Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist Studies, Buddhist Practice and the Trope of Authenticity
We have all seen those who think they know more than others fall flat on their face. I have seen it especially those who claim they have authenticity about their understanding of what Buddhism really is. So many of these people are living a lie. It has revealed itself in Buddhist leaders of different sects, that they preach one thing, like living in the absolute - while sexually exploiting their students. So what is the real authentic Buddhism? Who really knows.....here is an excellent article on the subject of which covers a lot of ground is rather lengthy, so i will just post the intro and then give the web site if you want to finish reading it.
If it is raining hard outside, does one just stand there in the rain, or does one move? If they were unaffected by the rain or assault ( by water )
like a good Buddhist they would just stay in the rain and get soaked, but that is not what people do. Whats wrong with taking a whip to people who assault you? What kind of label do you put on them? I've left the girl at the creek, and away I go.........
the article....
Introduction
In conversation, in the lecture hall, in the Dharma centre and in the public teaching, Buddhists and students of Buddhism worry about authenticity. Is the doctrine defended in a particular text or is a particular textual interpretation authentic? Is a particular teacher authentic? Is a particular practice authentic? Is a phenomenon under examination in a scholarly research project authentically Buddhist? If the doctrine, teacher, practice or phenomenon is not authentically Buddhist, we worry that it is a fraud, that our scholarship, teaching or religious life is vacuous, or at least that it is not really Buddhist studies or Buddhist practice. It is hard for me to remember a conversation of any length with a Western or Tibetan colleague, or with a serious advanced student in which the term “authenticity” or a cognate did not arise, and in which that term did not function as a term of approbation.
I was particularly taken by one episode in which, in a response to a talk on methodology in Buddhist Studies at a major Buddhist Studies research institute, an eminent Tibetan scholar replied that Western Buddhist Studies is not even properly constituted as Buddhist Studies, and this for two reasons: first, Westerners are willing to study the traditions called “Buddhist” in such places as Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Japan. But only the “stainless NÂland tradition preserved without alteration in Tibet” is authentic Buddhism. So, he concluded,Westerners are studying fraudulent traditions under the guise of Buddhist Studies. Secondly, he argued, to study Buddhism is to study realizations, and realization requires authentic practice. But Westerners freely adopt practices from these fraudulent Asian traditions, and adulterate the stainless NÂland tradition. So there is no hope of any insight of any value emerging from their study.
To be sure, this response is extreme. But it is not rare; nor is it unrelated in motivation to many more moderate worries about the scope of Buddhist Studies and Buddhist practice. Worries about authenticity have characterized Buddhist dialectics from the earliest period, and motivated the decision to commit the Pali canon to writing at the First Council. Debates about authenticity sharpen with the rise of the MahÂyÂna and the questions that movement raises about the canonicity of new scriptures and about the very nature of buddhavacana. With the transmission of Buddhism to China and Tibet, the activity of translation raised further questions regarding the relation of translations of texts to their Sanskrit or Pali originals. More recently, the transmission of Buddhism to the West and the impact of modernity on Asian Buddhist cultures raise entirely new questions concerning authentically Buddhist practice, ideology, lineage and object of study. In what follows I will argue that all of these questions are best discarded along with the very concept of authenticity. To put it bluntly, worrying about authenticity is at best a waste of time and at worst seriously destructive.
The rest of the essay is in a .doc format. Wordpad, Word will read it, and most word processors....
http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/authenticity.doc
If it is raining hard outside, does one just stand there in the rain, or does one move? If they were unaffected by the rain or assault ( by water )
like a good Buddhist they would just stay in the rain and get soaked, but that is not what people do. Whats wrong with taking a whip to people who assault you? What kind of label do you put on them? I've left the girl at the creek, and away I go.........the article....
Introduction
In conversation, in the lecture hall, in the Dharma centre and in the public teaching, Buddhists and students of Buddhism worry about authenticity. Is the doctrine defended in a particular text or is a particular textual interpretation authentic? Is a particular teacher authentic? Is a particular practice authentic? Is a phenomenon under examination in a scholarly research project authentically Buddhist? If the doctrine, teacher, practice or phenomenon is not authentically Buddhist, we worry that it is a fraud, that our scholarship, teaching or religious life is vacuous, or at least that it is not really Buddhist studies or Buddhist practice. It is hard for me to remember a conversation of any length with a Western or Tibetan colleague, or with a serious advanced student in which the term “authenticity” or a cognate did not arise, and in which that term did not function as a term of approbation.
I was particularly taken by one episode in which, in a response to a talk on methodology in Buddhist Studies at a major Buddhist Studies research institute, an eminent Tibetan scholar replied that Western Buddhist Studies is not even properly constituted as Buddhist Studies, and this for two reasons: first, Westerners are willing to study the traditions called “Buddhist” in such places as Sri Lanka, Thailand, China and Japan. But only the “stainless NÂland tradition preserved without alteration in Tibet” is authentic Buddhism. So, he concluded,Westerners are studying fraudulent traditions under the guise of Buddhist Studies. Secondly, he argued, to study Buddhism is to study realizations, and realization requires authentic practice. But Westerners freely adopt practices from these fraudulent Asian traditions, and adulterate the stainless NÂland tradition. So there is no hope of any insight of any value emerging from their study.
To be sure, this response is extreme. But it is not rare; nor is it unrelated in motivation to many more moderate worries about the scope of Buddhist Studies and Buddhist practice. Worries about authenticity have characterized Buddhist dialectics from the earliest period, and motivated the decision to commit the Pali canon to writing at the First Council. Debates about authenticity sharpen with the rise of the MahÂyÂna and the questions that movement raises about the canonicity of new scriptures and about the very nature of buddhavacana. With the transmission of Buddhism to China and Tibet, the activity of translation raised further questions regarding the relation of translations of texts to their Sanskrit or Pali originals. More recently, the transmission of Buddhism to the West and the impact of modernity on Asian Buddhist cultures raise entirely new questions concerning authentically Buddhist practice, ideology, lineage and object of study. In what follows I will argue that all of these questions are best discarded along with the very concept of authenticity. To put it bluntly, worrying about authenticity is at best a waste of time and at worst seriously destructive.
The rest of the essay is in a .doc format. Wordpad, Word will read it, and most word processors....
http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/authenticity.doc
0
Comments
To me authenticity is about trying to find out what exactly it was that the Buddha taught - is THAT a waste of time?
Spiny
Anyway, I agree with Thickpaper: who knows? who cares? I care that the teacher walks his/her talk, doesn't exploit students in any way, and knows his/her material well enough to be able to answer any and all questions that arise.