Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: dogen@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Chq)
Subject: Re: Ultimate metaphysical reality in Mahayana
References: <1991Jun30.165906.4693@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 03:10:50 GMT
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Academic Computing and Network Services, Evanston, Il.
Keywords: Ultimate reality and Mahayana
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Summary: Metaphysics 
Message-ID: <1991Jul1.031050.11461@nas.nasa.gov>
Lines: 71


Mr. Wheeler,
           Concerning your last response to me;  I've met Prof. Kalupahana in
a seminar on Buddhist studies at NU.  He is indeed a respectable Buddhist
Scholar, and I enjoy and learn from his works to a great extent.  But you
have to realize that he is well versed in western philosophy (not a problem
in itself)  and tries to use the same categories applied in the tradition.
Now, despite my admiration for PR.  Kalupahana, I disagree w/ his
interpretations of Madhyamika and Yogacara.  Many of his interpretations
follow to a great extent that of Murti and the great Russian Buddhologist
Th. Scherbatsky.  Current studies in Buddhist philosophy have (to a greater
or lesser extent) effectively criticized this methodology, i.e., the almost
indescriminate use of western categories--notice "transcendental monism",
Absolute monism", "Idealism", etc.--in the interpretation of Buddhist
thought.  I won't gp into details because this would involve text citation
, word analysis from the original sanskrit and Tibetan texts, etc.  

     When you cite an authority on Buddhist scholarship keep in mind that
you're also including his/her prejudices in interpretation.  Its not that
he is wrong but I just have a different set of prejudices in my work.  If
you want to discuss scholarship then please e-mail me or post something.
Otherwise I would hesitate to go on because this might not be the
appropriate place to do so.  Also keep in mind that there is usually a
difference in the whole approach to "spiritual" matters between scholars
and practitioners.  That's why for this board it would be wiser to  quote
from the gurus, or masters, rather than academics; the issues pertaining to
each are quite different.  If you must quote from sources other than
spiritual teachers, then try to get a grasp on the original texts.  Belive
it or not my work began w/ the goal of clarifying the "Metaphysics" of Mahayana
thought; but after reading from the original Sanskrit and Tibetan sources
my stance on the issue took a 180 degree turn toward the non-metaphysical
nature of Mahayana philosophy.  If you do have a good reading knowledge of
at least one of the Buddhist cannonical languages then you and I have a
base on which to disagree in an academic context; otherwise we should
disagree on the basis of more "personal" or "spiritual" insights (or rather
prejudices).  

     I will readily admit that my interpretations (both personal and
academic) of Buddhism, etc., may be completely off the mark, but up until
now I have no reason to suspect they are COMPLETELY incorrect--but they are
to some extent, given my limited insight.  What is of concern to me,
however, is this whole business of "Economic" spirituality; i.e., the
organizational set up whereby one is somehow "initiated" and therefore
given the "honor" of paying a guru thousands of dollars per year.  This is
sheer non-sense to me.  OK, I can see the need for some kind of payment for
the upkeep/maintenance of a spiritual setting, but set dues over $100 per
mo. is just.... (re: above).  Shams are a serious problem in this country,
and it is painful for me to observe naive westerners romanticising and
finally getting caught in a spiritual (i.e. $$$) scam.  THIS was the reason
for my previous posting.  Several days ago I read that some group was about
to open up an "Enlightenment-Theme Park" in Orlando.  I almost puked.  What
the ... does a theme park have to do w/ the so called spiritual matters?
What is the difference between this and those money-grubbing Xtian
evangelicals you see on Sunday afternoons?  But alas I have the horrible
feeling that I'm spitting in the wind. 

      I do think there are genuine teachers out there, who really do have
the compassion and wisdom to help us realize our true "self";  but I also
think there are many more charlatans who are all to eager to reveal the
Really Real REALITY--for a heavy price.  BTW, don't you think Upa-Bove is
catchier name than Nome?  I shouldn't have mentioned this on the net!  :)

								John

       
-- 
*******************************************************************************
-- John Cha
"The present is always more interesting than the future or the past"
*******************************************************************************

