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

**Vomazoono** · 07-17-2010, 04:22 AM

"Because of the students' capacity the Buddha mostly taught Hinayana-and very sensibly so, because people were suffering-but he also asked, "Do you just want a release from suffering, or do you want to understand the truth?""

So, there is no Sutta wherein the Buddha says "Cessation of suffering is nice, but there's more to do!" Quite to the contrary, the Buddha says that he teaches ONLY suffering and the cessation of suffering. The contradiction here is obvious.

This is the point of departure: the Mahayanist will contend that their sutras/vows/etc. are fuller, more complete, or some other thing (whence "maha"), but there is no reason to make this claim. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, that Mahayana sutras are temporally later than (at least the bulk of) the Nikayas.

In fact, a reconstructed Salistamba Sutra is evidence that what was to become the Mahayana view was a slow development around the turn of the common era, rather than a fully-formed dispensation extracted from this Heaven or that Pure Land or this Buddha or any such thing. It showcases the historicity of Mahayana, and it is therefore necessary to conclude that Mahayana is a later development.

This isn't a sectarian debate, by the way, but rather a textual one. Which texts do we accept as being authentic Dhamma, and which must we reject? By all measures the most accurate presentation of the Dhamma must come from the earliest texts (else the Buddha was someone who needed another person to later help him explain the Dhamma better, an impossible conclusion). Therefore, it is very unlikely - if not impossible - to have a later text explain the Dhamma more authentically than an earlier text. Thus, all Mahayana sutras are simply inferior Dhamma sources than earlier Suttas.

---
Or, do it the simple way: if the Dalai Lama can reincarnate with precision such that for centuries he was able to snag a Tibetan boy-form, why did not the Buddha, of infinite bodhisattva compassion, do the same, and thereby ensure his dispensation? It's because the whole structure of reincarnating bodhisattvas is not of the Dhamma.

07-17-2010, 04:22 AM	#6
Vomazoono Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	"Because of the students' capacity the Buddha mostly taught Hinayana-and very sensibly so, because people were suffering-but he also asked, "Do you just want a release from suffering, or do you want to understand the truth?"" So, there is no Sutta wherein the Buddha says "Cessation of suffering is nice, but there's more to do!" Quite to the contrary, the Buddha says that he teaches ONLY suffering and the cessation of suffering. The contradiction here is obvious. This is the point of departure: the Mahayanist will contend that their sutras/vows/etc. are fuller, more complete, or some other thing (whence "maha"), but there is no reason to make this claim. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, that Mahayana sutras are temporally later than (at least the bulk of) the Nikayas. In fact, a reconstructed Salistamba Sutra is evidence that what was to become the Mahayana view was a slow development around the turn of the common era, rather than a fully-formed dispensation extracted from this Heaven or that Pure Land or this Buddha or any such thing. It showcases the historicity of Mahayana, and it is therefore necessary to conclude that Mahayana is a later development. This isn't a sectarian debate, by the way, but rather a textual one. Which texts do we accept as being authentic Dhamma, and which must we reject? By all measures the most accurate presentation of the Dhamma must come from the earliest texts (else the Buddha was someone who needed another person to later help him explain the Dhamma better, an impossible conclusion). Therefore, it is very unlikely - if not impossible - to have a later text explain the Dhamma more authentically than an earlier text. Thus, all Mahayana sutras are simply inferior Dhamma sources than earlier Suttas. --- Or, do it the simple way: if the Dalai Lama can reincarnate with precision such that for centuries he was able to snag a Tibetan boy-form, why did not the Buddha, of infinite bodhisattva compassion, do the same, and thereby ensure his dispensation? It's because the whole structure of reincarnating bodhisattvas is not of the Dhamma.
	Quote