adinatha wrote:You mean everyone White? Because I know plenty of masters who would laugh at you for saying this.
Once again you've completely missed the point. I mean everyone Buddhist.
The only discourses that all Buddhists agree are the teachings of the Buddha are the Nikāyas and their Āgama counterparts. This was just as true in India 1500 years ago as it is today.
So clearly wrong. You are totally missing out on what the living traditions say. For example, the Kagyu say Gampopa was a personal disciple of Gautama, named Youthful Moonlight. This name is mentioned in the Mahayana text, Samadhiraja Sutra. Gampopa affirmed he was this bodhisattva disciple. So this would mean that he was present when Gautama taught Mahayana. Lord Jigten Sumgon was also a disciple of Gautama with a similar sutra tie. So you are wrong, some Buddhists say Gautama taught Mahayana from his mouth.
Let's say you are arguing that not all Buddhists agree on what was the original teaching of the Buddha. But all agree the Buddha taught sravakayana. So therefore the original Buddhism is sravakayana. You cannot draw this conclusion from these premises. This does not mean this is all the Buddha really said. All it shows is a consensus as to a part, and a consensus belief is not a fact. Furthermore, that consensus is based on a variety of assumptions and speculations that can never be proved.
adinatha wrote:What are you just ignoring the 200 BCE Mahayana texts that are older than the records of the sravakayana discourses?
I'm not ignoring anything.[/quote]
You are drawing assumptions based on speculations. The Mahayana texts we have are just as old as any. There is no reason to conclude the Buddha's words were limited to sravakayana, at least not based on real evidence.
Most importantly, that Buddha was omniscient with miracle powers is basically required belief to be a Buddhist. We cannot know what the Buddha knew or how he intended to go about his business. It is simply not possible we can conclude 2500 years hence what the Buddha really did. If he could go and confront a deity in a devaloka, then of course he could speak to monks, celestial bodhisattvas, and dakinis while subduing Mahadeva and Parvati and any other manner of miraculous act simultaneously.
If you are going to follow consensus, then you are in the land of the lowest common denominator, and you will have to view the Buddha as a simple man who taught wise words in a forest. Because there is a large contingent of Western neo-Buddhists who are just humanists looking for an atheistic philosophy to make life worth living, who would assert the Buddha was not omniscient and nothing more than a normal human with something smart to say.