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

**suilusargaino** · 11-23-2011, 10:26 AM

Greetings,

Focus on what can not be known for sure many hundreds of years later seems a pointless exercise which even if could be ascertained would add nothing to the experience of the Dhamma (Dharma ). For me the value in the Pali Canon, as with the Heart Sutra et al, is not in who spoke it rather in the message.

It's a slippery slope on two counts...

Firstly, the next step beyond saying "we can't be 100% sure what the Buddha really said" is to neglect the scholarship that tells us what is most likely to be most ancient, and to regard anything said in the name of the Dharma as being on par in terms of legitimacy - thereby placing Buddhavacana on par with intentional and deliberate falsehoods, opening the door for any matter of shamanic, tantric voodooism in the name of "we can't be 100% sure that Buddha didn't really teach this". Thus, the rise of the sham Dhamma that Aloka-D's earlier sutta post warned us of.

Secondly, placing the value in "the message" means you are putting yourself in a position to make an evaluation of "the message". On what criteria would you do this? On what criteria would you determine that falsehoods have equal or more value than Buddhavacana? Until one is enlightened, how does one know if certain teachings are liberative, or if they just "feel good"? You need to go beyond to the other side to know... and that's where placing reliance on what the Buddha taught, as best as we can determine it, is far better than opening the doors to rank subjectivity and personal proclivity, nevermind ego-driven charlatans and liars.

As they say, it's good to have an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out the side in the process.

Metta,
Retro.

11-23-2011, 10:26 AM	#29
suilusargaino Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 593 Senior Member	Greetings, Focus on what can not be known for sure many hundreds of years later seems a pointless exercise which even if could be ascertained would add nothing to the experience of the Dhamma (Dharma ). For me the value in the Pali Canon, as with the Heart Sutra et al, is not in who spoke it rather in the message. It's a slippery slope on two counts... Firstly, the next step beyond saying "we can't be 100% sure what the Buddha really said" is to neglect the scholarship that tells us what is most likely to be most ancient, and to regard anything said in the name of the Dharma as being on par in terms of legitimacy - thereby placing Buddhavacana on par with intentional and deliberate falsehoods, opening the door for any matter of shamanic, tantric voodooism in the name of "we can't be 100% sure that Buddha didn't really teach this". Thus, the rise of the sham Dhamma that Aloka-D's earlier sutta post warned us of. Secondly, placing the value in "the message" means you are putting yourself in a position to make an evaluation of "the message". On what criteria would you do this? On what criteria would you determine that falsehoods have equal or more value than Buddhavacana? Until one is enlightened, how does one know if certain teachings are liberative, or if they just "feel good"? You need to go beyond to the other side to know... and that's where placing reliance on what the Buddha taught, as best as we can determine it, is far better than opening the doors to rank subjectivity and personal proclivity, nevermind ego-driven charlatans and liars. As they say, it's good to have an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out the side in the process. Metta, Retro.
	Quote