What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13255
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by Ayu »

Off topic posts kindly removed. Please mind decently this subforum.
amanitamusc
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by amanitamusc »

Ayu wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:49 am Off topic posts kindly removed. Please mind decently this subforum.
Thank you.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:28 pm I agree with the gist of what you're saying. But faith, even one that is not connected to any verifiable truth is not condemned per se. It's the failure to safeguard truth that is the problem. It's when one says on faith, only this is true, all else false, that faith
of any degree becomess a problem. That is the disposition of a closed mind. Proceeding on our best information, lacking actual knowledge, is what most of us do most of the time. This is basically the definition of a deluded being who has not overcome delusion... as long as delusion remains, by definition there are things we don't know and don't even know we don't know. So long as we are open to new information, we keep the path to awakening open. The moment we think we know all there is to know, no matter how much we know, we've closed the path to awakening.

The Buddha didn't preclude the path of prasada. It might not be a direct path, but even such naive faith is accepted for those who cannot manage more. We have a responsibility for our one eyed kin.
Our traditions are at odds then. Blind faith is never acceptable for anyone.
Brunelleschi
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by Brunelleschi »

Queequeg wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:50 pmI have an MA in Religion, and through my wife who is a university professor, I know several bold face name academics in Buddhism. Most are not Buddhist, and while they know a lot about Buddhism as an object of inquiry through methods of social science, they're generally not going to be helpful with the actual practice or spiritual development. Their attitude is fundamentally that of a scientist. I guess their good motivations are basically secular humanist. They're generally good liberals.

They can, through the use of the various tools of analysis at their disposal, offer informative answers about things like the origin of Amitabha, but that information is not really useful to buddhasmrti practice and could actually be discouraging and a hindrance... "You mean Amitabha is Ahura Mazda?"

Buddhism is the collection of ideas and practices aimed at unbinding, the teacher as example of the culmination of the path, and the community of practitioners. Academic careerism doesn't quite fit in that path, and as I was actually warned, bringing too much actual Buddhism to an academic career is basically career suicide.
Yes, exactly. To my point about the eight worldly concerns, I'm in research (Life Science) - or looking to get into it anyway. And while there certainly is good people there's also a lot of Ego at play. I guess partly fueled by the competition for a limited amount of positions, etcetera. Publish or die.

The point of research isn't, like you say, to help people practice or develop spiritually.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:44 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:28 pm I agree with the gist of what you're saying. But faith, even one that is not connected to any verifiable truth is not condemned per se. It's the failure to safeguard truth that is the problem. It's when one says on faith, only this is true, all else false, that faith
of any degree becomess a problem. That is the disposition of a closed mind. Proceeding on our best information, lacking actual knowledge, is what most of us do most of the time. This is basically the definition of a deluded being who has not overcome delusion... as long as delusion remains, by definition there are things we don't know and don't even know we don't know. So long as we are open to new information, we keep the path to awakening open. The moment we think we know all there is to know, no matter how much we know, we've closed the path to awakening.

The Buddha didn't preclude the path of prasada. It might not be a direct path, but even such naive faith is accepted for those who cannot manage more. We have a responsibility for our one eyed kin.
Our traditions are at odds then. Blind faith is never acceptable for anyone.
No. The buddha did not possess a prejudice against ignorance and that is what your stance on blind faith is. Prejudice against human ignorance. That is the real danger of making academic wherewithal a basis for the buddha's perspective.

Perhaps not all traditions expect people to have refined their capacities to be worthy of compassion.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 4:14 pm No.
Yes.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: What do ACADEMICS say are the origins of Avalokiteshvara and Amitabha?

Post by narhwal90 »

I think its time to lock the thread, pending requests for constructive followup conversation.
Locked

Return to “Academic Discussion”