[Agehoobionibe]

So, it's kind of a catch-22. If we begin with a premise that Buddha is the only one who can teach the way to enlightenment, that only his words are valid, then that means nobody else has become enlightened by his teachings otherwise their words would be equally valid, so this invalidates the premise. If we begin with the premise that Buddha's teachings are like flames being passed from one candle to many, then all of the flames are valid, and the idea that Buddha was not some divine god but rather an ordinary person who understood the true way of things that anyone can learn, and in turn teach, this is validated.

It would have made later Mahayana teachings more credible if they were just presented as later teachings by various people based on those of the Buddha, rather than all the stuff about being hidden in dragon realms, or spoken by bodhisattva deities up a mountain or whatever whilst the Buddha was meditating in a stupa etc etc. I just can't get my head around a lot of it because it reads like fantasy and fairytale fiction.

I also find it astonishing that people just accept that, for example, Asanga (3rd to 4th century AD)went to the Tushita Heaven to receive teachings from Maitreya the future Buddha. Good PR work to get followers though ! Sorry if some people think I'm outrageous for saying that, but I'm just being honest.