Anders Honore wrote:
If historical accuracy is a definitive criteria for you, you are probably better off going Theravada. The Mahayana sutras were most likely not spoken by the historical Buddha.
The reason to be a Mahayanist is that one considers them more profound and holds this profundity to be more definitive. That is to say, though the Mahayana sutras were not necessarily spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha back in India 2500+ years ago, one nevertheless accepts that they were composed by a Buddha.
For example, the prajnaparamita sutra says on this:Śāriputra thereupon conceived the thought: “[Shall] Subhūti teach through his own power, or by empowerment by the Buddha’s spiritual might?”
Subhūti knew the thought conceived in Śāriputra’s mind, and he spoke to Śāriputra, saying: “Whatever the Buddha’s disciples may venture to teach, all is [through] the Buddha’s power. For what reason? That dharma taught by the Buddha, they have trained in it, they are able to realize the nature of dharma. Having realized [it] they proclaim and teach [it], and none of it is contrary to the nature of dharma, by way of the power of the nature of dharma.”
Even in most pre-mahayana schools, buddhavacana ["word of the buddha"] was not traditionally understood as 'the literal word of the historical buddha' but rather as 'that which is well spoken and accords with dependent origination'. The Therigatha collection, along with the words of the Buddha's disciples are all considered buddhavacana in the Theravada tradition for example. In the Sarvastivada the abidharma was considered buddhavacana even though it was attributed to later authors.
The Mahayana sutras derive their authority from its composers being empowered by Buddha knowledge. Don't believe they were? ok, no biggie. But at the end of the day, there is no a priori reason to assume that the historical buddha was more or less enlightened than the composers of the Mahayana sutras. You judge either by their profoundity and until you're a Buddha yourself, it's basically a subjective call on whether that profundity has merit or not.
It's better to consider the settings of the Mahayana sutras as re-enactments for a special purpose. This is also why traditional Mahayana hermeneutics pay more attention to details like the audience, the place and environment taught in and so forth. In the earlier sutras, these are just as likely to be mere historical happenstance, whereas in Mahayana sutras, they typically have a teaching purpose embedded.
never before has this been said to me more eloquently and with such power of lucidity....
but i know this....
the advice that came along with it....very helpfull indeed.....thank you....
The Tulku i study under was placed in a Temple / monastery in thailand after the chinnese invasion of Tibet.....
He said what you said , but not as ...for lack of articulation.....compressed with lucidity....
thank you for your kindness and effort....
oki doki...with this i shall say adieu and as i understand it see some of ya over at the sister site....
