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

[Isidoros]

Hello.

For the sake of clarity and the record I 'd like to say, to begin
with, that what is attributed, below, to the ioniccentre @hol.gr,
that is mine address, was not written or sent by me.

>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?

In fact I do not know who wrote that, as I do not seem to have
received a post with that paragraph, but I would like, in any case,
to comment on it, and on what was further written about it.

Jackhat1 at aol.com wrote:
>>===
>>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.)

(i) Jack, (Hi) I think that Jesus' "teachings" (the so called within
the Western Christian tradition his "Ipssissima verba", his very
speakings) may not be considered the only authentic Christ(ian)
teachings, as are rather so the many words and dialogues
attributed to Buddha. The whole of the evaggelia content and
context may be thought, for the most part, as Jesus "teachings".
Which is not the case with the early sutras. The two are too
significantly different in style, in this respect, to compare casually.
Further to this, re

>> 
>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

I 'd like to add that

(ii) Curt (Hello) may be right, in that wide agreement of early (?)
witnesses does not necessarily signify truth, or facticity, I 'd say.
For, besides hostility to independent thinking, it may mean, too,
_blind_ adherence to a "given" tradition and dogma, a way which
does not attest necessarily to critical thinking.

If I may, I 'd like to add a footnote here to the above, responding to
Curt's "question" re certain Mahayana texts being early as the
earliest Pali: my understanding is that that is not the Theravada
schools' claim.


(ii) Finally, to Jack's response after Curt's comment

>>|  If a group of senior monks agreed on what the Buddha said, imagination
and independent thinking were not a factor.

"If", Jack. If! The problem here is that we have no documented
immediate record of what the, a, Buddha said to any monks.
Instead we have hearsay of hearsay of ... hearsay ... many centuries
long.

Now, I ask you, would Richard Hayes write down accurately
today what a guy in a New Mexico carrots juice bar confided in
him, of what a man in a tortillas counter told him, of what ...
a gal from Alabama in a bar told ... of what Carl Rover said to a
fellow George Bush Republican about the Chief's celebration on
the enemies' defeat over a warship in the Atlantic ocean? (And by
"accurately" I mean as compared to a Carl Rover account of
the event -- which is another story).

Best wishes,
Isidoros 
(sorry, Richard, all, just wouldn't resist it).