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

**adactthrd** · 09-19-2010, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by stuka this being the enlightenment of all sentient beings."

This has been the epitome of Mahayana and has sounded very Christan since ever; it has nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. So I think that if one is compelled to become a redeemer of the world, the teachings of Jesus Christ are much more achievable. I've come to consider the whole Bodhisatva Ideal as a bit of advertising. Meaningless ear-candy designed to paint its adherents as self-sacrificing saints. If one person could enlighten another and was infinitely compassionate, then the Buddha would've enlightened everybody when he was alive.

At the same time, the liberative teachings of the Buddha stand on their own and are not in need of any expansion, and especially any embellishment.

Absolutely... This is not just because Stuka has written it... it is an experience that happens when one, honestly, sits down and tries to understand the Buddha Dhamma. The teachings are meant for practice not for philosophical elaborations and intellectual entanglements that have ended in what is called "Traditions". The sole reading of the original teachings compels us to practice not to entanglements. But it is needed a honest disposition for understanding.

Yep, this thread may seem as if it's based on the insistence that the Pali suttas are the "true word of the Buddha" or some such, but it's not. It's not even based on the assumption that the "true word of the Buddha" would be true just because Gautama said it.

The thread is based on the observation that it's ludicrous (to me) to be so credulous as to believe that the stories that were written centuries after the Buddha's death, with words literally attributed to the Buddha that have such divergent focus and tone from that of the Pali suttas, and that are nonetheless defended as the "true teachings" that were withheld until mankind was ready.

Even the Abhidhamma Pitaka, as pointed out, shouldn't be taken as authoritative, as much of it is deeply concerned with cosmology and such that the Buddha as portrayed in the Sutta Pitaka repeatedly said wasn't worth investigating.

So the question remains, can anyone defend the claims of historicity (not the truth or potential training value) of the Mahayana suttas?

09-19-2010, 08:32 AM	#18
adactthrd Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 434 Senior Member	Originally Posted by stuka this being the enlightenment of all sentient beings." This has been the epitome of Mahayana and has sounded very Christan since ever; it has nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. So I think that if one is compelled to become a redeemer of the world, the teachings of Jesus Christ are much more achievable. I've come to consider the whole Bodhisatva Ideal as a bit of advertising. Meaningless ear-candy designed to paint its adherents as self-sacrificing saints. If one person could enlighten another and was infinitely compassionate, then the Buddha would've enlightened everybody when he was alive. At the same time, the liberative teachings of the Buddha stand on their own and are not in need of any expansion, and especially any embellishment. Absolutely... This is not just because Stuka has written it... it is an experience that happens when one, honestly, sits down and tries to understand the Buddha Dhamma. The teachings are meant for practice not for philosophical elaborations and intellectual entanglements that have ended in what is called "Traditions". The sole reading of the original teachings compels us to practice not to entanglements. But it is needed a honest disposition for understanding. Yep, this thread may seem as if it's based on the insistence that the Pali suttas are the "true word of the Buddha" or some such, but it's not. It's not even based on the assumption that the "true word of the Buddha" would be true just because Gautama said it. The thread is based on the observation that it's ludicrous (to me) to be so credulous as to believe that the stories that were written centuries after the Buddha's death, with words literally attributed to the Buddha that have such divergent focus and tone from that of the Pali suttas, and that are nonetheless defended as the "true teachings" that were withheld until mankind was ready. Even the Abhidhamma Pitaka, as pointed out, shouldn't be taken as authoritative, as much of it is deeply concerned with cosmology and such that the Buddha as portrayed in the Sutta Pitaka repeatedly said wasn't worth investigating. So the question remains, can anyone defend the claims of historicity (not the truth or potential training value) of the Mahayana suttas?
	Quote