[Buddha-l] Historical vs Psychological Religious Narratives

[Joy Vriens]

>Richard then comments, 
 
>> I cannot think of any narrative in Buddhism 
>> that would be indispensable in quite the same way. 
 
>Agreed, so long as by "any narrative" you mean something like  
>"historical narrative in the canon." I say this because there is at  
>least one core narrative that remains indispensable in Buddhism. You  
>mention it yourself, it is the narrative contained within the Four  
>Noble Truths. It is a psychological or ontological narrative, rather  
>than a historical one, but it emphatically IS a narrative. We suffer.  
>That suffering is caused by our clinging, which in turn is caused by  
>our ignorance. We follow the Eightfold Path. We cease to suffer. 

And we know that the Eightfold Path is the proper way to end suffering, not because we have walked it all the way til the end of suffering, but because we know the Buddha did and said it was. 
 
>I would add that *some* forms of Buddhism--notably the Zen tradition  
>and the lineage-focused forms of Vajrayana--do in fact cleave to  
>historical narratives of awakening and, should these narratives be  
>shown to be false, lose their institutional authority.

Yes, both systems are based on transmission, a special transmission outside the scriptures and with no reliance on words or letters. From mind to mind, heart to heart, person to person, master to disciple. A missing link would be a disaster...