebirth, that is quite different than arguing that Buddhist history need be informed by the work of the modern academy. And, in my view, far more problematic. LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
Reply by Richard Fidler on January 27, 2011, 8:17 pm Western scholarship is helpful to those of us who are not Buddhists, those who are constructing our own religious perspective, often by combining elements of Buddhism and modern secularism. As such a person, I am interested in Gautama's teachings as expressed in the oldest texts. Since religious faith is not a principle I follow, preferring to weigh new ideas against old understandings, I would like to drink from the well of the dharma directly, without bias and conviction of believers. Therein lies the value of researchers who employ modern methods of scholarship: what scholars know and what they don't know is left out for all to see. That honesty is what I must have. I suspect the discomfort many Buddhists feel when they are confronted with scholarly conclusions contrary to the tradition they subscribe to has to do with the teacher-student relationship. Throughout Asia--in India, China, South-east Asia, and Japan--the teacher is revered in a manner quite different from that of Socrates, for example. Asian teachers have realized the Truth; it is the student's responsibility to obey so that he/she can realize it in the maturation of his/her experience. Socrates would carry on dialogues with students, fully ready to give up his understanding if they could demonstrate he was wrong. It seems reasonable to me that Buddhist teachers would feel uncomfortable if a student contradicted a teaching--even if that contradiction was based upon sound scholarship. In the end, Buddhism is not a product of the West. It is not imbued with the give-and-take of teachers in the Western tradition. This is not to criticize Asian traditions, but simply to acknowledge them.
3 de 5
03/08/2011 20:26
Who is to say one tradition is better than another? LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
4 de 5
03/08/2011 20:26
Reply by ran_see on July 31, 2011, 7:51 pm This is fascinating. For many of you who have given up on your childhood Christianity and for all who may be unfamiliar with modern Christian thought and its attendant controversies, you may be surprised to know that these same discussions take place between the "defenders of the faith" (actually, they are defenders of some knd of literal empirical truth) - and those Christians who see religious truth as more deeply important than empirical/ historical fact. For a growing number of Christians, the historical facts of the Bible are hardly worth arguing; we tend to concentrate on poetic metaphorical truths of the Biblical texts and practices of Christianity as we see these most clearly - whether or not the narratives are historically accurate. I refer readers to Marcus Borg who makes many if the same arguements Rita Gross makes. To sum up his point of view I will quote Dr. Borg: "The Bible is true - and some of it happened." I think mquenteduancy on July 25 at 7:14 hit the nail on the head. (And I don't mean that literally, despite whether he/she may have actually hit a nail on the head.) LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments
5 de 5
03/08/2011 20:26

Buddhist History For Practitioners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buddhist History For Practitioners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Login / Renew Search Tricycle... Go

Latest Magazine Comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners

12 Discuss 8 Twitter 114 Facebook 22 Email

From the Wisdom Collection

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Login / Renew Search Tricycle... Go

Latest Magazine Comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners

From the Wisdom Collection

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Login or register to post comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

LOGIN or REGISTER to post comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Login / Renew Search Tricycle... Go

Latest Magazine Comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners

From the Wisdom Collection

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Login or register to post comments

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

Buddhist History for Buddhist Practitioners | Tricycle

You might also like