How Do We Know Buddha Was Correct?

[phetaroi]

I'm not talking about the basic wisdoms of Buddha. They can be tested by each of us.

But, for example, in regard to enlightenment. I don't know anyone who is enlightened. Do you? So how do we know Siddhartha was correct about it? Faith?

[elcent]

Buddha referred to worldly wisdom (as enlightenment for himself), more or less the female principle. He never claimed godly wisdom and even said don't follow me, it's for my understanding. In other words, go and search and find yours.

His wisdom can help to expose the modern day Illuminati (the evil worldly strategies), he sure would be able to explain in detail. Not that he would touch godly wisdom and faith.

[Brucenkhamen]

We don't know, and that's ok. The Buddha didn't really teach a set of doctrines to know or believe were true, rather a methodology for awakening.

Unlike in most other religions where to admit you are unsure is a sign of weakness or a sign of a lack of faith, to a Buddhist practitioner admitting you don't know for sure is a sign you are open to realise more truth.

[orang37]

By bringing into awareness and studying our own experience of the mental state in which the dualism of "correctness" and "un-correctness" is present, one can only hope that eventually the addiction to that particular flavour of mentation will "fall away," like the leaf whose time has come to fall from the tree.

And if we are lucky enough to be that leaf falling: to experience the unique beauty of the "fall"

best, ~o:37;

[Xangsamhua]

Well, quite apart from whether the Buddha was right or not, we don't even know for sure, do we, what the Buddha actually said at all? We only know what the texts tell us and these are, for the most part, hagiographic, which suggests an element of unreliability.

The Pali texts, if I remember rightly, were compiled some 300 years after the Buddha's parinibbana and based on oral transmission. If we were to apply to the Pali texts the five primary criteria of authenticity that historical Jesus scholars apply to the Christian and Gnostic gospels we could form a view of the reliability or otherwise of the texts containing the Buddha's teaching.

1. Dissimilarity. Are the reported sayings of the Buddha similar to or distinct from generally accepted teachings of his day? The more distinctive they are, the more the chance of them being authentic. It is less likely that mainstream teachings professed by many during his time have been confused with those of the Buddha. Teachings that go against the grain are probably more accurately identified and ascribed.

2. Embarrassment. Would the Buddha's teachings have been a source of discomfort for his followers at the time and later? The more awkward it is to profess the master's teaching, the more likely it is that the reported teaching is authentic. One is not going to profess and be bound by a teaching that brings about ridicule, hostility, persecution etc. unless one really believes it to be true.

3. Multiple attestation. Is there evidence from several different reasonably reliable sources that what is being reported in the text is authentic? In ancient history it may be difficult to find multiple attestation of many statements or events, but the more corroborating evidence there is the better.

4. Coherence . Are the reported sayings consistent with other instances cited in the text? If a saying or an action of the Buddha is not consistent at all with the general representation throughout the texts of his life and teachings then one could doubt its authenticity.

5. Plausibility. Are the reports in the text of the Buddha's life and teaching historically plausible? Is it likely that the Buddha travelled from A to B and on to C and led a relatively nomadic life for much of the time? It seems quite plausible that he did. Did he visit local Brahmins in the company of 500 followers? Perhaps not likely. Was he the son of the Sakya king? Not at all likely, seeing that we know the Sakyan republic was not a monarchy in the period the Buddha was believed to live (he may well have been the scion of a wealthy Kshatriya noble). Much of the mythical and hyperbolic stories in the texts can be dismissed on the criterion of historical plausibility. Indeed, as the Pali texts are hagiographic, many of their propositions can be questioned.

However, despite critical analysis based on the above criteria, the Canon as a whole may well have the ring of authenticity. The total may be much more than the sum of its parts. That is my view, though I haven't consciously sat down to do an evaluation in terms of the criteria. What comes through is the repeated emphasis on a fairly simple and straightforward message - the four noble truths and the eightfold path and the kind of practice and mindfulness that will help one attain levels of enlightenment. And one does not have to believe that the Buddha or his followers visited the Tusita heavens and did deals with devas to be a disciple of the Buddha. I'm not sure about Kamma across lifetimes though.

