Buddhism and Jamshed Fozdar
Bruce Burrill
> "for correct info about the lord buddha read jamshed fozdars
books on the subject." <
There are two books by Jamshed Fozdar: THE GOD OF BUDDHA,
published by a small private company, and BUDDHA MAITRYA-
AMITABHA HAS APPEARED, published by a Baha'i publishing trust
(here after GB and BMA).
I have read both of Fozdar's book very carefully, tracking down every
reference to the Buddhist texts (real and otherwise) he uses, both in the
Pali (which I read) and Sanskrit (which I can muddled through with, and
neither of which Fozdar reads), and I have tracked down the English
sources for these texts which Fozdar used. What I found was not simply a
matter
somebody presenting a position with which I disagreed. I found that his
source material consisted of essentially only five books, mostly
anthologies. One of the primary books from which he quotes extensively
is a highly out of date "anthology" written in 1894. Given what is now
available in English translation (and what was available during his
penning of these books), his scholarship is less than barely adequate.
Fozdar, of whom it is hard not to say he disdainfully dismisses modern
scholars as well as Buddhists themselves as not having the correct
knowledge of the Buddha and his teachings, Fozdar sets out to tell us
what the Buddha really taught, and he does this -- and I can certainly
demonstrate this in detail -- by misrepresentation, distortion, and passing
off as Buddhist scriptures stuff that, while it serves his purposes, is
clearly not genuine Buddhist texts but was written in 1894 by Paul
Carus.
Carus, in his book (the GOSPEL OF THE BUDDHA), carefully lists
the source of each passage he uses from the various translation available
to him in tables in back of his book. There are a number of passages
identified as "EA," "explanatory addition" -- that is, the "EA" material
is bridge material written by Carus.
Fozdar takes this material clearly marked EA and passes it off as actual
Buddhist texts with phony citations as if it were from the Buddhist
canon. It also worth noting that Carus imposes on Buddhism in this
work his own monistic philosophy, and it is particularly in this "EA"
material that this most evident, though he also "reworks" legitimate texts
giving them a meaning something quite different from what was
originally said.
There is no way Fozdar could not have known that what he was quoting
was this "explanatory addition" material, since it is very clearly
labeled, and since he accurately quote Carus' citations elsewhere where
the texts are legitimate. Quite simply, Fozdar quoted this material and
gave it citations as if it were from the Pali Canon. Outside of the
question of whether the Carus material is an accurate reflection of
Buddhist thought (which it is mostly not), it is a very, very serious
ethical problem saying that here is a Buddhist text that supports his
position when it isn't a Buddhist text at all.
Let us look at an example of Fozdar's use of the Carus material:
In BMA. page 118, Fozdar states:
"At this juncture one may question whether Siddharta [sic] believed in
such an immortal soul, and the answer is an unequivocal 'Yes.' We have
only to refer to refer to the various Scriptures including the Pali Canon
to see Siddharta's clear assertion the He came to teach of the abundant
life of the immortality of the soul."
He immediately quotes this text to support this:
'The doctrine of the conquest of self. O Siha, is not taught to
destroy the souls of men, but to preserve them.'
This is also quoted on page 55 of GB, where he
specifically comments on this text:
"It is of interest to note that the Buddha here specifically acknowledges
the existence of the soul and also states that His doctrine is to ensure the
immortality of the soul.'
Fozdar cites this text as coming from the Pali text, the Mahavagga VI
31, but it really comes from Carus' GOSPEL OF THE BUDDHA,
chapter LI, verse 26, which is very clearly labeled in Carus' table of
reference as an explanatory addition, "EA." There is no mistaking this.
This passage is not from a Buddhist text and should not be labelled as
such.
And this is not an isolated incident. Fozdar makes much use of this
material. In BMA, the second dedication page, and pages 1, 7, 21, 35,
44, 47-8, 62, 64, 77, 103, 118, 130, 131, 153, 180-1, 193, 199, 208,
417-18, 430, 432, 462, and 484; and pages iii-iv, 12, 23, 24, 25, 49-50,
59, 66, 67-8, 73, 74-5, 76, 87, 111-13, 128, 131, 139, 148, and 154 of
GB we find texts quoted and labeled as Buddhist texts but are not.
