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

**Jeffery** · 09-17-2010, 06:38 AM

Hello y'all:
FBM:
There's two ways I would answer your question. The first is the Four Reliances:

“Do not rely on individuals, rely on the teachings.
Do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning.
Do not rely on the adapted meaning, rely on the ultimate meaning.
Do not rely on intellectual knowledge, rely on wisdom.”

Hmm. Why would the later writers put new words in the long-dead Buddha's mouth if it weren't to rely on his personal fame?

The other factor is how you define the relationship between historicity and truth. If a particular Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra is proven to be written after the time of the Buddha, do the Buddhist teachings contained within the sutra become automatically invalid? Can the teachings still be useful, valuable, as a part of the continuum of Buddhist thought? If I were to run across a new "sutta" that depicted the Buddha telling me, correctly, how to install some new software in my Samsung computer, then the part about installing the software may be true, but the part where the Buddha is claimed to have said it would be pretty suspect, wouldn't it? As far as the Mahayana/Vajrayana sutras go, that's pretty much what seems to be the case. In the Pali sutta, Nibbana Sutta, I think, the Buddha denies having held anything back from his followers (nothing in his clenched fist, more or less). However, the Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions teach that he did exactly that: held the most important teachings back (to be somehow magically revealed from the land of the nagas centuries later). Vajrayana is particularly esoteric.

When I look at that claim and compare it to what I read in the Pali suttas, I feel pretty sure that the later writings are fictions, with new and often (not always) contradictory concepts purported to come from the Buddha's mouth. Regardless of whether the teaching is true or not, I don't see any justification for promoting the obvious lie that the historical Buddha said those things. The tone, focus and major themes in the later writings are so divergent from those in the Pali suttas. They promote the concept that the Buddha was actually immortal and is now in some hidden realm somewhere, that Buddha Nature, Buddha Mind, True Self, etc, are eternal and literally true facets of "ultimate" reality, which directly contradicts the original concepts that are found in the Pali Canon, the most reliably traceable to the historical Gautama.

Good luck to you, FBM, on your inquiries.
Metta to all,
Bill
Thanks, Bill! Cheers!

09-17-2010, 06:38 AM	#12
Jeffery Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 432 Senior Member	Hello y'all: FBM: There's two ways I would answer your question. The first is the Four Reliances: “Do not rely on individuals, rely on the teachings. Do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning. Do not rely on the adapted meaning, rely on the ultimate meaning. Do not rely on intellectual knowledge, rely on wisdom.” Hmm. Why would the later writers put new words in the long-dead Buddha's mouth if it weren't to rely on his personal fame? The other factor is how you define the relationship between historicity and truth. If a particular Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra is proven to be written after the time of the Buddha, do the Buddhist teachings contained within the sutra become automatically invalid? Can the teachings still be useful, valuable, as a part of the continuum of Buddhist thought? If I were to run across a new "sutta" that depicted the Buddha telling me, correctly, how to install some new software in my Samsung computer, then the part about installing the software may be true, but the part where the Buddha is claimed to have said it would be pretty suspect, wouldn't it? As far as the Mahayana/Vajrayana sutras go, that's pretty much what seems to be the case. In the Pali sutta, Nibbana Sutta, I think, the Buddha denies having held anything back from his followers (nothing in his clenched fist, more or less). However, the Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions teach that he did exactly that: held the most important teachings back (to be somehow magically revealed from the land of the nagas centuries later). Vajrayana is particularly esoteric. When I look at that claim and compare it to what I read in the Pali suttas, I feel pretty sure that the later writings are fictions, with new and often (not always) contradictory concepts purported to come from the Buddha's mouth. Regardless of whether the teaching is true or not, I don't see any justification for promoting the obvious lie that the historical Buddha said those things. The tone, focus and major themes in the later writings are so divergent from those in the Pali suttas. They promote the concept that the Buddha was actually immortal and is now in some hidden realm somewhere, that Buddha Nature, Buddha Mind, True Self, etc, are eternal and literally true facets of "ultimate" reality, which directly contradicts the original concepts that are found in the Pali Canon, the most reliably traceable to the historical Gautama. Good luck to you, FBM, on your inquiries. Metta to all, Bill Thanks, Bill! Cheers!
	Quote