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

**klubneras** · 10-26-2011, 09:31 PM

As Guang Xing points out though, the origin of these Mahāsaṃghika doctrines can be traced to various passages in the nikayas -- and particularly suttas such as MN 123 and Snp 3.11, which clearly present the Buddha as a world-transcending, magical being. Not to mention numerous references in the suttas to supranormal powers and conversations with gods and devas, and the assertion in DN 16 that the Buddha could extend his lifetime to last an entire kalpa.

Um, Lazy, the Buddha did not speak MN123. Not a word of it. Snp 3.11 is clearly mythic poetry, i.e., flowery nonsense that the Buddha did not teach. Again you and your source are cherry-picking and using mythical interpretations and the works of poets, disciples and outsiders to justify outright bastardizations of the Buddha's teachings. No surprise here.

If anything, it appears the Mahasaṃghika were too orthodox, in that they took all kinds of mythological material found in the scriptures literally. That is not "orthodoxy". That is presumptuous misrepresentation.

We can see that the tension between the "rational" and "religious" aspects of Buddhism goes back very far. So do many of the doctrinal differences that we still argue about today .

It does, but the Buddha fell on the other side of the rational/empirical vs. religious/superstitious argument from you.

And neither are the Theravada and Sarvastivadin texts from which we get the story about the Mahasaṃghikas having precipitated the schism at the Second Buddhist Council. But the schism occurred there. And the mahasamghikas clearly fall on the wrong side of the Four Great References.

10-26-2011, 09:31 PM	#23
klubneras Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	As Guang Xing points out though, the origin of these Mahāsaṃghika doctrines can be traced to various passages in the nikayas -- and particularly suttas such as MN 123 and Snp 3.11, which clearly present the Buddha as a world-transcending, magical being. Not to mention numerous references in the suttas to supranormal powers and conversations with gods and devas, and the assertion in DN 16 that the Buddha could extend his lifetime to last an entire kalpa. Um, Lazy, the Buddha did not speak MN123. Not a word of it. Snp 3.11 is clearly mythic poetry, i.e., flowery nonsense that the Buddha did not teach. Again you and your source are cherry-picking and using mythical interpretations and the works of poets, disciples and outsiders to justify outright bastardizations of the Buddha's teachings. No surprise here. If anything, it appears the Mahasaṃghika were too orthodox, in that they took all kinds of mythological material found in the scriptures literally. That is not "orthodoxy". That is presumptuous misrepresentation. We can see that the tension between the "rational" and "religious" aspects of Buddhism goes back very far. So do many of the doctrinal differences that we still argue about today . It does, but the Buddha fell on the other side of the rational/empirical vs. religious/superstitious argument from you. And neither are the Theravada and Sarvastivadin texts from which we get the story about the Mahasaṃghikas having precipitated the schism at the Second Buddhist Council. But the schism occurred there. And the mahasamghikas clearly fall on the wrong side of the Four Great References.
	Quote