DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Mahayana and Theravada? Which did Shakyamuni teach? (my opinion)

**Morageort** · 11-23-2011, 09:24 AM

Except that it is disingenuous and this disingenuosity speaks volumes of those who would willingly instigate and perpetuate such lies - and let's be honest, that's what knowingly stuffing one's own words into the Buddha's (or any of the early arahants') mouth is.

If something is composed by someone else, they should have the integrity and honesty to be upfront about it, and let the audience decide whether they are prepared to take it as authoratative, on its own merits, and according to their own reason.

This criticism isn't exclusive to Mahayana either - Theravada is not free from such chicanery, as the above example of the Abhidhamma demonstrates.

All this is assuming you know and understand the motives of those involved, and that those motives were necessarily dishonest.

As various scholars have proposed, however, the early Mahayanists -- or, rather, the various groups of monks and nuns out of which Mahayana developed -- likely took it as a given that a meditator can attain visionary states in which the Buddha appears and provides teachings.

Couple this assumption with a strongly devotional type of practice, focused on the world-transcending qualities of the Buddha (as opposed to Shakyamuni the historical personage), and you have much of the basis already for what later became Mahayana, it seems to me.

11-23-2011, 09:24 AM	#24
Morageort Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 454 Senior Member	Except that it is disingenuous and this disingenuosity speaks volumes of those who would willingly instigate and perpetuate such lies - and let's be honest, that's what knowingly stuffing one's own words into the Buddha's (or any of the early arahants') mouth is. If something is composed by someone else, they should have the integrity and honesty to be upfront about it, and let the audience decide whether they are prepared to take it as authoratative, on its own merits, and according to their own reason. This criticism isn't exclusive to Mahayana either - Theravada is not free from such chicanery, as the above example of the Abhidhamma demonstrates. All this is assuming you know and understand the motives of those involved, and that those motives were necessarily dishonest. As various scholars have proposed, however, the early Mahayanists -- or, rather, the various groups of monks and nuns out of which Mahayana developed -- likely took it as a given that a meditator can attain visionary states in which the Buddha appears and provides teachings. Couple this assumption with a strongly devotional type of practice, focused on the world-transcending qualities of the Buddha (as opposed to Shakyamuni the historical personage), and you have much of the basis already for what later became Mahayana, it seems to me.
	Quote