The Mormon Petition: A Proclamation For Truth

[_Jutta]

Is here the topic LDS or Buddhism?

[_ludwigm]

Is here the topic LDS or Buddhism?

Is "to be or not to be" about life or death ?


or about doubt ?

[_Bhodi]

It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true. The prince who left home after seeing an old beggar... is considered to be apocryphal, or the story of a previous Buddha, but not the Buddha that started the movement. The story is instructive, however, so it has continued. Some purists may perpetuate the story, but most Buddhists I know just don’t care.

Uhhh... maybe amongst your Western "Buddhist" friends this is the case, but that is a very ahistorical (anachronistic, even) reading of the tradition. Not to mention the fact that even if the story as told has some embellishments, there is every reason to believe that Siddhartha of the Gautama clan was a rich Ksetriya from Magadha (possibly even Lumbini) who gave up his inheritance to pursue the life of a Saddhu. There is every reason to believe it precisely because Brahmanical religion in the region was undergoing huge upheavals at precisely that time and the Saddhu lifestyle was quite popular; remember he first trained with five other Saddhus, who were his first disciples after his attainment of enlightenment.

So bottom line I don't know what kind of "Buddhism" you think you're practicing,.

Odd, I have heard the comment I made from multiple teachers. Have you read Suzuki?

[_Samantabhadra]

Odd, I have heard the comment I made from multiple teachers. Have you read Suzuki?

I assume you mean the Theosophist D.T. Suzuki and not Suzuki Roshi. In either case the answer is "yes" and I am unaware of anything in the latter's writings that indicates he believed the life story of the Buddha to be simply allegorical or mythological; the former hardly counts as a reliable or authoritative source about Zen or any other kind of Buddhism apart from the heavily adulterated "modern" Buddhism he was instrumental in founding.

[_Bhodi]

I assume you mean the Theosophist D.T. Suzuki and not Suzuki Roshi. In either case the answer is "yes" and I am unaware of anything in the latter's writings that indicates he believed the life story of the Buddha to be simply allegorical or mythological; the former hardly counts as a reliable or authoritative source about Zen or any other kind of Buddhism apart from the heavily adulterated "modern" Buddhism he was instrumental in founding.

No, I mean Shunryu Suzuki. I asked about Beginner's Mind in the other thread. The work "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind", discusses, among many other things, the concept of killing the Buddha. Zen is, again among other things, about avoiding orthodox fixations, which is why emphasis is placed on zazen. There is no need for the Buddha's story to be true at all, such a fixation would be an unnecessary impediment. Incidentally, the story I repeated came from a dharma talk by someone in the lineage of Shunryu Suzuki.

I have heard this from multiple sources, but I could always be wrong. I would not, inadvertently, fall into the trap of the “stink of Zen” if I could help it. I do, however, believe the sources I have heard. You are perfectly free to believe or disbelieve as you see fit.

[_Samantabhadra]

Bodhi, you claimed "It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true." That is demonstrably false nonsense, unless by "Buddhist circles" you mean a very circumscribed set of Western (American) self-identified "Buddhists."

More broadly, Zen more than most other Buddhist traditions--including Japanese traditions--relies on the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, the teachings on the Perfection of Wisdom. In the definitive commentary to the Perfection of Wisdom by Nagarjuna, he notes (in what is a thematic climax) that "the Buddha did not teach anything, to anyone, at any time." How is this to be interpreted? Clearly Suzuki Roshi did not actually advocate killing the Buddha, which as a highly educated teacher he would know is one of the Five Deeds of Immediate Retribution. So how is that to be interpreted?

Bottom line, emptiness does not mean lack of attention to dependent origination or causal history; quite the opposite, in fact. So I would again urge you not to conflate your personal "unorthodox" ideas with the pure and unadulterated Dharma. Just because you and some self-styled "Buddhists" in California think something does not make whatever it is you think into Buddhism. Emptiness and the Perfection of Wisdom are profound teachings but they must be understood in relation to the rest of the Buddha's teachings and the other turnings of the Wheel of Dharma.