This is not insignificant material in the amount or in the importance
Fozdar places on it, for in many instances he bases his arguments on this
stuff. If it were only a couple of instance, one could easily dismiss it,
but given the extent of it and how it was done -- that is, falsely labelling
this material as if it were legitimate Buddhist texts, it is very difficult
to
imagine that Fozdar could not have but known what he was doing. At
best it speaks of incompetence.
=====
While we are at it, let us take a look at one more instance of Fozdar's
scholarship.
On page 177 of BMA he quotes from the Anagatavamsa with the
addition of "of the Perfect Buddha":
"At the time when the Dispensation of the Perfect Buddha is falling into
oblivion, ... a 'miracle' like the Twin-miracle will teach the Dharma."
(The deletion and ellipsis are Fozdar's.) Fozdar comments on this,
"The sense is clear: the Dharma will be taught not by a single
'miracle' (Avatar), nor by two _separate_ 'miracles' ... but by the
'Twin-miracle...." BMA 282-3.
Fozdar states that "the contemporaneous appearance of Two Avatars,"
the Twin-miracle, will prevent false claim to Buddhahood, and by being
so unusual, it will demand our full attention. Fozdar spends the whole
of chapters 10, 11, 12, and 13 to establish that, as announced by the title
of chap 14, the Twin-miracle is manifest in the persons of the Bab and
Baha'u'llah.
The full sentence from the Anagatavamsa which Fozdar does actually
quote (but does not comment on directly) reads:
"At the time when the Dispensation is falling into (oblivion), all the
relics, coming from every place: from the abode of serpents and the
deva world and the Brahma-world, having gathered together in the space
around the great Bo-tree, having made a Buddha image, and having
performed a 'miracle' like the Twin-miracle, will teach Dhamma."
Parse this sentence: what is the subject, the verb, and the direct object?
"The relics will teach Dhamma."
Never mind that "relics" and "twin-miracle" have very specific
meanings within the Pali literature which Fozdar completely ignores for
his own inventive interpretations. If we follow Fozdar, not only don't
we need to consider the traditional meanings of particular words, we
also do not need to consider the grammatical structure of the sentence
in question in order find the true meaning of it:
"The Twin-miracle will teach the Dharma."
And this from a man who criticizes Buddhists and Buddhist scholars for
having deformed, to use his word, the true teaching of the Buddha.
And further, of this text, the Anagatavamsa, Fozdar states that this is the
"oldest passage" relating the decline of the Dhamma and the advent of
Maitreya "which can be attributed with any certainty to Siddharta [sic]
Himself." (BMA 250, 282) The source for this claim? It can only be
Fozdar's own inventiveness, and certainly not any extant scholarship
which attributes this work to a man named Kassapa around the end of
the 12th Century CE. There is no reason he could not have tracked
down this information.
This is unfortunately not a pretty picture, but Baha'is are not well served
by these books, and they need to understand that in reading these books,
they will not get an accurate picture of the Buddha and his teachings.
Bruce Burrill
Peter Terry
Dear Bruce:
I don't think you realize that when you attack the
scholarly credentials, the knowledge, the veracity
and the jugdment of a human being, any human
being, you are going to put off many of your listen-
ers? And if you attack a Baha'i in this way you
are going to put off many Baha'is? And if you
attack a Baha'i author who has rendered many
services to the Baha'i Faith, and whose books
have been read and appreciated by many Baha'is,
you are going to put off most Baha'is?
There is a saying attributed to the Buddha which
I like very much. It states that if you spit above
your head, the spit will fall on you. My impression
is that your discredit your arguments, your judg-
ment, your trustworthiness in the eyes of many
Baha'is because you attack Baha'i writers, Ba-
ha'i theological views, Baha'i texts.
