Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mahayana Texts Not Legitimate
Many people consider the texts of the Mahayana to be the spoken word of the Buddha, but I strongly disagree. Not only is the history of these texts suspicious, but the content raises a lot of red flags.
The history: Aparently the Mahayana monks split from the sangha as a result of their dispute with Arahants. Just take a look at that. They were disputing with Arahants. The Buddha was an arahant. They might as well have turned their backs on the Buddha himself. Do you honestly want to follow a group of people who openly oppose the Buddha himself, along with his teachings of liberation?
Many mahayanists claim that people in the Buddhas time were not "intelligent" enough to understand the texts of the Mahayana, so the Buddha hid them so that future generations of more "intelligent" beings could interpret them. First of all, who, after the death of the Buddha, could even begin to claim that they were more intelligent than the Buddha, who clearly would have understood them. And secondly, what kind of intelligence did the people of the Buddha's time lack? They were clearly capable of understanding such things as the four noble truths, Dependent origination, and anatta. Not only that, but due to the lack of "intelligence" this generation had, these Mahayana texts were hidden from humanity and later majestically and heroically returned by none other than ... heavenly dragons!!
Now lets take a look at the content. The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, and non clinging to the aggregates which results in release from the round of rebirths. He taught that being bound to the round of becoming was suffering, and that release from it was non suffering. Why would the Buddha later contradict himself, declare his contemporaries "stupid," and hide texts that propagate the ideal of a boddhisatta, or one who remains in samsara and suffers? The Buddha didn't teach suffering. He taught non suffering, and that's why the Mahayana texts are not the word of the Buddha.
Now let's take a look at the concept of "Buddha nature." Doctrine of self, any one? Come and get your doctrine of self!! Only two bucks a pop!!! Come on ... The Buddha repeatedly declared that there was no eternal, abiding self that could be clung to in the aggregates. How does the notion of Buddha nature fit in with that??
It's clear to see that there are so many contradictions between the Mahayana texts and the original spoken word of the Buddha, so why don't we as buddhists just abandon the mahayana texts all together? I think that if we did so then this world would become a much better place, and true Dhamma would establish itself for the benefit of the multitudes.
The history: Aparently the Mahayana monks split from the sangha as a result of their dispute with Arahants. Just take a look at that. They were disputing with Arahants. The Buddha was an arahant. They might as well have turned their backs on the Buddha himself. Do you honestly want to follow a group of people who openly oppose the Buddha himself, along with his teachings of liberation?
Many mahayanists claim that people in the Buddhas time were not "intelligent" enough to understand the texts of the Mahayana, so the Buddha hid them so that future generations of more "intelligent" beings could interpret them. First of all, who, after the death of the Buddha, could even begin to claim that they were more intelligent than the Buddha, who clearly would have understood them. And secondly, what kind of intelligence did the people of the Buddha's time lack? They were clearly capable of understanding such things as the four noble truths, Dependent origination, and anatta. Not only that, but due to the lack of "intelligence" this generation had, these Mahayana texts were hidden from humanity and later majestically and heroically returned by none other than ... heavenly dragons!!
Now lets take a look at the content. The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, and non clinging to the aggregates which results in release from the round of rebirths. He taught that being bound to the round of becoming was suffering, and that release from it was non suffering. Why would the Buddha later contradict himself, declare his contemporaries "stupid," and hide texts that propagate the ideal of a boddhisatta, or one who remains in samsara and suffers? The Buddha didn't teach suffering. He taught non suffering, and that's why the Mahayana texts are not the word of the Buddha.
Now let's take a look at the concept of "Buddha nature." Doctrine of self, any one? Come and get your doctrine of self!! Only two bucks a pop!!! Come on ... The Buddha repeatedly declared that there was no eternal, abiding self that could be clung to in the aggregates. How does the notion of Buddha nature fit in with that??
It's clear to see that there are so many contradictions between the Mahayana texts and the original spoken word of the Buddha, so why don't we as buddhists just abandon the mahayana texts all together? I think that if we did so then this world would become a much better place, and true Dhamma would establish itself for the benefit of the multitudes.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Secondly, there are many here who follow and adhere to Mahayana teachings.
You are welcome to think and believe what you wish.
Just as those who follow Mahayana, should.
We don't take kindly to threads which might be considered to be of an inflammatory nature.
Thank you for your co-operation.