[_Bhodi]

Bodhi, you claimed "It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true." That is demonstrably false nonsense, unless by "Buddhist circles" you mean a very circumscribed set of Western (American) self-identified "Buddhists."

Actually, the belief is not limited to Americans, but...

More broadly, Zen more than most other Buddhist traditions--including Japanese traditions--relies on the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, the teachings on the Perfection of Wisdom. In the definitive commentary to the Perfection of Wisdom by Nagarjuna, he notes (in what is a thematic climax) that "the Buddha did not teach anything, to anyone, at any time." How is this to be interpreted? Clearly Suzuki Roshi did not actually advocate killing the Buddha, which as a highly educated teacher he would know is one of the Five Deeds of Immediate Retribution. So how is that to be interpreted?

I thought it was obvious. It was also not a phrase that originated with Shunryu Suzuki (I thought you said you had read his works...?). A good article on the subject by modern interpretation can be found here...

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=247

Bottom line, emptiness does not mean lack of attention to dependent origination or causal history; quite the opposite, in fact. So I would again urge you not to conflate your personal "unorthodox" ideas with the pure and unadulterated Dharma. Just because you and some self-styled "Buddhists" in California think something does not make whatever it is you think into Buddhism. Emptiness and the Perfection of Wisdom are profound teachings but they must be understood in relation to the rest of the Buddha's teachings and the other turnings of the Wheel of Dharma.

This is all quite interesting, since I had never seen the phenomenon before personally, but there has been a disagreement of sorts between Zen practitioners and other Buddhists over the nature and tradition of Buddhism. Zen practitioners can be somewhat unorthodox and even revolutionary at times, in that they dispense with a lot of what they consider unnecessary entanglement, as evidenced by the claim that I have heard several times, that the story of the Buddha was the story of a previous Buddha. Saman clearly does not like this.

But is Saman correct? The reason I bring it up, is that there was an a very public and vitriolic disagreement between some Zen practitioners (very noted and well recognized experts) and other Buddhists on a Buddhist message board a while back that resulted in a mass expulsion that split the board, because the Zen practitioners advocated beliefs that were deemed "unacceptable" by the board leadership, who were not Zen. Among these beliefs were that the Buddha still felt emotional pain and joy, post-enlightenment. These Zen teachers were pillars of the movement, but were really treated rather badly. I think the web forum closed down, but I am not sure. I had not seen evidence of the conflict between Zen and "Orthodoxy" until now. It is interesting.

As it is, I have heard this multiple times from very well respected priests with excellent lineages. You should not diminish their teaching as "some self-styled "Buddhists" in California", that is unfair and petty, but I can see how the belief would threaten your beliefs.

I suggest that you, yourself, might want to kill the Buddha, and let go of unnecessary entanglements. The Buddha might never have really existed at all. My practice continues without concern or interruption, regardless, and perhaps that is the lesson of killing the Buddha.

[_Samantabhadra]

First of all I don't necessarily doubt the authenticity of the lineage of your teachers, but people--particularly self-described "unorthodox" people--have a tendency to hear what they want to hear. I say this because with respect to Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind you are clearly twisting Suzuki Rōshi's words to suit your own agenda. What edition are you using? I am going to quote from the 34th printing (1995), by Weatherhill.

p. 28:

That is why Buddha could not accept the religions existing at his time. He studied many religions, but he was not satisfied with their practices. He could not find the answer in asceticism or in philosophies.

That right there is a reference to the life story of the Buddha. Why would he repeat and reference a story that he thought was "not really true"?