Baha'is need to become well informed about
the Buddha and Buddhism in order to be effec-
tive teachers of many Buddhists. This principle
is set forth in letters written by and on behalf of
the Guardian, by 'Abdu'l-Baha in The Secret of
Divine Civilization, and besides, it just makes
good sense. However, many Buddhists have
already embraced the Baha'i Faith while others
have become close friends of the Faith without
ever encountering a single Baha'i who is really
well informed about their religion. The Baha'i
Faith is a missionary religion, and so the bot-
tom line for Baha'is is not to be understood by
Buddhists but to persuade Buddhists to be-
come Baha'is! Jamshed Fozdar's books have
worked fairly well, we are told, at persuading
some Buddhists to become Baha'is.
Are there inconsistencies and inaccuracies
in these books? There well may be. You will
find a much readier audience for a discussion
of such inconsistencies and inaccuracies if you
go at this piecemeal, and discuss every piece
patiently and with an open mind and a kindly
and compassionate heart. Wouldn't the Buddha
approve of such an approach?
With warm regards, Peter
dmcadam
Dear Peter and friends-
I congratulate you Peter for getting across an important set of ideas in
the spirit of fellowship and accord with both the teachings of the Buddha
and Baha'u'llah. I am always turned off by any argument that seems to
attempt to add more power to itself by downing others and their opinions.
With such an ancient religion and lack of evidence we can only surmise
many things and should be careful in how we collaborate to independently
investigate truth. After all it is our goal as scholars to unveil the
truth, not to argue and defeat each others points. By collaborating in
the spirit of fellowship and humbleness we might find a third
understanding beyone our two views and thus render each other and our
friends a service.
God bless,
doug
patk...@my-deja.com
In article <FQzngD.A....@bounty.bcca.org>,
> (numerous substantiating details snipped)
Bruce, thanks for bringing to light some of the problems with "The God
of Buddha" and "Buddha Maitrya-Amitabha Has Appeared". I think this
illustrates the wisdom of looking into a matter with one's own eyes and
not the eyes of thy neighbor.
"Relics" and "Twin-miracle" are likely to be understood rather
differently by Baha'is and Buddhists, even though the denotations are
similar. For an American, the boot on a car is around the CV joint;
for a Brit, the boot is between the rear window and rear bumper.
Though the car boot is one or the other, is it possible that relics, or
reminents could have two valid meanings?, or that Twin-miracle might
likewise have twin meaning?
I think it would be good if books on the Buddha with a Baha'i slant
could present both meanings.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ROHANI ART
I just wanted to say that as a Baha'i I was not at all offended by Bruce's
critique of Fozdar's work. In fact, I would like to see more and think it would
be useful if such a review was published in a Baha'i source. I think its very
important for Baha'is to know how work about Buddhism written by Baha'is is
viewed by Buddhists. I also think that Baha'is need to improve their
scholarship, as academic rigor often raises questions of ethics. I would be
interested to know if Fozdar ever responded to criticisms such as Bruce raised.
I think Baha'is need to become well informed about the Buddha and Buddhism not
just in order to be effective teachers of the Baha'i Faith, but to be better
Baha'is and servants of humanity. The diversity of Buddhist thought and
philosophy, as with Islam, Christianity, humanism, etc., all serves to enrich
our understanding of reality and Baha'u'llah's teachings. Peter wrote:
<<The Baha'i Faith is a missionary religion, and so the bottom line for Baha'is
is not to be understood by Buddhists but to persuade Buddhists to become
Baha'is! Jamshed Fozdar's books have worked fairly well, we are told, at
persuading some Buddhists to become Baha'is.>>
I think the bottom line is more than this. We have a mandate to associate in a
spirit of fellowship with all faith communities, to treat people respectfully,
and to be intellectually credible, to pursue the truth, not to distort it to
persuade others to join us. Associating in a spirit of fellowship is going to
require that Baha'is listen thoughtfully to the objections of others,
especially about such matters as how we represent what they regard as their
religion! I'm not arguing that we can please anyone or that we should give up
our own teachings. That's not necessary. But it is entirely possible for Baha'i
authors to write incorrect books, even offensive books, and that persons might
join the Faith on account of faulty arguments. If Fozdar's books have
problems--and it seems that many Baha'i scholars think they do, not just our
Buddhist friends--then we should have the integrity to acknowledge this and to
do better work.