[fabianfred]

We don't know, and that's ok. The Buddha didn't really teach a set of doctrines to know or believe were true, rather a methodology for awakening.

Unlike in most other religions where to admit you are unsure is a sign of weakness or a sign of a lack of faith, to a Buddhist practitioner admitting you don't know for sure is a sign you are open to realise more truth.

..like being prepared to empty your cup....

[fabianfred]

Both of my main teachers are considered to be Arahants... and thus have attained to Nirvana..

http://www.jarun.org/80/index.html

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/

[phetaroi]

Both of my main teachers are considered to be Arahants... and thus have attained to Nirvana..

http://www.jarun.org/80/index.html

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/

Okay, you answered that question. I won't bother to ask you my next question.

[Acutus]

Okay, you answered that question. I won't bother to ask you my next question.

Pls do ask your next question.

[khaowong1]

Both of my main teachers are considered to be Arahants... and thus have attained to Nirvana..

http://www.jarun.org/80/index.html

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/

Okay, you answered that question. I won't bother to ask you my next question.

Yes, I want to see if your question is the same as mine...

[camerata]

"To call something a foundation of the Buddhist Teachings is only correct if firstly, it is a principle which aims at the extinction of Dukkha and, secondly, it has a logic that one can see for oneself without having to believe others. These are the important constituents of a foundation."

- Ven Buddhadasa

I think we can separate the blind faith aspects of Buddhism pretty easily. If we can't experience it for ourselves in this life, it's a matter of faith. That faith may aid our practice, but it's still faith. There is no way to prove or disprove celestial realms or whatever, nor is there any way to make a rational decision about them. Either you feel the faith or you don't. "Faith" is simply a deep subconscious belief rather than a conscious one based on logic.

The core of the Buddha's teaching to his monks was to attain nibbana in this life. Nibbana, as described in the Canon, can be attained in this life. Since we can experience it, the question becomes "Do we want it?" or "Do we want it enough to put in all that effort?" So, aiming for nibbana in this life is a matter of the decision to do it and the confidence we can do it (based on the fruits of our practice), whereas aiming for nibbana in a future life is a matter of faith.

Whether nibbana is unconditioned (not subject to cause and effect) seems to me to be unprovable. What happens after parinibbana is also unprovable. However, the important point is that nibbana is the extinction of suffering in this life.

[agent69]

I was born and raised a Buddhist. Been doubtful till my early 20s until I read a book and started practising. Hit a milestone, then each day I gain more clarity in the way I have never thought possible. and all that clarity all comes from being aware and the consideration of the present. from time to time, there will be events that consolidate the believe.

being interesting in Buddhism is a good first step. well I guess you have to really do it and find out for youself. how else can you cure your own skepticism? what've you got to lose? worst case, you would be the most reasonable, passionate and forgiving person you have ever known.

[camerata]

Exactly. It always comes back to the story of the guy shot with the poisoned arrow, who demanded to know all the details about who shot him etc before he would submit to treatment. Some people want a guarantee of success before they take the first step. Others try out the practice, have a small measure of success, and as a result find greater confidence to continue with the next level.

[thailandfaq]

Both of my main teachers are considered to be Arahants... and thus have attained to Nirvana..

http://www.jarun.org/80/index.html

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/

I have read LP Jarans stuff and theres some pretty supersticious non arahant like stuff in it. Like one about a fellow who was a gambler and managed to enter a space portal into hel_l and walk around on tour of hel_l whilst still in his living body. Some of the books are full of superstitious stuff and little real insight teachings.. more folk tales than teachings to open the eyes with.

The website is wonderful though with a good explanation of Vipassana Kammathana and what it is.

LP Jaran is big as Vipassana teacher but also big as magic Saiyasart monk and amulet maker. LP Jaran is famous for his makalee porn baby corpse which is said to be an authentic tree spirit from the Indian secret Himapant forest.

Vipassana masters dont make amulets and don't recommend getting attached, involved or interested in dirachana wicha

An arahant would have no interest in making makalee porn, amulets, saiyasart etc. Vipassana masters do not incline to saiyasart.. LP jaran differs in this. Why would an arahant posess a healthy interest and active practice in saiyasart? it doesnt seem to fit.