More generally, you are wrong because there is no point in Zen Mind where Suzuki Rōshi adopts the view you are promulgating, that "the story of the Buddha is not really true." When he does mention the life of the Buddha, it is very much by way of reference to concrete events as examples we should aspire to or else to ensure that we do not misunderstand the importance of those events. But the misunderstanding does not consist in thinking of them as "really true." On p. 131 he even makes reference to the story of enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. And even when he talks about "killing the Buddha" on p. 27--the only place in that particular text where he uses that formulation--the point is that, in his words, you should only "kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else." In other words, this is the same point he is making on p. 126:

To do something, to live in each moment, means to be the temporal activity of Buddha. To sit in this way is to be Buddha himself, to be as the historical Buddha (emphasis mine) was. The same thing applies to everything we do. Everything is Buddha's activity. So whatever you do, or even if you keep from doing something, Buddha is in that activity.

As for the controversy you mention, what you're missing is that Zen is, far from the only major school of Japanese Buddhism, not even the most widely practiced form of Japanese Buddhism; that distinction belongs to Jōdo Shinshū. Americans for cultural/historical/who knows what other reasons have gravitated toward Zen. That's fine as far as it goes, I guess, but you should understand that Zen is actually somewhat idiosyncratic both within East Asian Buddhism generally and certainly with respect to the Buddhist traditions taken in aggregate. Thus, while I have all the respect in the world for Suzuki Rōshi, when he claims that the Buddha still has karma, from a classical Buddhist perspective--here I mean not just a Tibetan perspective but an Abhidharma perspective, the perspective of most (non-Zen) Japanese Buddhists as well as Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.--he is wrong. Sorry. From a classical perspective, karma just is cetanā (intention), which just is kleśa (defilement). To say that the Buddha has karma is to say that the Buddha's mind is defiled.

What I'm drawing attention to here is your clear provincialism and lack of meaningful understanding and context for what you're repeating. Maybe one of your teachers has said something to the effect of, the Buddha's life is irrelevant to the fact of your sitting practice. That's fine as far as it goes, actually pretty good advice, but is hardly to say that the received story of the Buddha's life is "not really true." Again, what I am questioning here is not your teacher's lineage, nor even necessarily the words that were spoken, but your interpretive capacity and ability to hear what is being said as opposed to what you want to hear.

Finally, what I'm objecting to more than anything else here is your inability to understand Buddhism (or what you think of as "Buddhism") apart from a very narrowly circumscribed, Westernized, American form of the tradition that is in general of dubious authenticity, particularly on the practitioner side of things. It would never occur to native Asian Buddhists, very much including native Japanese Buddhists, to doubt whether the historical Buddha Śākyamuni really existed or whether the received story of his life is "really true." I really could not give less of a <feces> what self-described American "Buddhists" say or think about anything related to Buddhism. All you have done in claiming that your beliefs are "generally accepted in Buddhist circles" is demonstrate just how small your "Buddhist circle" is, because it does not include the overwhelming majority of past and present Buddhists in the world. Try telling a Theravādin monk (or, you know, any Buddhist monk or even any Buddhist layperson anywhere in Asia) that Buddhists on the whole generally don't accept that the life story of the Buddha is "really true," and see what kind of reaction you get.

In short, you are bringing your own cultural preconceptions and prejudices--specifically, the preconception that ancient stories such as found in the Vinaya and the Jātaka are prima facie mythological or "not really true"--to Buddhism, in the name of "openness" and liberalism. Not only is that completely wrongheaded, I vaguely recall a certain Zen master saying something about not bringing your own preconceptions to the study of Buddhism. Who was that again?

[_Bhodi]

First of all I don't necessarily doubt the authenticity of the lineage of your teachers

No, I think it is clear you were doing exactly that. You wanted to insult and belittle. I agree it was inappropriate, and you may regret it now, an apology is definitely in order, but I don't think you can claim you never meant to do it. I really don't care what you think about the teachers in my tradition, their work does not need your approval or acceptance, but you certainly wanted to be mean and insulting, don't deny the obvious.

but people--particularly self-described "unorthodox" people--have a tendency to hear what they want to hear. I say this because with respect to Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind you are clearly twisting Suzuki Rōshi's words to suit your own agenda.

