Well, we, as Theravādins, don't do such things; we leave things as they are, even if it costs something at times.

[wenjaforever]

I just kinda dislike characters like avalokitesvara seems pretty much made up. As long as we stick with tripitaka we should be good I suppose.

[Eko Care]

I just kinda dislike characters like avalokitesvara seems pretty much made up. As long as we stick with tripitaka we should be good I suppose.

Of course. We should be skeptical where we should but not everywhere.

Specially there are 8 places where we should not be skeptical such as Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, ...

[Sam Vara]

I just kinda dislike characters like avalokitesvara seems pretty much made up. As long as we stick with tripitaka we should be good I suppose.

Of course. We should be skeptical where we should but not everywhere.

Specially there are 8 places where we should not be skeptical such as Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, ...

One of the problems of sifting through old posts for something to respond to is that some posters are no longer posting here, so will be unable to continue the debate. This is one such post.

[Eko Care]

Yes there are problems like that. But the main problem seems to be there are people who doesn't like topics about unmixed Theravada. Isn't it?

What is unfortunately rampant nowadays is the firm conviction that the Theravāda is wrong in its believes and, based upon that it, it is frequently attacked; it really is. It has been battered almost like nothing else. This poor Ven. Buddhaghosa is one of the most scapegoated bhikkhus in modernity, at least as the West is concerned, almost like a sport nowadays to let off steam. One of the most vicious to defend their viewpoints are modern-day Suttantikas (for the lack of a better term, if you don't identify with it).

I agree. He gets a lot of flack for no reason. You even get a weird kind of bigotry against him because he was possibly a Brahmin. In comparison Sujato, someone who agrees with Venerable Buddhaghosa on some things and not on others, has this to say

Nothing in this attests to Buddhaghoas’s personal views being added to the commentaries. He was, by all available evidence, a careful and cautious scholar, who did not step beyond the bounds of his sources. If only more were like him!

[Radix]

Everyone needs to decide for him- or herself ...

Why the political correctness at the end?

Some things are not subject to personal decision, cannot be.
Whether someone is an arahant or not is not somehow up to one's personal decision. Whether Classical Theravada has the right understanding of the Buddha's teachings is not up to one's personal decision. And so on.

[Eko Care]

Whether Classical Theravada has the right understanding of the Buddha's teachings is not up to one's personal decision.

Exactly.

[BrokenBones]

Whether Classical Theravada has the right understanding of the Buddha's teachings is not up to one's personal decision.

Exactly.

Is that your personal decision?

[Radix]

Is that your personal decision?

In Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science (1990), philosopher of science and epistemologist Larry Laudan said that the prevailing type of philosophy taught at universities in the U.S. (Postmodernism and Poststructuralism) is anti-intellectual, because "the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter, by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is—second only to American political campaigns—the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

[BrokenBones]

Is that your personal decision?

In Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science (1990), philosopher of science and epistemologist Larry Laudan said that the prevailing type of philosophy taught at universities in the U.S. (Postmodernism and Poststructuralism) is anti-intellectual, because "the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter, by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is—second only to American political campaigns—the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

What facts & evidence are you referring to?

I think you're missing a fundamental aspect as to what Dhamma is and how it is penetrated...

10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Absence of greed, hate, and delusion
11. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his benefit, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being not given to greed, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by greed, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

12. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his benefit, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being not given to hate, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by hate, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" _ "Yes, venerable sir."

13. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does absence of delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his benefit, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being not given to delusion, and being not overwhelmed and not vanquished mentally by delusion, this man does not take life, does not steal, does not commit adultery, and does not tell lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his benefit and happiness?" _ "Yes, venerable sir."

14. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Good, venerable sir." — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Not blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Praised, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to benefit and happiness, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness. Thus it strikes us here."

15. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el008.html

It's ALL about seeing for yourself.