DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Anamehuskeene** · 10-07-2011, 11:39 AM

Hi all you lovelies. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Am very time poor, but impressed by all the discussion our question has provoked. To put our quote into context, here is a quote from the workbook which is devised and set for us by the examining body OCR:

"Are Buddhist scriptures revealed texts?

In most religions, scriptures are considered sacred because they contain the truths revealed by God. Since Buddhists do not believe in a creator God, their scriptures are not considered to be divinely revealed.

This statement presumes a "divine entiry".

Some may therefore question whether they can have the same status and authority as scriptures in other traditions. As does this one. But the Buddha's teachings carry authority by their veracity, rather than an appeal to a supposed divine "authority". The problem with scriptures and ethical systems that hang on appeals to divine authorities is that they are built on houses of cards. If belief in the supposed divine authority is shaken, if doubt arises, the scriptures and ethical systems that are based upon the belief in a divine authority fall with that belief. A "crisis of faith" becomes a crisis of ethics as well. Not so with the Buddha's teachings, which hold their veracity whether one believes that there are divine entities or not.

Although Buddhist scriptures are not revealed by God.... This statement presumes the existence of such an entity.

....they might be considered to be revealed by the Buddha. Perhaps, in that way. But the idea of "revealed" texts or scriptures seems very much a fallacious Appeal to Authority in the first place.

Certainly, early scriptures such as the sutta pitaka of the Pali Canon will be viewed in this way. Since the Buddha is a human being, are they still regarded as revealed texts, i.e. texts that reveal ultimate truths that may otherwise be inaccessible? Real can of worms here. Define "ultimate truths". This phrase and the distinction that is made here of the Buddha being a human being (rather than a pre-supposed divine being of some sort) seem to load the question. The Buddha did figure out some relevant "truths" about human nature. But the question seems to play musical definitions with "revealed text", though the idea of "divine revelation" seems to be waiting or hiding in the wings nonetheless.

Before revealing the dhamma (truths or teachings) which are recorded in the texts, he had gained enlightenment. The Buddha did not speak of "enlightenment". This was a later contrivance. The Buddha spoke of "Nibbana" (Sanskrit: Nirvana), the "cooling" of the "fires" of suffering.

He was therefore able to access ultimate truths that are hidden from most people. Again, this idea of "ultimate" really needs to be clearly defined and explained. The idea of gravity was "hidden" from most people for a long time as well, as was the idea that the planet is round and not flat (something the Tibetans have only recently discovered). Does this hidden/un-hudden-ness make these "revealed ultimate truths" as well?

It could therefore be argued that the texts should be seen as revelations. As such the scriptures are highly respected. They are often kept on stands or shelves, and would not be placed on the floor by most Buddhists. Superstitions abound. But at the same time, even now books such as the Nikayas are quite expensive and rather rare, and thus should perhaps be taken better care of than would be usual, at least for someone like me who is hard on everything...

The Buddha did, however, feel that these truths were accessible to others if they followed the correct paths, and he encouraged Buddhists to test his teachings against their own experiences, only accepting them if they were found to be true by other means. This has led to an open and critical approach towards the teachings within the scriptures of Buddhism. A much better test of the "status and authority" of the claims and scriptures of any and all religions, by the way.

FOR DEBATE

What do we mean by ‘divine’? AHHHH -- the idea of "Divine" WAS lurking in the wings!

[quote[
If Buddhist scriptures are not revealed by God, can they be regarded as divine? [/quote]

Presupposition of a god-entity here again. But the real question is: does "divine" really matter? Or is "divine" just a fallacious Appeal to supposed Authority? THAT is a better question.

Any way you cut it, though, one could not call Buddhist scriptures "divine" if "divine" means "revealed by God". Not sure that they could be by any definition of "divine".

If Buddhist scriptures are not divinely revealed, can they have the same status and importance as scriptures in other religions? Well, here is the meat and potatoes. Since the Buddha's liberative teachings are universal, timeless, without recourse to superstition or speculative view, and demonstrably effective for any and all, no matter what age or culture, it should be patently obvious that they have far more status and importance than scriptures of other religions that are built on the houses of cards of Appeal to Authority and superstition.

How are the scriptures used and studied? Buddhism is a vast tradition, and as such, the use of the scriptures varies tremendously between different Buddhist." This is true. The liberative teachings of the Buddha are best studied objectively and critically, carefully and methodically, and examined both as individual discourses and in relation to each other. They were certainly laid out that way, and there is far more to each of them than meets the eye or can be gleaned from a casual or inattentive skimming.