Common local folk are always rumoring that this person is immortal, can fly, or is an arahant. Even as i was a monk i was asked if i had seen anything in the forest at night (they meant ghosts and Devas)- when i replied that i did see things, but not ghosts outside etc.. but that what i saw which was amazing was the subtle workings of the living conscious being, the khandas, the cycle of paticcasamupada etc. I explained that these are the miraculpus things you see in meditation.. not flashing fancy lights! At this, the person who asked me wandered off mumbling that i must certainly be an arahant. This made mesmile but also see how the real cause for 90 percent of all our legends and beliefs are caused by some bumpkin with less than half an education opening his mouth to 5 other bumpkins and then it snowballs.

I am sure there have been many arahants, but i am also sure that most of them were not on posters and had a website.

I don't really believe that there are any arahants on the planet who are publically and oficially declared so. If there are any real arahants these days then they are in the forest refusing their devotees to make a website and online shop.

Thaifolk love to declare their favourite Luang Por as an Arahant.

But do they really understand what an arahant is?

Most Thai people i Talk to will get dizzy and say im losing them if i even go as far as to try to explain what the five khandas are, and that we experience reality through these filters of consciousness - although most Thais can chant evening prayers for an hour off by heart, it doesnt mean they understand the meaning of what they are saying.

Of many hundreds of thousands of monks, only a few will apply themself to an intense and austere practice.

There are many Noble beings, but not many arahants.

But as to whether Buddha was this or that.. it is unimportant

Because with the dhamma to check and the practices Buddha gave us to practice, we can see for ourselves the truth of the matter, and attain our own enlightenment.We should be less interested in Buddha and what he did, than with his teachings and what we can do with them. The important and useful factor for us is the practice Buddha taught us to enable our selves to enlighten.

It is pointless to look for arahants.. i mean lets say fred bloggs is an arahant.. so what? so he got there already. That wont take us there.

We have to paddle our own boat to get there.

The only reason the existence of arahants is useful to us is in the sense that it is proof that enlightenment is possible.

This serves to inspire us to strive for enlightenment.

I really love and respect so many monks, masters, teachers in Thailand. But i am still to meet an arhant i believe.

We should not take notice of folk rumors and common sayings that someone is an arahant - there is no foundation behind it.

If we can understand and accept the dhamma, understand the three conditions, khandas, four noble truths, then we can perhaps develop enough insight to see that enlightenment is a real thing which can be attained. This is sufficient for us to be able to work for arahantship in the knowledge that it is possible. the only reason it may be interesting to know of the existence of an arahant is so that we know it is possible, and then try for it ourselves. But no arahant will or can save us.. we must save ourselves.

[fabianfred]

I understand your position on this.

LP Jaran has never stated himself that he is arahant ...and he probably has no interest in what his followers write about him, and has probably never seen the web-site. There are always more followers interested in buying amulets etc. because they ignore the true things like the Vipassana, and go after the false things. Even if LP told them to stop they wouldn't listen....

'All beings fare according to their karma' ... a favorite saying of LP.

[rockyysdt]

If we can understand and accept the dhamma, understand the three conditions, khandas, four noble truths, then we can perhaps develop enough insight to see that enlightenment is a real thing which can be attained. This is sufficient for us to be able to work for arahantship in the knowledge that it is possible. the only reason it may be interesting to know of the existence of an arahant is so that we know it is possible, and then try for it ourselves. But no arahant will or can save us.. we must save ourselves.

The other benefit is an Arahant would make an excellent teacher.

This would be due to his or her experience rather than due to our knowledge of such Arahantship.

Edited March 15, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

I think we can separate the blind faith aspects of Buddhism pretty easily. If we can't experience it for ourselves in this life, it's a matter of faith.

You're making progress!

But seriously, I disagree. Here's what I think would make a correct statement: I think we can separate the blind faith aspects of Buddhism pretty easily. If we haven't experienced it for ourselves, it's a matter of faith.

Edited March 15, 2010 by phetaroi

[phetaroi]

The other benefit is an Arahant would make an excellent teacher.

This would be due to his or her experience rather than due to our knowledge of such Arahantship.

Excellent point.

