I have faith in the Sangha too, I don't think it's fair to assume I don't. Neither do I really think it's fair to make the judgement on what this discussion is and isn't about, when our meta discussion is quite separate from the OP.
The original discussion is not about Theravada vs Mahayana, and was never intended to be, it was me asking how Mahayana deal with the intellectual problem of justifying the ascription of the Sutras to the Buddha, when the evidence shows that they are probably not the word of the historical Buddha and furthermore and perhaps more important since it is more general: How the Mahayana generate their saddha when their texts and thus their doctrine was probably not spoken by the historical Buddha.
Finally I don't really know if it's a fair judgement to call into question the strength of my faith based on a single post you've read on a forum. In the depths of my ignorance and foolishness - my fall from grace - I never once gave up the idea that the Buddha as supremely enlightened, that the Dhamma was the path to enlightenment and that the Ariyan sangha was a living embodiment of both, and that the non-ariyan Sangha was a refuge unto itself for it's protectorship of Dhamma and the yogic way of life.
I didn't really ask you for you to reiterate how you feel about Nanavira and to express whether you feel he is what he says he is, to do so was in my opinion fairly gratuitous, when I brought it up simply to give you a parallel example of my thought process. Just as the original discussion was not Theravada VERSUS Mahayana, but simply one man's curiosity with how his Buddhist cousins deal with a conundrum, so too our meta discussion is not Nanavira Thera vs. Theravada. The willingness (in your previous post) to reduce everything to a polemic is quite at odds with my specific statement in my OP that I had no intention of this thread being such a thing.
Please do not mistake the severity of my words for me being upset, you haven't offended me - For offending me is a rather difficult thing to do these days. Nor is there any ill will, I still very much consider you with good will. I just suggest you should be more cautious in your judgements, I don't presuppose to judge the foundations of your practice or it's veracity. You could be spot on the mark and a sotapatti for all I know. But I don't know.
Last edited by BlackBird
on Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:51 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." -