[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Bob Zeuschner]

I was suggesting that what the sutras say may or may not be identical to 
the original teachings of the Buddha, the founder (as the four gospels 
may or may not be identical to the teachings of the founder). Are the 
Buddhist sutras more historically accurate than the Christian gospels?

Buddhologists date sutras and stick to those most likely to be earliest 
in our attempt to reconstruct the founder's words.
Then we stress certain aspects and minimize others when we write books, 
or teach the ideas to students.

Certainly each and every school of Buddhism, past and present, claims to 
be the teachings of the founder; but they are not all compatible. 
Theravada, Madhyamika, Pure Land, Vajrayana, Ch'an.
My personal belief is that I doubt that it is possible to reconstruct 
precisely and exactly what the founder taught.
Some teachings are pretty obviously traceable back. Did he teach Dukkha? 
Of course. Pratityasamutpada? I certainly think so. Did he teach the 
Four Noble Truths? I believe this is more controversial. Did he teach 
anicca? Sure. Did he teach momentariness? Not so sure.
Bob


Jackhat1 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/27/2007 1:56:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
> rbzeuschner at adelphia.net writes:
> 
>     However, when Christians say "what would Jesus do?" they are asking
>     what
>     their idealized vision of their founder would do (seen through 21st
>     century eyes and expectations).
>     I think Buddhists do the same when they want to "de-evolve" back to the
>     teachings of the founder.
> 
> ====
> I don't think that sticking close to what the suttas say results in an 
> idealized vision of what the Buddha taught.
>  
> Jack