Now we are in a new thread.Pascal2 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:26 amWe are merely discussing if there is evidence enough about the claims of the historical origins of the SuttasSDC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:06 amI simply meant, did you ever offer the participants of this discussion a reason why you thought the conclusion of this investigation matters?Pascal2 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:39 am
I think you are making two mistakes here:
1) you are addressing me as he spoke person for this whole forum, which is not the case ("tell us", who is "us"?)
2) you are assuming that most people here agree with your assessment (which is in part mine as well) while I believe they do not. You joined the conversation late and people were and are probably not agreeing with you (and me) on several matters
I actually assume most people DO NOT agree with my assessment.
Your entire premise is mangled. It takes for granted many levels of cohesion among those involved with Buddhism that are simply nonexistent. Perhaps there are people who need to believe in historical figure who is responsible for all of this, but that is far from the significance described in the suttas about how this Path was discovered, and how that person is to be discovered and understood.
I would just like to know what you are offering and why? If you're being honest, then sure, you arrived at the obvious conclusion that there is no proof that one historical figure is responsible for this situation, but why do you think that matters to people? And no, it is no our choice what to do with this conclusion. I want to know where you think it applies.
If this discussion is not interesting for you, just go somewhere else to discuss other topics
Can you please tell me why you think these historical origins should matter?