Huseng wrote:tobes wrote:But surely you see the problem here Huseng? Both you and Batchelor are making an argument that what is being proposed really agrees with what the Buddha taught.
There is no problem, because I am correct in my assertion that the Buddha taught rebirth and karma, and defended these teachings against those who attempted to refute him. There's no scriptural support for Batchelor's views.
It's a very odd argument to make - given that Batchelor's whole trajectory is based on rejecting what he considers 'Tibetan dogma' and therefore explicitly returning to the Pali suttas.
What it comes down to, is how you and Batchelor interpret what the Buddha taught - what is and is not important. I don't think you can really claim a privileged position anymore than Batchelor can. Both of you are involved in a hermeneutical enterprise, and both of you necessarily ignore some of what is given and prioritise some of what is given. Both of you are fundamentally making the claim: this bit of the teaching is the essential dharma.
As it happens, I agree with your claim more than Batchelors - but I do not at all buy the dharma/adharma rhetoric. Calling an interpretation which prioritises different elements "adharmic" is just an empty ideological gesture.
Moreover, what constitutes 'scriptural support' according to you? Is Zen adharma because it basically ignores the Pali tripitaka and has its own canon? Is Dzogchen found in the Pali suttas?
Which scriptures Huseng? Only those that the Buddha taught? Anything composed by Buddhists? Only those composed by enlightened Buddhists?
Who gets to decide? And what gives them the authority to do so?