I see Bruce bringing up too issues here, the accuracy of Fozdar's work--which
I think many Baha'is and Baha'i scholars are in agreement with Bruce on this
question--and second, the integrity of Fozdar. Concerning the integrity
question, Bruce mentions false labeling of data, which he suggest may just be
incompetence, and invention of certain claims (e.g., antiquity of Anagatavamsa
text).
I think they may be a certain zealous psychology behind Fozdar's work that
explains why he is less forthright about the weakness of his research and
analysis. His objective is to persuade, and at the time he was writing, Fozdar
must have felt that he was handling a large body of material; that is, doing a
major work unequaled at his time, and from this he may have derived much
confidence. As popular apologetics and as interpretation of scripture, Fozdar
is no worse than many interpretive books produced in every religious community.
Fozdar's work will be superceeded by better work. But I don't wish to cover
over the problems. I'm wondering if Bruce can tell us more about how Fozdar
labeled the data, what seems to be the logic or methodology behind the
labeling. Also, can we rule out that Fozdar's claim about the antiquity of
Anagatavamsa text was a simple misunderstanding rather than an invention?
Fozdar seems to believe that Buddhists corrupted the teachings of the Buddha
as found in Buddhist sacred texts. I think this assumption is common in the
Baha'i community and is based on a misreading of Baha'i texts. Whether true in
fact or not, it does not seem to be a Baha'i teaching. All I think we can be
certain of is that `Abdu'l-Baha regarded idol worship as incompatible with
Jesus' and Buddha's original teachings, that is, He regarded such popular
practice as an innovation or corruption of the original orientation of these
religions. There is no statement that Buddhist scripture is corrupted at all or
that Buddhism has erred beyond this one basic issue, and no more than
iconaclasm in Chrisianity. That is, a number of errors may exist in Buddhism,
but only idol worship is mentioned and that in itself is a complex question
that may not concern much of what appears to some non-Buddhists as idolatry.
Because of this misunderstanding, I think Fozdar and others have done a
disservice to Buddhists and Baha'is in their treatment of Buddhism. That is,
they not only misunderstand Buddhism but Baha'i teaching as well.
Warm regards
Michael
dmcadam
Hi Michael-
Forgive a non-scholar for interrupting this dialogue but to me having a
literary work go through Baha'i Review satisifies me the author has not
misrepresented our beloved Faith. He may also make mistakes in his or
her research but that does not necessarily translate to me that ethics
are diminished or neglected and suspecting such a thing is to me also
contrary to Baha'i teachings for we truly do not know the intentions of
others.
Also associating in fellowship and having respect for others and their
religions to me has not suffered a bit in this dialogue, as far as I have
at least perused. A scholarly disagreement with conclusions or evidence
does not necessarily mean to me the scholar is unethical, or has not
shown due respect or is not associating with fellowship with others.
If I were to believe that somehow imperfect, fallible and limited human
beings were able to preserve uncorrupted the text of their ancient
religions, a time when technology did not permit the greatest ease of
doing so, I would have to throw out the principle of progressive
Revelation that Baha'u'llah teaches and if He is infallible as we Baha'is
believe then we also would be doing away with other things we did not
agree with. The whole foundation of the Faith would crumble just
because masses of people agree with humanly inspired authors instead of
having certitude in the Manifestations.
According to my understanding there are certain hidden mysteries, even
some meanings that are locked until the time of the end and the like and
it is the subsequent Prophet that unlocks these, explains them to us etc.
Or on the other hand we may need ourselves to be so spiritually
developed these mysteries become illumined to us.
If I must accept the notion Mr. Fozdar made mistakes or in any way is
unethical then I must also accept that your opinion, and that of others
in the scholarly world from both Baha'i and Buddhist communities are also
fallible and possibly unethical.
I simply see no scholarly benefit from making such accusations or even
alledging the same. What I would like to read is evidence and humble
conclusions being offered not a critical analisis of character.
with respect,
doug