10-07-2011, 11:39 AM	#23
Anamehuskeene Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 432 Senior Member	Hi all you lovelies. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Am very time poor, but impressed by all the discussion our question has provoked. To put our quote into context, here is a quote from the workbook which is devised and set for us by the examining body OCR: "Are Buddhist scriptures revealed texts? In most religions, scriptures are considered sacred because they contain the truths revealed by God. Since Buddhists do not believe in a creator God, their scriptures are not considered to be divinely revealed. This statement presumes a "divine entiry". Some may therefore question whether they can have the same status and authority as scriptures in other traditions. As does this one. But the Buddha's teachings carry authority by their veracity, rather than an appeal to a supposed divine "authority". The problem with scriptures and ethical systems that hang on appeals to divine authorities is that they are built on houses of cards. If belief in the supposed divine authority is shaken, if doubt arises, the scriptures and ethical systems that are based upon the belief in a divine authority fall with that belief. A "crisis of faith" becomes a crisis of ethics as well. Not so with the Buddha's teachings, which hold their veracity whether one believes that there are divine entities or not. Although Buddhist scriptures are not revealed by God.... This statement presumes the existence of such an entity. ....they might be considered to be revealed by the Buddha. Perhaps, in that way. But the idea of "revealed" texts or scriptures seems very much a fallacious Appeal to Authority in the first place. Certainly, early scriptures such as the sutta pitaka of the Pali Canon will be viewed in this way. Since the Buddha is a human being, are they still regarded as revealed texts, i.e. texts that reveal ultimate truths that may otherwise be inaccessible? Real can of worms here. Define "ultimate truths". This phrase and the distinction that is made here of the Buddha being a human being (rather than a pre-supposed divine being of some sort) seem to load the question. The Buddha did figure out some relevant "truths" about human nature. But the question seems to play musical definitions with "revealed text", though the idea of "divine revelation" seems to be waiting or hiding in the wings nonetheless. Before revealing the dhamma (truths or teachings) which are recorded in the texts, he had gained enlightenment. The Buddha did not speak of "enlightenment". This was a later contrivance. The Buddha spoke of "Nibbana" (Sanskrit: Nirvana), the "cooling" of the "fires" of suffering. He was therefore able to access ultimate truths that are hidden from most people. Again, this idea of "ultimate" really needs to be clearly defined and explained. The idea of gravity was "hidden" from most people for a long time as well, as was the idea that the planet is round and not flat (something the Tibetans have only recently discovered). Does this hidden/un-hudden-ness make these "revealed ultimate truths" as well? It could therefore be argued that the texts should be seen as revelations. As such the scriptures are highly respected. They are often kept on stands or shelves, and would not be placed on the floor by most Buddhists. Superstitions abound. But at the same time, even now books such as the Nikayas are quite expensive and rather rare, and thus should perhaps be taken better care of than would be usual, at least for someone like me who is hard on everything... The Buddha did, however, feel that these truths were accessible to others if they followed the correct paths, and he encouraged Buddhists to test his teachings against their own experiences, only accepting them if they were found to be true by other means. This has led to an open and critical approach towards the teachings within the scriptures of Buddhism. A much better test of the "status and authority" of the claims and scriptures of any and all religions, by the way. FOR DEBATE What do we mean by ‘divine’? AHHHH -- the idea of "Divine" WAS lurking in the wings! [quote[ If Buddhist scriptures are not revealed by God, can they be regarded as divine? [/quote] Presupposition of a god-entity here again. But the real question is: does "divine" really matter? Or is "divine" just a fallacious Appeal to supposed Authority? THAT is a better question. Any way you cut it, though, one could not call Buddhist scriptures "divine" if "divine" means "revealed by God". Not sure that they could be by any definition of "divine". If Buddhist scriptures are not divinely revealed, can they have the same status and importance as scriptures in other religions? Well, here is the meat and potatoes. Since the Buddha's liberative teachings are universal, timeless, without recourse to superstition or speculative view, and demonstrably effective for any and all, no matter what age or culture, it should be patently obvious that they have far more status and importance than scriptures of other religions that are built on the houses of cards of Appeal to Authority and superstition. How are the scriptures used and studied? Buddhism is a vast tradition, and as such, the use of the scriptures varies tremendously between different Buddhist." This is true. The liberative teachings of the Buddha are best studied objectively and critically, carefully and methodically, and examined both as individual discourses and in relation to each other. They were certainly laid out that way, and there is far more to each of them than meets the eye or can be gleaned from a casual or inattentive skimming.
	Quote