[Xangsamhua]

Many people have had or claimed to have had “religious experiences” - visions, sensations, powerful awareness of a higher power, heard voices and so on. Quite apart from the well-known figures – Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila, George Fox, Joanna Southcott, Bernadette Soubirous, Annie Besant, the children at Fatima and so on, many, many quite “normal” people have experienced something that they identify with divine, supernatural, paranormal or consciousness-heightening forces. There are numerous examples of these in William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), a book that has been in print continuously for over a century.

But what is a religious “experience”? It can be a perception of something that one becomes aware of through the senses. It may be a consciousness of something beyond perception, say an image or an awareness of being in a state that is not like our everyday experience of states. If someone asks us what this extraordinary state is like, we have to find analogous states to which we can compare it. Buddhist psychology is very advanced indeed, so I’m not going to go there – not going to get into the experience of nothingness as the pinnacle of enlightened consciousness – but I would question the verifiability of an individual’s experience as a validator of Buddhist teaching.

All I can validly say, if I have an experience of ineffable bliss or absolute calm and peace of mind as a result of advanced meditation practice is that I have had that experience and it seemed like ineffable bliss, tranquility, etc., which would suggest that the techniques appear to have worked for the individual, but they say nothing about the publicly accountable validity of the Buddha’s teaching about Nibbana as an object of striving, let alone anything else that the Buddha taught. They may attest to the effectiveness of the techniques and practices, but these may not be exclusive to the Buddha and their effectiveness may be contingent on a number of variables.

These experiences may be the result of a variety of conditions relevant to the case – the individual’s mental health, cultural expectations, environmental circumstances and physical condition, for example. In cases where a large number of people have the same visionary, mystical or otherwise extraordinary experience at the same time, the reason could in fact be something objectively outside them or the influence of one upon the other and auto-suggestion to produce a common “experience”. The vision of the spinning sun at Fatima comes to mind.

Essentially, what I experience is the activity of my own mind responding to external stimuli or perhaps as an internal stream of consciousness, such as dreaming, or controlled mental states such as those arrived at in meditation, but it is my mind having this experience. It cannot validate anything in the public world and it cannot be falsified (and hence is not a proof of anything to either the one having the experience or the one hearing about it).

One can be sure, too, that if one’s epistemology has been formed by Buddhist teaching, then one will interpret the experience in a Buddhist way; the same experience for one who has absorbed Islamic, Christian, Sikh or atheist epistemologies will be interpreted and reported differently.

Perhaps I'm going too far. We do in fact call on our experiences as validators of various propositions and recommendations, but they are not validators of universal truths unless they are falsifiable. In my experience, putting my hand in the fire would hurt, every time, and we teach children not to do it, but there are people who seem demonstrably to falsify this generalisation. To say that one experiences a higher stage jhana or the formless dimensions as a result of meditation, or that one can visit celestial realms, however, adds little to the verifiability of propositions that these things are likely to occur. Of course, these statements may be true, but the statements, ipse dixit, do not validate themselves.

[camerata]

I think we can separate the blind faith aspects of Buddhism pretty easily. If we haven't experienced it for ourselves, it's a matter of faith.

In that case, all you're saying is that the millions of things we do in our lives for the first time are based on faith. So I don't see why you would have concerns about "faith" in spiritual matters.

Personally, I make a clear distinction between things which can be proven in this life, because others have experienced them and the experience is available to us, and things which can't be proven in this life at all. The former just require confidence to achieve, the latter blind faith. Enlightenment clearly belongs in the former category. God, heaven, deva realms, etc, belong in the second.

What I like about Buddhism is that you don't have to make a decision about belief. You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now.

[Xangsamhua]

What I like about Buddhism is that you don't have to make a decision about belief. You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now.

I think so, too. When a religion gets over-anxious about what is and is not correct belief it can get nasty. Medieval Christianity (the Crusades, the Inquisition) and post -19th century Islam (Wahhabism, Iranian Shi'ism) are cases in point. Buddhism is best when it remains exploratory rather than proclamatory. The "truth" of the Buddha's teachings lie in their "cash value" (the American pragmatist idea); i.e. their benefits for the individual and, hopefully, the community.

[phetaroi]

I think we can separate the blind faith aspects of Buddhism pretty easily. If we haven't experienced it for ourselves, it's a matter of faith.

