[flielagit]

Good post, rlp.

It is my opinion that Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach much of what is known as Mahayana Buddhism, but that these later revelations were written by later enlightened individuals (Buddhas/Arahants) and ascribed to Shakyamuni as a form of skillful means to lend credibility to the techniques and concepts developed within them. And most scholars would agree with you. However, he certainly didn't teach Theravada either.

This shouldn't really bother Mahayana practitioners though, because they believe in the Dharmakaya or the Vairocana Buddha, and the universality of Buddha nature within each sentient being. A Buddha is a Buddha is a Buddha, so to speak. So, as long as a teaching keeps in the spirit of the Buddha dharma, it shouldnt matter if it came from Shakyamuni Buddha or any other Buddha or Arahant or Bodhisattva. To use myth or even to disguise ones writing as the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha shouldn't be an issue so long as the one doing so is also truly a Buddha, and is using skillful means to deliver the message. I basically agree. Many traditions focus a lot more on buddhahood than on the actual teachings of the historical Buddha -- which I happen to think is a very good thing. However, about a billion problems would get solved if people would just call what they're doing post-Buddhism instead. Buddhism was founded by a historical individual who set up a number of very specific doctrines, rules, etc. It was his sangha. So calling what's not "true" Buddhism post-Buddhism makes a lot of sense to me. It's very hard to explain to people why some Tibetans say tantric sex is the only way to full enlightenment when the Buddha himself was celibate.