Why did you choose Theravada?

[Cafael Dust]

But I know a spade when I see one. And, all modesty aside, I know something about writing.

Now some texts I do understand only too well, but not on their own terms. Some texts use various devices known to advertisers, other religions, propaganda machines etc etc. They employ loaded questions, poisonings of the well and other ad-hominem logical fallacies to attack their opponents - confusing since often their opponents have vanished into history, leaving us with unbalanced writing. They employ tautologies, what I will call 'appeals to grandiosity of imagery', Emperor's New Clothes arguments (only wise/brave/high quality people can understand this...), chain letter type threats e.g. 'spread this sutra and you will be enlightened very soon, disparage it and you will die!'... (...idiots. I hate chain letters), and, oddly for Buddhism, homunculus arguments, to support their own poorly defined ideas, or actually, usually not their ideas but their desire to increase support for their sectarian missions.

[jcsuperstar]

are we still talking about the lotus sutra? i read somewhere that Sanskrit scholars think very little of it as a text and whomever wrote it must not have been very proficient in the language. but my own personal opinion was it just dragged on and on and never fully delivered. my zen master once asked me what i thought of it, and i said it only seems to teach that it is the best sutra ever but never really goes anywhere as far as really teaching anything. he agreed. i was so much more fond of sutra like the heart and diamond.

[pink_trike]

are we still talking about the lotus sutra? i read somewhere that Sanskrit scholars think very little of it as a text and whomever wrote it must not have been very proficient in the language. but my own personal opinion was it just dragged on and on and never fully delivered. my zen master once asked me what i thought of it, and i said it only seems to teach that it is the best sutra ever but never really goes anywhere as far as really teaching anything. he agreed. i was so much more fond of sutra like the heart and diamond.

Sanskrit scholars also think very little of the "The Buddha" as an actual person.

[tiltbillings]

I was just pointing out that without a very thorough understanding of how the Sutra was constructed, the specific use of metaphor and allegory, and more importantly, the cultural milieu within which it was constructed, it would be impossible to even consider the possibility of the grand conclusions you put forth.

Back up your claim.

[Mawkish1983]

Sanskrit scholars also think very little of the "The Buddha" as an actual person.

Do they? Well I think he's awesome... so there.

[pink_trike]

Sanskrit scholars also think very little of the "The Buddha" as an actual person.

Do they? Well I think he's awesome... so there.

Perhaps I should have underlined "actual" - meaning a flesh and blood person who lived and died. Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

[tiltbillings]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

[Mawkish1983]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

I'm keen to see this too my understanding was that the styles of the teachings in the Pali Canon were sufficiently similar to suggest a common teacher... but I may be wrong and no immediate source comes to mind. Anyway, does 'no evidence' = 'no existance'? I wonder how much evidence of your existence will be around in 2500 years time. Would "I woz ere, signed Buddha" etched into the Bodhi tree be sufficient?

Sorry, I'm being facetious.

[pink_trike]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not. If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

[pink_trike]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

I'm keen to see this too my understanding was that the styles of the teachings in the Pali Canon were sufficiently similar to suggest a common teacher... but I may be wrong and no immediate source comes to mind. Anyway, does 'no evidence' = 'no existance'? I wonder how much evidence of your existence will be around in 2500 years time. Would "I woz ere, signed Buddha" etched into the Bodhi tree be sufficient?

Sorry, I'm being facetious.

There are detailed, cross-referenced verification from different countries for very many people who lived during periods much earlier than the time the Buddha is generally believed by Buddhists to have lived. There is a notable absence/shortage of this kind of verification for "The Buddha"...verification that should be quite abundant given the number of words attributed to him.

[Cittasanto]

easy cop out, if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it!
Back up your claim, or don't claim!!

[Mawkish1983]

I wonder if the caustic atmosphere I am perceiving here is my own mental construction... I hope it is. I don't like a bad atmosphere, particularly in a forum such as this.

[pink_trike]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

I'm keen to see this too my understanding was that the styles of the teachings in the Pali Canon were sufficiently similar to suggest a common teacher...

They are sufficiently similar to suggest a common style of oral tradition...but this reflects nothing about the origin of the content.

[pink_trike]

if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it!

Wrong.

I could care less if there was ever an actual living "The Buddha". I'm interested in the practices and testing the teachings. Nothing more.

[Cittasanto]

if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it!

Wrong.

I could care less if there was ever an actual living "The Buddha". I'm interested in the practices and testing the teachings. Nothing more.

so your making claims that the buddha didn't exist based on what practice?

[pink_trike]

if it really didn't matter to you you wouldn't say it!

Wrong.

I could care less if there was ever an actual living "The Buddha". I'm interested in the practices and testing the teachings. Nothing more.

so your making claims that the buddha didn't exist based on what practice?

No, I didn't offer any opinion about whether the Buddha ever existed or not.

I said that scholars aren't able to find sufficient evidence to support such a claim and are increasingly less willing to accept "facts" put forth by institutional Buddhism regarding the Buddha's existence.

I didn't say that there was any practices that supported the opinion of scholars. I said that it is irrelevant to me whether the Buddha actually lived or not...my interest is only in the practices and testing the teachings.

[tiltbillings]

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not. If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

[pink_trike]

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

Again, I'll point out that it wasn't my claim...I didn't state an opinion either way.

Tilt, have you noticed that people claim on this board all time that there was an actual living Buddha? Likely you don't even give it a thought when they do - you, like most of them, read in buddhist books that he existed - no further verification needed. I've never heard you demand "Back up your claim" to any of them. So why the big fluff about a claim (not mine) that he may not have existed?

I realize that if you have a lot of emotion invested in the idea of a Buddha that actually lived that a suggestion by scholars that he may be a conceptual devise might be uncomfortable, but to me its pretty insignificant and not worth a mad dash to the bookshelves just to comfort you.

[tiltbillings]

Well, so much for your claim. Nothing here to take seriously, then, it would seem.

Again, I'll point out that it wasn't my claim...I didn't state an opinion either way. Tilt, have you noticed that people claim on this board all time that there was an actual living Buddha? I've never heard you demand "Back up your claim" to any of them. I realize that if you have a lot of emotion invested in the idea of a Buddha that actually lived that a suggestion by scholars that he may be a conceptual devise might be uncomfortable, but to me its pretty insignificant and not worth a mad dash to the bookshelves just to comfort you.

I do not need comfort. You are the one who made claim about what "Sanskrit" scholars say, and you are the one when asked, who refused to back it up, making your claim meaningless.

Just to be clear about what was said:

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it [emphasis added]...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

[pink_trike]

I do not need comfort. You are the one who made claim about what "Sanskrit" scholars say, and you are the one when asked, who refused to back it up, making your claim meaningless.

Just to be clear about what was said:

Increasingly, scholars are unable to find any solid evidence of it [emphasis added]...evidence that should be available if he actually lived and wasn't just a conceptual devise.

Back up your claim.

Too busy right now, and its irrelevant to me whether he lived or not.If it matters to you, do the research (outside of institutional Buddhism).

emphasis added...

I find it hard to believe that you're not aware of this ongoing debate between secular scholars and the Buddhist institution.