Brian Ruhe and Representation

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

And the Lord said to Ananda: 'Ananda, it may be that you will think: The Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!" It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher.
At Bhoganagara the Lord stayed at the Ananda Shrine. And here he said to the monks: 'Monks, I will teach you four criteria. Listen, pay close attention, and I will speak.' 'Yes, Lord', replied the monks.

Suppose a monk were to say: {(1)"Friends, I heard and received this from the Lord's own lips: this is the Dhamma, this is the discipline, this is the Master's teaching" or "In such and such a place there is a [(2) community with elders and distinguised teachers, (3) many elders who are learned, or (4) one elder who is learned)}, then monks you should neither approve nor disapprove his words. Then, without approving or disapproving, his words and expressions should be carefully noted and compared with the Suttas and reviewed in the light of the discipline. If they, on such comparison and review, are found not to conform to the Suttas or the discipline, the conclusion must be: "Assuredly this is not the word of the Buddha, it has been wrongly understood by this monk", and the matter is to be rejected. But where on such comparison and review they are found to conform to the Suttas or the discipline, the conclusion must be: "Assuredly this is the word of the Buddha, it has been rightly understood by this monk."
-DN 16

: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 am not sure what point you are trying to make, Mkoll.
_/|\_
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Mkoll »

My point is that teachers can be deluded themselves or have been given bad information from their teachers. If one takes their instructions at face-value one may be headed down the wrong path and continue to spread bad information. The Pali Canon has been unchanged for more than 2000 years and closely matches many ancient Sanskrit and Chinese translations of the Buddha's teachings. Along with one's practice, it should serve as the fallback for judging a living person's teaching on the Dhamma.

: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 »

This is true as far as it goes, but any argument like this is a little circular in that we are relying on texts that were transmitted and transformed for hundreds of years before settling into the form that we have them today to justify what to do with those texts...

It's also a little ironic to cite the Mahaparinibbana sutta (DN16), since that's one of the suttas that is likely to have been added to over a long period, so if one subscribes to a textual-analysis approach it's one that would be looked on with suspicion.

One could also cite numerous suttas about choosing a teacher and asking advice from others...

I certainly find validation for what I've learned from various teachers in the suttas that I have read. However, even when working with the fixed Pali canon of suttas there can be disagreements over some doctrinal points, as we see quite often in discussions here. And when it comes to meditation techniques, the suttas are sufficiently general that almost any modern approach that I know of can easily find suttas to back it up.

Which, actually, I think it fine. It indicates to me that the Dhamma is quite robust, and that a variety of interpretations are possible without destroying the essence. Some will resonate more with particular people than others.

: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:This is true as far as it goes, but any argument like this is a little circular in that we are relying on texts that were transmitted and transformed for hundreds of years before settling into the form that we have them today to justify what to do with those texts...
Granted. But for me it's not an argument. I'm not trying to persuade anyone.
mikenz66 wrote:Which, actually, I think it fine. It indicates to me that the Dhamma is quite robust, and that a variety of interpretations are possible without destroying the essence. Some will resonate more with particular people than others.

:anjali:
Mike
:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3060
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Pondera »

"Brian Ruhe" - "The Theravada Forest Tradition in the Heart of the City". Well, that would have to be Downtown East side - and my buddy Boon lived above "Payless Meats". Which was nice. You could see Openhiemer park from his living room. No forest traditions of any Buddhist kind though - that there in that Oppenheimer park that is. Definitely recall a Buddhist temple across the way. Hmm.

He sounds crazy enough - I think I'll go to one of his talks. See what the fuss is about. :)

Any questions to pass along?

- P.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Maitri
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:43 am
Location: United States of America

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Maitri »

Hi Dan74,
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.
I don't disagree. I think this mode of thinking is very common throughout much of the Mahayana world. However, the important note to strike here is to ensure that people are given a choice; to be informed about the differences so they can make their own decision. If someone chooses the content over the history, then I think that's fine. But if that is what they believe simply because they don't know is entirely different. I don't agree that it is permissible to withhold such information because it could seem "sectarian".

I know Tibetan Buddhists who have no idea that Mahayana sutras came later and were quite surprised when I pointed out the conflicting narratives found therein concerning Bodhisattvas and the elder monastics, such a Ananda. They simply assumed it was"gospel" truth and an accurate representation of "Hinayana". These are Western educated people who simply were never told the historical background of these texts and therefore never had a reason to question them. It can't be expected that every Buddhist be a religious historian and scholar or that they will find out on their own.

Though I don't agree with his methods or presentation, I think Mr. Ruhe is onto something about widening this topic for wider inclusion and having a very honest discussion about these issues.
"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/
Maitri
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:43 am
Location: United States of America

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Maitri »

Pondera wrote:"Brian Ruhe" - "The Theravada Forest Tradition in the Heart of the City". Well, that would have to be Downtown East side - and my buddy Boon lived above "Payless Meats". Which was nice. You could see Openhiemer park from his living room. No forest traditions of any Buddhist kind though - that there in that Oppenheimer park that is. Definitely recall a Buddhist temple across the way. Hmm.

