Brian Ruhe and Representation

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Dhammanando »

Mkoll wrote:Regarding denigration of Mahayana:
"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech.
-SN 45.8

Divisive speech is that which aims at provoking disaffection in one person or group towards some other person or group, but only where this proceeds from an unwholesome volition. Therefore not all speech aimed at provoking disaffection is classed as divisive speech, for sometimes it may be prompted by a wholesome volition. An example would be when, out of concern for the listener’s welfare, one warns him about an evil person with whom it would be harmful for him to consort.

Hence the commentarial statement that the near-enemy of non-divisive speech (i.e. the quality easily confused with it) is “lack of concern for another’s welfare” (anatthakāmatā).

And so if Mr. Ruhe and Ven. Soṇa believe the Mahāyāna to have been inspired by Māra, it would be misguided of them to refrain from saying so out of a wish to be non-divisive.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

Dhammanando wrote:Divisive speech is that which aims at provoking disaffection in one person or group towards some other person or group, but only where this proceeds from an unwholesome volition. Therefore not all speech aimed at provoking disaffection is classed as divisive speech, for sometimes it may be prompted by a wholesome volition. An example would be when, out of concern for the listener’s welfare, one warns him about an evil person with whom it would be harmful for him to consort.
Thank you for making that clear for me, Bhante.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Viscid »

Dhammanando wrote:Divisive speech is that which aims at provoking disaffection in one person or group towards some other person or group, but only where this proceeds from an unwholesome volition. Therefore not all speech aimed at provoking disaffection is classed as divisive speech, for sometimes it may be prompted by a wholesome volition. An example would be when, out of concern for the listener’s welfare, one warns him about an evil person with whom it would be harmful for him to consort.
There are, obviously, instances where the intent to divide a person from a group is skilful-- it'd be wise to discourage someone from joining a group of criminals or violent religious extremists, for example. However, I see no wisdom in encouraging the view that all adherents to a particular religion are following doctrines that originate from the Devil. This is encouraging prejudice. There is nothing to be gained from Theravadins believing that Mahayana adherents are gullible enough to be fooled by the devil-- that Mahayana doctrines are ultimately misleading and evil. Such prejudice is the foundation of discord, and its spread is harmful to everyone's welfare.

If one believes that exposure to Mahayana doctrines will lead one astray, that argument should be made by rationally demonstrating the incompatibility of those doctrines with the original teachings of The Buddha. Asserting those doctrines are the product of an indemonstrable evil is mere slander. If the basis for such activity is 'wholesome volition,' then that volition is predicated upon ignorance.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
Maitri
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:43 am
Location: United States of America

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Maitri »

If one believes that exposure to Mahayana doctrines will lead one astray, that argument should be made by rationally demonstrating the incompatibility of those doctrines with the original teachings of The Buddha. Asserting those doctrines are the product of an indemonstrable evil is mere slander.
:goodpost: I think that this is a key point in what is wrong with his presentation. For many Buddhists in the West there is an understanding that the Pali cannon represents an older "version" of Buddhist sutras- I don't think any Mahayanist would debate that. However, Brian Ruhe's approach to discussing Mahayana is not based on any rational, thoughtful comparison with the Buddha's teachings; basically he mocks the suttas and misrepresents the lineages throughout all his videos.

I think the debate of the historical accuracy of Theravada and Mahayana texts is a good one to have. It can be difficult for someone who has practiced for years to then find out that the texts, views, or practices they held with faith may not be taught by the Buddha. I think that is important conversation to have with Mahayana practitioners, but not in the context that Mr. Ruhe presents his critiques.
"Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom." Dhammapada: Pupphavagga

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Dan74 »

Maitri wrote:
If one believes that exposure to Mahayana doctrines will lead one astray, that argument should be made by rationally demonstrating the incompatibility of those doctrines with the original teachings of The Buddha. Asserting those doctrines are the product of an indemonstrable evil is mere slander.
:goodpost: I think that this is a key point in what is wrong with his presentation. For many Buddhists in the West there is an understanding that the Pali cannon represents an older "version" of Buddhist sutras- I don't think any Mahayanist would debate that. However, Brian Ruhe's approach to discussing Mahayana is not based on any rational, thoughtful comparison with the Buddha's teachings; basically he mocks the suttas and misrepresents the lineages throughout all his videos.

I think the debate of the historical accuracy of Theravada and Mahayana texts is a good one to have. It can be difficult for someone who has practiced for years to then find out that the texts, views, or practices they held with faith may not be taught by the Buddha. I think that is important conversation to have with Mahayana practitioners, but not in the context that Mr. Ruhe presents his critiques.
There is sometimes of a 'cultural' disconnect regarding this scripture issue. I suspect that most Zen practitioners wouldn't not give a hoot whether the sutras were written by Shakyamuni Buddha or someone else. They are not concerned with the author's name, but the content. Conversely they may be puzzled by the incessant need to quote and refer, argue over Buddhavacana and various translations that is seen in Theravada. Is paying attention to the present moment and seeing the kilesas arise so complicated?

Now I am being 50% a devil's advocate here - I dig textual studies and I care what the Pali canon says. But I can see how someone could possibly practice very well and not do either of those.
_/|\_
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

Dan74 wrote:Is paying attention to the present moment and seeing the kilesas arise so complicated?