In that case, all you're saying is that the millions of things we do in our lives for the first time are based on faith. So I don't see why you would have concerns about "faith" in spiritual matters.

Personally, I make a clear distinction between things which can be proven in this life, because others have experienced them and the experience is available to us, and things which can't be proven in this life at all. The former just require confidence to achieve, the latter blind faith. Enlightenment clearly belongs in the former category. God, heaven, deva realms, etc, belong in the second.

What I like about Buddhism is that you don't have to make a decision about belief. You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now.

To begin with, I think we may have reached that point where almost all of us participating in this thread have stated our position, and I don't think any of us are going to convince anyone to change their mind. And that's okay. I'm still learning. Xangsamhua's post just above may be the most succinct expression of what I am trying to say that I can imagine.

No Camerata, I'm not talking about the millions of things we do in our life, and to be honest, I think you know that, because I've stated very clearly that I am talking about -- as you quote me above -- "aspects of Buddhism". This thread has focused on things like nirvanna and Buddhist heaven and hel_l, and so forth. Not "millions of things we do in our lives".

I may be wrong, but if I wanted to take the time to go back through many of your posts in the past year, I am quite sure I would see you sometimes saying things along the line of not being able to pick and choose what you want to believe in Buddhism, and that if you do try to do so, then it's not Buddhism. Yet today you say that what you like about Buddhism is that "You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now."

[rockyysdt]

Many people have had or claimed to have had "religious experiences" - visions, sensations, powerful awareness of a higher power, heard voices and so on. Quite apart from the well-known figures – Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Joan of Arc, Teresa of Avila, George Fox, Joanna Southcott, Bernadette Soubirous, Annie Besant, the children at Fatima and so on, many, many

These experiences may be the result of a variety of conditions relevant to the case – the individual's mental health, cultural expectations, environmental circumstances and physical condition, for example. In cases where a large number of people have the same visionary, mystical or otherwise extraordinary experience at the same time, the reason could in fact be something objectively outside them or the influence of one upon the other and auto-suggestion to produce a common "experience". The vision of the spinning sun at Fatima comes to mind.

Essentially, what I experience is the activity of my own mind responding to external stimuli or perhaps as an internal stream of consciousness, such as dreaming, or controlled mental states such as those arrived at in meditation, but it is my mind having this experience. It cannot validate anything in the public world and it cannot be falsified (and hence is not a proof of anything to either the one having the experience or the one hearing about it).

One can be sure, too, that if one's epistemology has been formed by Buddhist teaching, then one will interpret the experience in a Buddhist way; the same experience for one who has absorbed Islamic, Christian, Sikh or atheist epistemologies will be interpreted and reported differently.

Part of our practice includes reading about the Dhamma.

Some have said that sitting meditation is equivalent to placing oneself in a suggestive or hypnotic state during which what one learns or studies will seep into ones sub conscious & become ones belief.

Practices we perform such as long hours of meditative sitting may trigger physiological responses in the brain such as surges of serotonin yielding experiences of bliss & rapture which we interpret as the 2nd tetrad of Anapanasati.

How can we be sure the states we experience are as the Buddha taught or just powerful experiences brought about by the chemical soup which influences our brain.

Because of our study of the Dhamma we may come to interpret these experiences in a Buddhist way.

If we study Buddhism & practice sitting & mindfulness for most of our lives what other interpretations would we arrive at when having profound experiences other than Buddhist?

Which brings us back to the title of this thread.

After all the Buddha did teach us to have a level of skepticism.

Edited March 15, 2010 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

A hardened sceptic may say, “How can we believe that Sāriputta had gained Arahantship?” or “How can we know that the discourses have not just been made up by someone?” As long as they do not practise the Dhamma properly, they will never be able to gain faith in it, because it is beyond logical reasoning and speculation.

Studying the original discourses will help, but there is no substitute for personal realisation. At least one should practise to the level of “purity by overcoming doubt.” Then one will know how to infer, “This is surely the teaching of the Blessed One.”

Pious Buddhists have little difficulty accepting the Buddha’s teaching, because they have confidence based on long experience of practising generosity, morality, and meditation. They correctly infer that evil-doers go to hel_l and that the pious go to heaven. This is not blind faith, but confidence based on their experience of non-remorse and clear thinking due to their blameless life-style.

