[Buddha-l] Back to the core values? -- and origins

[curt]

Jackhat1 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/28/2007 12:14:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
> ioniccentre at hol.gr writes:
>
>     >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?
>
> ===
> I think they are more accurate. One reason is found in the shear 
> volume of the Buddha's teachings that we have available to us. There 
> are relatively few actual teachings of Christ found in the Bible. In 
> the Pali Canon, hundreds of teachings agree with one another on the 
> main issues. There is no Gospel of St. Thomas that disagrees with the 
> other teachings. Another reason is the discipline of the oral 
> tradition. There is not an emphasis to stick to the exact teachings of 
> Christ in the Christian religion as is found in Buddhism. That is, the 
> books of the Bible do have some direct teachings of Christ but have 
> lots of teachings that were inspired by Christ but not direct 
> teachings of His. (I don't mean to imply anything negative about 
> Christianity here.)
>  
>
As far as the earliest known texts are concerned, isn't it true that 
there are Mahayana texts that are just as early as the earliest Pali 
texts? Here I am speaking of actual physical texts, ie, manuscripts. 
This would suggest that there IS a possible parallel to the Gospel of 
Thomas.

Another thing to consider is that when all the witnesses agree, this 
doesn't necessarily mean they are telling the truth. It might mean they 
have cooked up the story among themselves. Consistency can be explained 
in more than one way. And even if the consistency is genuine, then it 
implies a lack of imagination as much as anything else - or, more 
seriously, a vigilant hostility to independent thinking.

- Curt