How Do We Know Buddha Was Correct?

[phetaroi]

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

Do you practice?

1. Thanks for restating my premise -- that each will only know when they experience it.

2. Yes, although probably not in the way you do.

[rockyysdt]

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

Do you practice?

1. Thanks for restating my premise -- that each will only know when they experience it.

2. Yes, although probably not in the way you do.

Is it the way the Buddha taught?

[phetaroi]

Is it the way the Buddha taught?

No. Clearly not.

First, we don't really know what Buddha said about 2,500 years ago. In fact, we don't really know exactly when he was alive. Whatever he said was passed along by word of mouth for something like four centuries before it was written down. Most scholars appear to believe that what he said was intentionally or unintentionally modified by monks and that even the historical aspects of Buddha's life, let alone his statements are in question. For example, many of us who are Buddhist say we don't agree with the magic that is often associated with other religions (such as with Christians and their Bible and all the miracles). Yet, we seem to be very willing to believe that Buddha was born 10 months after his mother dreamed that a white elephant with 6 tusks entered her body.

Lest you think it's just me who is skeptical that we know what the complete and ultimate truth is, I remind you that there are other schools of Buddhism, and that Mahayana Buddhism has a larger following than does Theravada Buddhism. Most of us here are most attuned to Theravada Buddhism -- perhaps because it is right, or perhaps because of where we are living -- but it does seem to me that Mahayana Buddhism is willing to be more open-minded about seeking truth and expanding Buddha's "research". On the other hand, it also seems more wrapped up in divine beings and such, which sort of bothers me (not that that is not also present in Theravada Buddhism...but to a lesser extent it seems to me).

I'm going to make what may seem like an odd comparasin here -- between Buddha and Charles Darwin.

I know...odd. Hang with me just a bit. During the Scopes "Monkey Trail" in 1925, attorney Clarence Darrow stated in his defense that, “Darwin took us to a hilltop from which we could look back and see the way we came.” In a sense, I see Buddha as doing just the opposite -- he took us to a hilltop from which we could look forward and see the direction in which men (as individuals) and mankind must go to achieve personal peace. Even after 150 years, the theory of evolution continues -- itself -- to evolve and to be refined. In fact, I cannot think of any significant concept that has not evolved over time. And I therefore find it difficult believe that after 2,500 years that Buddhist thought should not also continue to evolve and be refined.

If you say no to that, then I say you are being dogmatic...and -- in my view -- that is the one thing that no thinking Buddhist should ever be.

[dmax]

how do we know anything is true ?

[rockyysdt]

Is it the way the Buddha taught?

No. Clearly not.

Didn't the Buddha teach that practice was paramount & integral to Buddhism?

I'm interested why you don't practice the way the Buddha taught?

Edited March 16, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

Is it the way the Buddha taught?

No. Clearly not.

Didn't the Buddha teach that practice was paramount & integral to Buddhism?

I'm interested why you don't practice the way the Buddha taught?

Interesting that out of nearly 500 words I wrote, you walked away with only 3. But, to answer your question (and these are in no particular order):

1. I'm lazy.

2. I don't chant. I sometimes meditate. I mostly contemplate what I see and hear when I visit Buddhist temples on an almost daily basis.

3. I think Buddhism's primary value is as a moral code. That value is provable. Many other aspects of Buddhism -- e.g., nirvanna, Buddhist heaven and hel_l -- are speculative.

4. Buddha is/was the world's most enlightened teacher, and when I say enlightened I mean in terms of "factually well-informed, tolerant of alternative opinions, and guided by rational thought". However, Buddha was not/is not the only enlightened teacher.

5. I am many things in this life. A man. An American. A moralist. A Buddhist. And much more. None of the things that I am takes away my right of independent thinking. My earliest readings in Buddhism taught me that in learning about Buddhism you should learn, contemplate, set aside (at least for the time being) what you cannot accept, and incorporate into your life what you can accept.

6. There are also many things in this life that I am not. One of those things I am not is a dogmatist. No man (and I remind you that Buddha was a man, not a god), no philosophy, and no religion has a monopoly on what is right and moral.

7. What I value most about Buddhism is its concept of compassion toward others. That is something that is comparatively rarely discussed in this forum. Instead, we seem to concentrate on what Buddhism does for us as individuals. While it doesn't need to be one or the other, I think our focus is somewhat misplaced.

This forum leads me to think. That's why I like being here. Most of the people in this forum are tolerant of other views and treat each other with respect.

