Via Wisdom Publications’ Facebook page: In addition to talking about his film career, Richard Gere recently spoke to NPR’s Diane Rehm about his efforts for Tibet and friendship with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Give a listen here.
Today’s quote is from Lopon Rita M. Gross, the great scholar-practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and author of (among other books) Buddhism After Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism. This is it, from her article “Why We Need to Know Our Buddhist History” for Buddhadharma: The Practitioner’s Quarterly‘s Spring 2009 issue:
When sacred narrative and history are each taken at face value, they seem to be at odds with each other. Historical knowledge challenges the empirical accuracy of sacred narratives. A crisis of faith can result if the differences between legend and history are not understood and the relevance of each is not appreciated. If it is assumed that legends are factually accurate, then the entire basis of one’s spirituality can be endangered if it is proved that the events narrated in the sacred story did not happen in empirical space and time. However, the modern study of religions has recognized for many decades that history and sacred narrative need not be at odds with each other, because they have different functions. History is about empirical facts and figures, which may or may not be spiritually meaningful. Legends and sacred narratives provide orientation and meaning to those who follow a specific path, whether or not the events they narrate occurred in empirical space and time. A sacred narrative need not be historically accurate to convey profound meaning. Its observable truth does not determine its relevance.
The cogency of Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhism is not damaged by the recognition that they were not taught during the Buddha’s lifetime but developed later due to various causes and conditions. When that fact is conceded, Buddhist sectarianism is also undercut. There is no reason to expect that all forms of Buddhism would go through the same historical processes or develop in the same way, which means that different forms of Buddhism need not compete with each other for relevance. It also means that different forms of Buddhism will have different sacred narratives. For Mahayanists, legendary accounts of how the Buddha taught the Mahayana explain the continuity between earlier and later streams of teaching, undercutting claims that Mahayana Buddhism was simply made up by its followers for their own convenience. For Theravadins, these same legends assure them that the earliest layers of Buddhist teachings present a complete path rather than the “inferior” path ascribed to them by Mahayana mythology.
The study of history, then, which includes the study of legends, sacred narratives, and the ways they serve Buddhist practitioners, can be helpful in lessening sectarianism and avoiding fundamentalist doctrinal squabbling. When legend and history are not confused with each other, each can take its appropriate place in an accurate understanding, both of the whole of Buddhism and of one’s preferred lineage and practice. Rather than fostering doubt, such a foundation can provide support for accurately informed confidence in the dharma.
