From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Date: 2 Jan 93 21:54:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <AG.93Jan2171923@bast.sics.se>, ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson) writes:
> 
> Now you are talking about living in a Buddhistic community.
> Living in Stockholm, Sweden the conduct and attitude is
> regulated by other mechanisms. As to follow the Buddhistic rules
> for conduct here, well I suppose you live in the world yourself.
> But if you mean to imply that it is impossible to understand
> anything about Buddhism without living in a Buddhistic society
> you might well be right about that. 

What I had meant by my statement is that the various Buddhist
scriptures are geared towards many different audiences, and the
authors generally try to give each audience the information it needs
for its spiritual growth.

>    In esoteric buddhist teaching, certain knowledge cannot be transmitted
>    by words, it must be given by a teacher, who transmits that knowledge
>    through non-verbal means.
> 
> Reading the Diamond Sutra one gets the impression that no
> knowledge can be transmitted by words or that what is transmitted
> by words is neither knowledge nor truth and that there is no
> doctrine in Buddhism. 
> This impression one gets because this is bluntly stated in the
> text itself. Of course there is the problem of translation, the
> problem of bridging two thousand year and a large cultural gap.
> The translation I have is by A.F Price. I also have the
> translation contained in the series 'Ch'an and zen teaching'.

Ch'an and Zen have a particular emphasis and focus. They are of the
Mahayana school, which, simply put, means to achieve enlightenment by
whatever means possible. These schools in particular place an emphasis
on enlightenment as an intuitive understanding that cannot be arrived
at by the conceptualizing mind. 

I am more familiar with these and Tibetan Buddhism, myself. But if I
understand correctly, Theravada, or southern Buddhism, places a much
higher emphasis on a gradual process of enlightenment involving
reason, among other elements, although the enlightenment itself is
beyond reasoning. Perhaps it was such a school of buddhism to which
Leo was referring.

Part of the problem of discussing Buddhism is that there is no one
Buddhism. The average westerner will often identify one particular
branch of Buddhism as Buddhism, and neglect the rest when applying
labels and discussing what Buddhism is.

I am not qualified to discuss the question of what Buddhist logic is.
Perhaps someone else would like to tackle that one.

> 
> Whether there are knowledge transmitted by other means 
> (the interesting question what these means are and whether 
> they are in some way dependent on language left aside) one can 
> sometime get the impression that there is no knowledge 
> whatsoever in Buddhism. 

Again, this goes back to the Buddhism that you have been exposed to,
which emphasizes intuitive understanding.  With regards to
transmission, in esoteric Buddhism, the teacher transmitts knowledge
to the student telepathically. There is no language involved. It is
analogous to someone who has been blind from birth acquiring an
experience of what it is like to see, without ever developing physical
sight. 

Before I get flamed on that one, I am not interested in discussing
whether such a thing really happens. That is just part of the
tradition. 
			cheers,
				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************