Except it was not my agenda. I was only relating what I have heard multiple times from multiple places.

What edition are you using? I am going to quote from the 34th printing (1995), by Weatherhill.

p. 28:

That is why Buddha could not accept the religions existing at his time. He studied many religions, but he was not satisfied with their practices. He could not find the answer in asceticism or in philosophies.

I am glad you went out and bought a copy of the book, you may want to give it a full reading later on when you have some time.

That right there is a reference to the life story of the Buddha. Why would he repeat and reference a story that he thought was "not really true"?

And why does it have to be a story of the most recent Buddha? Could it not have been the story of a prior Buddha (as was claimed by several of my teachers)? Does it even have to be true to be instructive?

More generally, you are wrong because there is no point in Zen Mind where Suzuki Rōshi adopts the view you are promulgating, that "the story of the Buddha is not really true." When he does mention the life of the Buddha, it is very much by way of reference to concrete events as examples we should aspire to or else to ensure that we do not misunderstand the importance of those events. But the misunderstanding does not consist in thinking of them as "really true." On p. 131 he even makes reference to the story of enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. And even when he talks about "killing the Buddha" on p. 27--the only place in that particular text where he uses that formulation--the point is that, in his words, you should only "kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else." In other words, this is the same point he is making on p. 126:

To do something, to live in each moment, means to be the temporal activity of Buddha. To sit in this way is to be Buddha himself, to be as the historical Buddha (emphasis mine) was. The same thing applies to everything we do. Everything is Buddha's activity. So whatever you do, or even if you keep from doing something, Buddha is in that activity.

And again, why does this have to be the recent Buddha, instead of a previous Buddha. Why does it have to be true?

As for the controversy you mention, what you're missing is that Zen is, far from the only major school of Japanese Buddhism, not even the most widely practiced form of Japanese Buddhism; that distinction belongs to Jōdo Shinshū. Americans for cultural/historical/who knows what other reasons have gravitated toward Zen. That's fine as far as it goes, I guess, but you should understand that Zen is actually somewhat idiosyncratic both within East Asian Buddhism generally and certainly with respect to the Buddhist traditions taken in aggregate. Thus, while I have all the respect in the world for Suzuki Rōshi, when he claims that the Buddha still has karma, from a classical Buddhist perspective--here I mean not just a Tibetan perspective but an Abhidharma perspective, the perspective of most (non-Zen) Japanese Buddhists as well as Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.--he is wrong. Sorry. From a classical perspective, karma just is cetanā (intention), which just is kleśa (defilement). To say that the Buddha has karma is to say that the Buddha's mind is defiled.

Not at all, but that is an orthodox interpretation that is limited by dogma, which is precisely what was taught against. If you want that, and it works for you, I see no reason to criticize, but it makes no experiential sense.

What I'm drawing attention to here is your clear provincialism and lack of meaningful understanding and context for what you're repeating. Maybe one of your teachers has said something to the effect of, the Buddha's life is irrelevant to the fact of your sitting practice. That's fine as far as it goes, actually pretty good advice, but is hardly to say that the received story of the Buddha's life is "not really true." Again, what I am questioning here is not your teacher's lineage, nor even necessarily the words that were spoken, but your interpretive capacity and ability to hear what is being said as opposed to what you want to hear.

But I am clearly hearing what you are saying, it is just that your words are completely constrained by your orthodoxy, which is an unnecessary shackle. The very simple question you should ask yourself is, does the Buddha story have to be true? Does anything change if it is not?

