[Buddha-l] Refuge in what?

[Dan Lusthaus]

> How about the non-Pali Buddhas in Buddhism for starters?

We already mentioned them. They sometimes don't even approve of Hinayana 
Buddhists, much less tirthikas.

If you don't you want your Buddhas to be Buddhas, then you may as well take 
refuge in a stone. Same thing, right? IF you think Buddhas can teach you 
something other than what you can learn from a stone, then you should pay 
attention to what they actually teach. For starters, they teach there is a 
difference between Buddhism and being a tirthika. Once again, start with the 
Tevijja Sutta of the Digha Nikaya (have you read it before condemning it, or 
do you condemn sight unseen?).

The way to Brahma taught there is not the Hindu pursuit of Brahman. Or did 
the ironic humor escape you? The Tevijja is one of the satirical 
masterpieces of the Tipitaka. (And don't let the title fool you -- he is not 
teaching the three vedas -- Tri-veda = Te-vijja -- to the Brahmins either.)

If you don't want to listen to what the Buddhas teach, then you are taking 
refuge in your own fantasms. Could be amusing, but you shouldn't call that 
"Buddhist" in public.

> Guru Nanak's attempt was not the only one.

Right. There are Bahais, who have fared no better with the Islam from which 
they were spawned. Nor Unitarian-Universalists with hard-core Christians.

If Buddha was ok with Hinduism, he would have kept his mouth shut, and we 
could all be doing aśvamedha or Homa now. If he was ok with Jainism, we'd 
all be thinking of karma as made of liquid sticky-glue and would value jivas 
rather than anatman. If his teachings were the same as Sanjaya's, then 
Sariputta and Moggalana wouldn't have left Sanjaya to become Buddha's chief 
disciples.

Dan