Aemilius wrote:How could we know by any "textual analysis" the truth about the origin of the sutras!? I doubt this method very much. And how about the existence of the Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya Buddha, and the Nirmakaya Bodhisattvas? Their views and their inspiration mean nothing because we trust only the word analyzing academics!
The scholars have some interesting things, I agree with that, but it is far from being the truth, the whole truth, the essential truth.
In the Sarvastivadin Agamas, that have been translated into english, Buddha talks about Bodhisattva Maitreya, slightly critizises him, and then predicts that he will become the next Buddha after 30 000 years.
hey friend don't worry! didn't you read my post "side note"? i feel all the sutras are important, regardless of who may or may not have composed them! if they work, they work! it doesn't matter where they came from, as long as they function. i was only questioning the place of these doom sutras because they do not fit with the rest of the working, harmonized dharma. i see a thousand sutras that are relatively consistent in thought, and then three that are totally different and have no place among the rest, i feel free to reject those.