DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Where do you stand on the historicity of the Mahayana suttas?

**Si8jy8HN** · 09-16-2010, 06:21 PM

There is that. If one accepts the latter teachings - or the later traditions based on latter disciples' interpretations of the teachings (consider alternative motivations wrt hijacking the Buddha's name/fame in order to bolster one's own appeal)- that contradict the teachings that are most reliably connected to the historical Gautama's words, how is one to reasonably claim to be a Buddhist?

By irrationally attaching to the words/traditions of one's favorite "feel-good" source(s), or through uncompromising scrutiny? The former tends towards blind acceptance of dogma that the individual has not yet, and perhaps may never, experience. The latter tends towards taking immediate experience as authoritative, and leaving the words of this or that teacher as secondary, tertiary, etc, interpretations. Even the teachings in the Pali Canon are, at best, secondary sources.

The primary source is direct experience. If you haven't directly experienced a Pure Land or Buddha Nature, etc, then why believe in them? Belief is a refuge for those who have not seen, as far as I can tell. There's no shame in not having 'seen', but blind attachment to the teachings of this or that "master" or "teacher" (including the Buddha) seems to me to be an impediment, a roadblock to seeing things as they are. Of course, I may be wrong.

09-16-2010, 06:21 PM	#9
Si8jy8HN Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	There is that. If one accepts the latter teachings - or the later traditions based on latter disciples' interpretations of the teachings (consider alternative motivations wrt hijacking the Buddha's name/fame in order to bolster one's own appeal)- that contradict the teachings that are most reliably connected to the historical Gautama's words, how is one to reasonably claim to be a Buddhist? By irrationally attaching to the words/traditions of one's favorite "feel-good" source(s), or through uncompromising scrutiny? The former tends towards blind acceptance of dogma that the individual has not yet, and perhaps may never, experience. The latter tends towards taking immediate experience as authoritative, and leaving the words of this or that teacher as secondary, tertiary, etc, interpretations. Even the teachings in the Pali Canon are, at best, secondary sources. The primary source is direct experience. If you haven't directly experienced a Pure Land or Buddha Nature, etc, then why believe in them? Belief is a refuge for those who have not seen, as far as I can tell. There's no shame in not having 'seen', but blind attachment to the teachings of this or that "master" or "teacher" (including the Buddha) seems to me to be an impediment, a roadblock to seeing things as they are. Of course, I may be wrong.
	Quote