Mystics and Missionaries

[Ven. Tantra]

S. Tilak wrote: << ��the varying ways and patterns in
which mysticism is connected with organized religion.
Mystics affiliated with a given religion, for
instance, may be recruited to attract newcomers and to
"soften up" their initial resistance. Missionaries
then take over and complete the job of formal
conversion.>>

Aditya wrote: << It is only later day messiahs like
Dayanand, Ramkrishnad, Mahesh Yogi and Prabhupad who
have adopted western missionary techniques to their
own brand of Hinduism and have been fairly successful
� Let me add that the very first messianic religion,
Buddhism, did originate in India and it did have
missionaries.>>

And it still does. But who are they, really?

Some points regarding this "mystic" " messianic" and
"missionary" religion called "Buddhism" and the
troubling historicity of its alleged founder "The
Buddha." Why has this issue been so blaringly condoned
by contemporary academia? Because the figure of "The
Buddha" has become not only everybody's pinup boy, but
also a universal figure upon which people's perfect
dreams have been pinned? Has "The Mystical Buddha"
become � by tacit definition � contemporary society's
superlative god-man figure devoid of all the faults
found in all other world religious? Has "The Buddha"
become our contemporary folk hero, a "soft" and fuzzy
repository of all the things acceptable to the liberal
minded people?  And does this furthermore warn us to
the softened faculties of discernment of contemporary
academicians whose lances dull when it comes to
dissecting the Magnus Corpus of "The Buddha."

I applaud Steve Farmer's Sep. 2000 posts re. "'Buddha'
before the Pali Canon?" Steve has made a significant
contribution by excellently articulating the essence
of an inquiry that has gone too long unexplored. I
don�t know why scholars continue to treat this Buddha
Myth question so uncritically�or maybe I do know.

A commonly held belief worth noting. There are those
who believe that a historical human being called
Gautuma, Sakyamuni, Angirasa, or what ever, certainly
did exist. They believe "The Buddha" existed in a way
more believable than, say, Jesus may or may have not
existed. They believe in an "irreducible" human being
even though admitting no available evidence. They
would also concur with Steve's idea that 'hagiography
has built a kind of superstructure unto this
quasi-historical figure making it admittedly
impossible to disentangle from the core being. 'True,'
they confess, 'one cannot dismiss the possibility that
"The Buddha" ever existed.' Yet, almost none of them
feel much urge to � at this point � demand any list of
existing evidence in support of that life. So
irreducible to what: A sixth century BC sunnyasin who
taught some sort of raja-yoga and espoused a special
doctrine, who took on many ascetic disciples and
enjoyed broad community support?

Who are the real Buddhist missionaries today? The
softened academic community? And what are their
techniques?

Regrds,

Ven Tantra


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/