[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[curt]

If one's interest is merely intellectual - simply wishing to know what 
it was that the Buddha taught just to know that - then this doesn't 
automatically imply treating Buddhism as a revealed religion. But if 
one, as Batchelor does, adopts the approach that Buddhism has 
degenerated into superstition as people have strayed from the Buddha's 
original teachings - then this is certainly treating Buddhism as a 
revealed religion.

Bob Zeuschner wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps you are suggesting that the "original teachings" must be 
> inerrant?
> I believe it is an entirely different issue to ask "is the founder 
> completely correct in every statement that the founder made?"
>
>
Actually, it is Batchelor who suggests the inerancy of the Buddha's 
original teachings - or at least carefully selected bits and pieces of 
that teaching that Batchelor claims to be able to distinguish from stuff 
like karma and rebirth, which he wishes to jettison.

- Curt