Now I am being 50% a devil's advocate here - I dig textual studies and I care what the Pali canon says. But I can see how someone could possibly practice very well and not do either of those.
They could practice well and not do either of those, agreed. But only after they had learned some of the important teachings. I imagine someone trying to practice Dhamma without intellectual knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths and I don't see a pretty picture. :computerproblem:

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Dan74 »

Mkoll wrote:
Dan74 wrote:Is paying attention to the present moment and seeing the kilesas arise so complicated?

Now I am being 50% a devil's advocate here - I dig textual studies and I care what the Pali canon says. But I can see how someone could possibly practice very well and not do either of those.
They could practice well and not do either of those, agreed. But only after they had learned some of the important teachings. I imagine someone trying to practice Dhamma without intellectual knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths and I don't see a pretty picture. :computerproblem:

:anjali:
I think more people figure out the 4 Noble Truths and then much of the 8-Fold Noble Path as they go, then many here would seem to imagine, especially after some Dharma instruction.
_/|\_
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

Dan74 wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
Dan74 wrote:Is paying attention to the present moment and seeing the kilesas arise so complicated?

Now I am being 50% a devil's advocate here - I dig textual studies and I care what the Pali canon says. But I can see how someone could possibly practice very well and not do either of those.
They could practice well and not do either of those, agreed. But only after they had learned some of the important teachings. I imagine someone trying to practice Dhamma without intellectual knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths and I don't see a pretty picture. :computerproblem:

:anjali:
I think more people figure out the 4 Noble Truths and then much of the 8-Fold Noble Path as they go, then many here would seem to imagine, especially after some Dharma instruction.
Perhaps with a skilled teacher when one has no prior knowledge of Buddhism. But I would imagine that few people have that luxury.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by mikenz66 »

Mkoll wrote:
Dan74 wrote: I think more people figure out the 4 Noble Truths and then much of the 8-Fold Noble Path as they go, then many here would seem to imagine, especially after some Dharma instruction.
Perhaps with a skilled teacher when one has no prior knowledge of Buddhism. But I would imagine that few people have that luxury.
Are teachers who teach such basics as the 4NT really so hard to find? That hasn't been my experience. I live in a city of only a few hundred thousand people and I'm sure I could easily list a dozen or so places to go where such teachings would be part of the mix. Of course, only a couple would be Theravada, but I think Dan's point is that those basics are common to all traditions, including not only Mahayana and Vajrayana, but also secular ones.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

Of course if one is told about the 4NT and N8P directly one learns them that way.

I was talking about a situation where one figures the 4NT or N8P as an insight without being taught them or having read about them. One would need highly developed spiritual faculties and a highly skilled teacher.

For example Bahiya who reached arahantship without having even heard the 4NT and N8P. His mind was released with just one teaching from the Buddha.

And no teacher comes close to remotely close to the Buddha.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by mikenz66 »

Mkoll wrote:Of course if one is told about the 4NT and N8P directly one learns them that way.
Dan did say "after some Dharma instruction".

I guess how one views these issues depends on how one comes to the Dhamma. I didn't read any suttas until I'd been practising for almost a year, but of course my teachers talked about 4NT, N8P, hindrances, and so on. I also didn't have much idea of the difference between Theravada and Mahayana --- I just happened to turn up to a Thai Wat. I do enjoy reading and analysing suttas, but for me the personal instruction was the vital information.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

mikenz66 wrote:I guess how one views these issues depends on how one comes to the Dhamma. I didn't read any suttas until I'd been practising for almost a year, but of course my teachers talked about 4NT, N8P, hindrances, and so on. I also didn't have much idea of the difference between Theravada and Mahayana --- I just happened to turn up to a Thai Wat. I do enjoy reading and analysing suttas, but for me the personal instruction was the vital information.

:anjali:
Mike
My coming to the Dhamma was purely from an intellectual and book-reading standpoint and only later going to visit monks. For me, the vital information comes through book-learning.

So I think you're exactly right. :smile:

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Dan74 »

I guess the subject was scriptural authenticity, etc, and the point I was trying to make is that this is far less important to many practitioners than some people here seem to think. Basically, 'if it works, who cares if it was written by the Buddha or a disciple of a disciple?'
_/|\_
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by mikenz66 »

Mkoll wrote: My coming to the Dhamma was purely from an intellectual and book-reading standpoint and only later going to visit monks. For me, the vital information comes through book-learning.

So I think you're exactly right. :smile:
It's interesting how different different people's experiences with this is. And I can see why issues of authenticity would be viewed as supremely important if what they consider their key Dhamma information came though reading. Similarly, those of us for whom the key information (as we see it) came from personal instruction actually have difficulty believing that anyone gets anywhere by simply reading suttas without some personal instruction!

It is good to keep these differences in mind.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Dan74 »

Good point, Mike, and as it's been said - basics are common to all tradition, hence the possibility of liberation.

In the meantime, there are many pitfalls along the way, and our chance of finding our way around them (or out of them) is greatly increased by skillful guidance (and of course varies according to our kamma).
_/|\_
Post Reply