However, Buddhists who are not so pious, and most non-Buddhists, entertain doubts about the Buddha’s teaching, and so worry about their destiny after death. They lack confidence and have a guilty conscience due to defects in their morality. Ironically, their defective morality is a result of lack of confidence in the Dhamma.

We can draw an analogy with keep-fit enthusiasts and sufferers from obesity. Obese people, who have been lazy and indulgent for years, lack the confidence to change their diet and lifestyle. However, keep-fit enthusiasts do not need to worry about their health and weight. They can eat whatever they like, and naturally choose healthy food. Even if they sometimes eat unhealthy food, they do not gain weight because they are always physically active. Similarly, those who have right view do not easily do immoral deeds, because they believe that evil deeds lead to hel_l. If they do sometimes err, they are ashamed and contrite. Those who hold wrong views, easily do immoral deeds, and find it hard to do wholesome deeds. If blamed for their shamelessness by the pious, they make further evil kamma by lying, and by declaring their wrong views to deflect criticism.

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/hel_l/hel_l.html

[phetaroi]

Which brings us back to the title of this thread.

After all the Buddha did teach us to have a level of skepticism.

Thank you for a very good post.

I posted a question, but it was also advocating an "attitude" -- be a little skeptical.

I differentiate that strongly from being a skeptic, which I see as a pervasively negative attitude.

[phetaroi]

As long as they do not practise the Dhamma properly, they will never be able to gain faith in it...

..

Pious Buddhists have little difficulty accepting the Buddha’s teaching, because they have confidence based on long experience of practising generosity, morality, and meditation. They correctly infer that evil-doers go to hel_l and that the pious go to heaven. This is not blind faith, but confidence based on their experience of non-remorse and clear thinking due to their blameless life-style.

However, Buddhists who are not so pious, and most non-Buddhists, entertain doubts about the Buddha’s teaching, and so worry about their destiny after death. They lack confidence and have a guilty conscience due to defects in their morality. Ironically, their defective morality is a result of lack of confidence in the Dhamma.

Ah, so it is a matter of faith? You chose the above words. I have never advocated or made accusations of "blind faith".

[camerata]

No Camerata, I'm not talking about the millions of things we do in our life, and to be honest, I think you know that, because I've stated very clearly that I am talking about -- as you quote me above -- "aspects of Buddhism". This thread has focused on things like nirvanna and Buddhist heaven and hel_l, and so forth.

Right, but nibbana, your specific example, doesn't require the type of blind faith that heaven and hel_l do. To go back to your OP, how do we know what the Buddha said was correct? We don't. We can't know in advance. We can't make a reliable decision to believe or not believe. We can only know by practising and experiencing it. But that only applies to "this-world" teachings, up to and including nibbana. We can never know whether heaven and hel_l exist. Even the traditional "proof" - reading one's past lives - is open to question.

I may be wrong, but if I wanted to take the time to go back through many of your posts in the past year, I am quite sure I would see you sometimes saying things along the line of not being able to pick and choose what you want to believe in Buddhism, and that if you do try to do so, then it's not Buddhism. Yet today you say that what you like about Buddhism is that "You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now."

I'm sure what I said was in response to the many posters who misunderstand the Kalama Sutta and seem to think the Buddha said something like "Don't follow me" or "If it feels right, it is right" etc. What I meant was you can't put your own spin on Buddhism or reject certain teachings because it suits your existing opinions/lifestyle. Then it becomes your personal, customized religion rather than Buddhism. Being agnostic means you don't reject the supernatural side of Buddhism and you don't make a decision to believe or not believe it. Instead, you just treat it as a hypothesis that may or may not be proven at some later date. You practise as if it were true, without having made a decision that it is true. This is the approach recommended by Ven Payutto in his book Good, Evil and Beyond. It's also IMO the implied approach of Ajahn Sumedho, who says that "future lives are just speculation." It's the way to practise Buddhism and get the benefits without getting caught up in doubts about whether the Buddha was correct about everything or not.