Finally, what I'm objecting to more than anything else here is your inability to understand Buddhism (or what you think of as "Buddhism") apart from a very narrowly circumscribed, Westernized, American form of the tradition that is in general of dubious authenticity, particularly on the practitioner side of things. It would never occur to native Asian Buddhists, very much including native Japanese Buddhists, to doubt whether the historical Buddha Śākyamuni really existed or whether the received story of his life is "really true." I really could not give less of a <feces> what self-described American "Buddhists" say or think about anything related to Buddhism. All you have done in claiming that your beliefs are "generally accepted in Buddhist circles" is demonstrate just how small your "Buddhist circle" is, because it does not include the overwhelming majority of past and present Buddhists in the world. Try telling a Theravādin monk (or, you know, any Buddhist monk or even any Buddhist layperson anywhere in Asia) that Buddhists on the whole generally don't accept that the life story of the Buddha is "really true," and see what kind of reaction you get.

In short, you are bringing your own cultural preconceptions and prejudices--specifically, the preconception that ancient stories such as found in the Vinaya and the Jātaka are prima facie mythological or "not really true"--to Buddhism, in the name of "openness" and liberalism. Not only is that completely wrongheaded, I vaguely recall a certain Zen master saying something about not bringing your own preconceptions to the study of Buddhism. Who was that again?

I would think you are being ruled by your prejudices, not me. I do not care if the Buddha was real, or if it was just a nice story. My life has meaning outside of this, and if the Buddha did exist, I believe he would favor this position over yours where the existence, or lackthereof, is pivotal to practice. You have become very, very angry, which should raise a lot of questions about your path, but this is yours to walk. I am more than content with mine, and my practice has a depth I appreciate for being unhindered. If you have a depth you need in your practice, please continue, but don't insist that you dictate the dharma, because this is simply wrong.

[_Samantabhadra]

No, I think it is clear you were doing exactly that. You wanted to insult and belittle. I agree it was inappropriate, and you may regret it now, an apology is definitely in order, but I don't think you can claim you never meant to do it. I really don't care what you think about the teachers in my tradition, their work does not need your approval or acceptance, but you certainly wanted to be mean and insulting, don't deny the obvious.

Wait a second. I said I don't necessarily doubt the authenticity of your teachers' lineages. Clearly I do have concerns, because it is entirely possible that they are New Agey "modern" Buddhist types who have no more idea what they're talking about than you do, and that you are merely parroting their nonsense. That's why I don't think it was inappropriate to point this out, and have nothing to apologize for, because you are saying things that are demonstrably false. Such as...

And again, why does this have to be the recent Buddha, instead of a previous Buddha. Why does it have to be true?

When people say "the historical Buddha" they are referring to Buddha Śākyamuni. There is no other Buddha that they mean. When you want to refer to Kāśyapa Buddha or Dīpaṃkara Buddha you say "the previous Buddha" or "the Buddha from a previous aeon." It's really that simple. When you say "the historical Buddha" you mean the Buddha who was born in Lumbini, attained enlightenment in Bodhgaya, taught at the deer park in Sarnath, and passed into parinirvana at Kushinagar.

My question is why you are so eager to throw away the life story of the Buddha. Why do you want the story to be untrue? Actually, let me back up. Which parts, specifically, of the Buddha's life story do you doubt? And why? Clearly you don't doubt that there are Buddhas, and you don't doubt that Śākyamuni Buddha was only the most recent Buddha. Is it just too much to accept that we actually do know, more or less, where he was born and where he taught?

As for your other question, apart from the fact that Buddhas are supposed to accomplish all of the Twelve Deeds--that's definitionally what makes them Buddhas--of course it changes everything if the Buddha's story is "not true," though I'm still unclear on what exactly you think is untrue about it. In any case, if the Buddha did not really attain enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, then he did not turn the wheel of Dharma and there is no point in studying or practicing his teachings. But if you don't doubt that the Buddha really attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, then why would you doubt that he was born wealthy, abandoned his wealth for the life of a Saddhu, attained enlightenment and then wandered until his Parinirvana teaching the Fourfold Noble Truth?