waimengwan wrote:Shakyamuni is not an Arhat right?
As a starting point, I think historicity and the use of words like "authentic" is probably a good support in practice. But as practice progresses and experience builds, I think the important part is what works ... what you are really willing to investigate right down to the ground. Can the Dharma be limited in some way? I doubt it.
It's not a matter of better or worse, for my money ... it's what actually works, what actually takes you home, what actually instills your own peaceful life.
BlackBird wrote:So so far I've read that the answers have been to solve the dilemma by avoiding thinking about it? Disregard it because it's not important whether the Buddha actually spoke it, if it works it works?
Forgive me if I am reading the wrong thing into these responses, that is not my intention.
BlackBird wrote:For me I am quite a skeptic Dan, so in order for me to believe something, it has to be factual, and The Buddha being a real being who was really enlightened is the key to the lock for me so to speak - The whole premise for me rests on the idea that he was there, enlightened, and thus was the proof for my pudding. But thanks for your clarification I am starting to understand your perspective now
taintless wrote:Ok, well said.
Your issue here is that your faith in the Buddha's teachings, stems from their historical facticity, and not their validity.
In other words, if someone said to you: go here, make merit, do good, be virtuous and enjoy the fruits thereof. But you found out that the person was not "real".
Then you would not follow his advice, but say someone said: go here, make demerit, do evil, be immoral and suffer the consequences. And you found out this person was real.
Then you would follow his advice?
Which is wiser, to follow some teaching based on the idea that it is beneficial, or to follow some teaching based on the idea that it was historically "true".
taintless wrote:But their historical validity do not prove that he says is true.
It merely proves that he said it. His "historical existence" does nothing to justify what he said.
How then do you plan to prove that his teachings culminate in what he said they did?
BlackBird wrote:If I found out tomorrow that the Buddha wasn't real. I would probably lose most faith in the teachings, and no longer consider myself a Buddhist.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], robdog and 5 guests