dvija varNa

[Lynken Ghose]

Ven. Tantra writes -

>One is awestruck at the insistence of so many scholars
>to continue to speak on the subject of Buddhism as if
>one Sakyamuni actually existed. This is particularly
>troubling in light of the mere “tissue of fable” and
>implausible history upon which – perhaps better put
>–“Buddha-ism” so infirmly rests.


I think it behooves anyone responding to a posting to read the posting
carefully and as fairly as possible. You do not seem to have done that. I
expressed caution in the first part of my posting, by saying "early
Buddhism" seems to have thought... I also quoted actual Suttas in the Pali
Canon.

This kind of uncareful reading is a little too common on this list. You can
read anything into someone's posting that you like if you pick out certain
words and leave out others. This is especially easy to do on an internet
discussion list as you don't ever have the opportunity of meeting the person
face to face.

Most scholars that I know do believe that there was a historical Buddha;
however, I do not know of too many who would say that they have no doubt in
this regard. I would fall into this category of tending to believe that
there was a Buddha but still maintaining some doubt.


>Therefore, the question truly asks itself: Where is
>there any experiential knowledge upon which one bases
>ones presumption of the existence of a personal
>founder of the Buddha cult?


Please prevent some evidence for your position. Otherwise, it's difficult to
have a discussion.


>In addition to the “the Buddha,” there are other
>worryingly unqualified usages such as “the caste
>system” and “the tradition.”


Again, you did not read the posting carefully. I mentioned the idea that one
is born into a certain jati/varna as a possible defining factor. This was
the factor that the Vaaset.t.ha Sutta seems to be arguing against.

I am not sure if the Sutta mentions the words jaati and varn.a; however it
clearly uses the term "brahmin." Also, in verses 58-59 the Sutta goes
through various professions and argues against people being born into them:
"for men are farmers by their acts"... etc. (B. Nanamoli Transl.)


>We could ask ourselves, are we in a scientific
>community or church here?


I don't see how you are reaching this conclusion. Please explain your full
train of thought. I also don't see how this adds anything constructive to
the discussion.

Sincerely,

Lynken Ghose

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.