[phetaroi]

No Camerata, I'm not talking about the millions of things we do in our life, and to be honest, I think you know that, because I've stated very clearly that I am talking about -- as you quote me above -- "aspects of Buddhism". This thread has focused on things like nirvanna and Buddhist heaven and hel_l, and so forth.

Right, but nibbana, your specific example, doesn't require the type of blind faith that heaven and hel_l do. To go back to your OP, how do we know what the Buddha said was correct? We don't. We can't know in advance. We can't make a reliable decision to believe or not believe. We can only know by practising and experiencing it. But that only applies to "this-world" teachings, up to and including nibbana. We can never know whether heaven and hel_l exist. Even the traditional "proof" - reading one's past lives - is open to question.

I may be wrong, but if I wanted to take the time to go back through many of your posts in the past year, I am quite sure I would see you sometimes saying things along the line of not being able to pick and choose what you want to believe in Buddhism, and that if you do try to do so, then it's not Buddhism. Yet today you say that what you like about Buddhism is that "You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now."

I'm sure what I said was in response to the many posters who misunderstand the Kalama Sutta and seem to think the Buddha said something like "Don't follow me" or "If it feels right, it is right" etc. What I meant was you can't put your own spin on Buddhism or reject certain teachings because it suits your existing opinions/lifestyle. Then it becomes your personal, customized religion rather than Buddhism. Being agnostic means you don't reject the supernatural side of Buddhism and you don't make a decision to believe or not believe it. Instead, you just treat it as a hypothesis that may or may not be proven at some later date. You practise as if it were true, without having made a decision that it is true. This is the approach recommended by Ven Payutto in his book Good, Evil and Beyond. It's also IMO the implied approach of Ajahn Sumedho, who says that "future lives are just speculation." It's the way to practise Buddhism and get the benefits without getting caught up in doubts about whether the Buddha was correct about everything or not.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...I gotta think about this for a while.

[khondoendin]

Per the buddha's teaching is contral to a methodology for awakening to be realistic, the application of the five primary criteria of authenticity of the Pali texts is somewhat misleading. The methodology itselft should be the measure to authenticate the texts.

As your conclusion, "However, despite critical analysis based on the above criteria, the Canon as a whole may well have the ring of authenticity. The total may be much more than the sum of its parts," you already dismissed the premier.

[rockyysdt]

No Camerata, I'm not talking about the millions of things we do in our life, and to be honest, I think you know that, because I've stated very clearly that I am talking about -- as you quote me above -- "aspects of Buddhism". This thread has focused on things like nirvanna and Buddhist heaven and hel_l, and so forth.

Right, but nibbana, your specific example, doesn't require the type of blind faith that heaven and hel_l do. To go back to your OP, how do we know what the Buddha said was correct? We don't. We can't know in advance. We can't make a reliable decision to believe or not believe. We can only know by practising and experiencing it. But that only applies to "this-world" teachings, up to and including nibbana. We can never know whether heaven and hel_l exist. Even the traditional "proof" - reading one's past lives - is open to question.

I may be wrong, but if I wanted to take the time to go back through many of your posts in the past year, I am quite sure I would see you sometimes saying things along the line of not being able to pick and choose what you want to believe in Buddhism, and that if you do try to do so, then it's not Buddhism. Yet today you say that what you like about Buddhism is that "You can remain agnostic about some aspects of it while practising and gaining the benefits here and now."

I'm sure what I said was in response to the many posters who misunderstand the Kalama Sutta and seem to think the Buddha said something like "Don't follow me" or "If it feels right, it is right" etc. What I meant was you can't put your own spin on Buddhism or reject certain teachings because it suits your existing opinions/lifestyle. Then it becomes your personal, customized religion rather than Buddhism. Being agnostic means you don't reject the supernatural side of Buddhism and you don't make a decision to believe or not believe it. Instead, you just treat it as a hypothesis that may or may not be proven at some later date. You practise as if it were true, without having made a decision that it is true. This is the approach recommended by Ven Payutto in his book Good, Evil and Beyond. It's also IMO the implied approach of Ajahn Sumedho, who says that "future lives are just speculation." It's the way to practise Buddhism and get the benefits without getting caught up in doubts about whether the Buddha was correct about everything or not.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...I gotta think about this for a while.

So in a nutshell you'll only know by practicing and experiencing it.

Do you practice?