He sounds crazy enough - I think I'll go to one of his talks. See what the fuss is about. :)

Any questions to pass along?

- P.
Sure, ask him why he chooses to not accurately represent Mahayana traditions? Doesn't he think his argument or position for Theravada is strong enough that denigration of those traditions is not required?

Enjoy your visit! :spy:
"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/
Invincible_Summer
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:26 am

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Invincible_Summer »

http://www.examiner.com/article/meditat ... p-director

Comments?


I wonder if he pushes this line of thought in his meditation groups...
User avatar
Sokehi
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Sokehi »

As soon as new age comes around... count me out
Get the wanting out of waiting

What does womanhood matter at all, when the mind is concentrated well, when knowledge flows on steadily as one sees correctly into Dhamma. One to whom it might occur, ‘I am a woman’ or ‘I am a man’ or ‘I’m anything at all’ is fit for Mara to address. – SN 5.2

If they take what's yours, tell yourself that you're making it a gift.
Otherwise there will be no end to the animosity. - Ajahn Fuang Jotiko

https://www.youtube.com/user/Repeataarrr
Brian Ruhe
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:24 am

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Brian Ruhe »

I am Brian Ruhe and I just found these posts today, after four months because someone referred to this blog on a comment on my You Tube video, "What is Wrong with Buddhism". MY FIRST RESPONSE TO ALL OF YOU IS: The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about. So thanks for all the attention! Your comments are reasonable. I have taught that lecture for about twelve years. I feel that people have a right to be given a heads up about Buddhist history so that they have some hope of finding out for themselves how and why traditions condradict each other so much. In most of my classes people don't know what I think about this becasue I don't discuss it in a mindfulness meditation course.
Be well, happy and peaceful,
Brian Ruhe
--
Brian Ruhe author of | A Short Walk On An Ancient Path
|and Freeing the Buddha http://www.theravada.ca | [email protected]
youtube.com/user/BrianRuhe c. 778-232-2282 hm. 604-738-8475
Brian Ruhe
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:24 am

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Brian Ruhe »

I have read most of the posts by now, but not all. My response is that people are far more concerned about me, than Buddhism. You are not addressing the central arguements that I make in my "What is Wrong with Buddhism" You Tube video. It is that the very existence of the Buddha's teaching in the future that is being threatened by counterfeit teachings. People can't tell the difference. This issue is far more grave than Brian's Ruhe behavior in the video.

You also misquote Ajahn Sona. He never told me that Mara Made Mahayana. I got that line from a Buddhist Ph.D. student of Professor A. K. Warder at the U of Toronto. And Bandu didn't believe that himself. Ajahn Sona told me, "Many monks believe that." Quite wisely, you notice that he didn't answer the question and he didn't express what he believed. It's obviousluy an important matter but monks DON'T talk about this. I chose to do so for the benefit of others. The Buddha criticized all kinds of people and he certainly criticized wrong view. My suggestion is that you give some thought to truth. What is the truth? It's not enough for you to discuss Brian Ruhe's motivations. What about the true teachigs of the Buddha in the Pali suttas?
May you be well, happy and peaceful,
Brian
--
Brian Ruhe author of | A Short Walk On An Ancient Path
|and Freeing the Buddha http://www.theravada.ca | [email protected]
youtube.com/user/BrianRuhe c. 778-232-2282 hm. 604-738-8475
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by fivebells »

It really depends on who you're trying to reach, I guess. From an external perspective, your arguments aren't very convincing. E.g., don't take the Bodhisattva vow because you're vowing to postpone your own enlightenment, and things'll be much better if you achieve that. Better from a traditional Theravadin perspective, maybe, but that's just begging the question.

I mostly agree with your conclusions in the first 20 minutes, though. (I haven't watched beyond that.) I just think your rhetoric is a bit pointless.
Brian Ruhe
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:24 am

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Brian Ruhe »

Hi fivebells, I appreciate that you are the first person on this blog to give me a reply. And I appreciate your post. My intended audience in the classroom is a Theravada Buddhist audience. I made a video of the talk and poasted it on You Tube. That makes it more external, as you say. I can't control who sees it but I feel that history is a message of value for people, to discern differences. Much metta! Brian Ruhe
Brian Ruhe
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:24 am

Re: Brian Ruhe and Representation

Post by Brian Ruhe »

Dhammanando wrote:
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.



Thank you Venerable Dhammanando!
I agree with what you have stated. Divisive speech is acceptable if one has a wholesome intention, as I did in my video. I feel that people don't care enough to preserve the primacy of the Pali sutras.
Much Metta!
Brian
Post Reply