[camerata]

For example, many of us who are Buddhist say we don't agree with the magic that is often associated with other religions (such as with Christians and their Bible and all the miracles). Yet, we seem to be very willing to believe that Buddha was born 10 months after his mother dreamed that a white elephant with 6 tusks entered her body.

I don't think this is an accurate statement. I've never yet met a serious Buddhist who believes this. The compilers of the Canon concentrated on the doctrine and considered the Buddha's life largely irrelevant, so there is very little biographical information about him in the suttas. But it turned out that the myths and legends that arose later made proselytization easier, so eventually they were all collected and put into a commentary. As I recall it was added to the front of the Vinaya. Anyone who has done a little research knows that most of the magic stuff is not Canonical, even though it may be inspiring and easy to teach to children.

And I therefore find it difficult believe that after 2,500 years that Buddhist thought should not also continue to evolve and be refined.

The question is why should it be changed if it already works? The Mahayanists changed it supposedly to make it easier and more accessible for the uneducated. In doing so, they changed the ultimate goal (with the exception of Zen) back to the same old "Big Guy in the Sky" to help us and eternal bliss (sometime) after death of all the other religions. In other words, they went backwards instead of forwards.

Then there's your own excellent question of who would make the changes. The Buddha was a genius in his formulation of human psychology, which is still more complex and advanced than modern psychiatry. Who would be able to improve on the work of a genius?

In what is sometimes called "Modern Theravada" the trend is not to change the Buddha's teaching, it's to discover the essence of it, to find out what the Buddha really said or what he really meant. Not only does traditional Buddhism rely on many commentaries written centuries after the Buddha died, but large chunks of the Canon were written after he died. Then there are the parts of the suttas which historians say were probably written after the Buddha died. Finally, even in the oldest suttas there are parts that seem to have been added later because they aren't in accord with the Buddha's core teachings (see the Mahaparinibbana Sutta). To complicate it all there are commentaries which are actually distillations of what the Buddha said in different suttas, and therefore perfectly valid.

IMO it's much more fruitful to investigate what the Buddha really said than to try and change his system. The details are always open to refinement because there's so little about, say, meditation techniques, available in the Canon. It probably doesn't matter whether you concentrate on your abdomen, the whole breath, or the tip of your nose, for example, as long as you achieve concentration and it moves you towards the goal.

One of the leaders of this kind of "back to the roots" Theravada is Ajahn Brahm, so it doesn't surprise me at all that the traditionalists have kicked him out. But I suppose even in going back to the roots of Buddhism, there is always the danger of putting your own interpretation on things.

[rockyysdt]

Is it the way the Buddha taught?

No. Clearly not.

Didn't the Buddha teach that practice was paramount & integral to Buddhism?

I'm interested why you don't practice the way the Buddha taught?

Interesting that out of nearly 500 words I wrote, you walked away with only 3. But, to answer your question (and these are in no particular order):

1. I'm lazy.

2. I don't chant. I sometimes meditate. I mostly contemplate what I see and hear when I visit Buddhist temples on an almost daily basis.

3. I think Buddhism's primary value is as a moral code. That value is provable. Many other aspects of Buddhism -- e.g., nirvanna, Buddhist heaven and hel_l -- are speculative.

4. Buddha is/was the world's most enlightened teacher, and when I say enlightened I mean in terms of "factually well-informed, tolerant of alternative opinions, and guided by rational thought". However, Buddha was not/is not the only enlightened teacher.

5. I am many things in this life. A man. An American. A moralist. A Buddhist. And much more. None of the things that I am takes away my right of independent thinking. My earliest readings in Buddhism taught me that in learning about Buddhism you should learn, contemplate, set aside (at least for the time being) what you cannot accept, and incorporate into your life what you can accept.

6. There are also many things in this life that I am not. One of those things I am not is a dogmatist. No man (and I remind you that Buddha was a man, not a god), no philosophy, and no religion has a monopoly on what is right and moral.

7. What I value most about Buddhism is its concept of compassion toward others. That is something that is comparatively rarely discussed in this forum. Instead, we seem to concentrate on what Buddhism does for us as individuals. While it doesn't need to be one or the other, I think our focus is somewhat misplaced.

This forum leads me to think. That's why I like being here. Most of the people in this forum are tolerant of other views and treat each other with respect.

Hi P.

Apart from morality I was just interested to know what other values Buddhism offers you?

Also, without practice (right effort, right concentration, right mindfulness) how can we be sure that our morality isn't colored by ego?

And, can we call ourselves Buddhist if we don't accept the Four Noble Truths & The Eightfold Path, which is the cornerstone of Buddhism?

Edited March 17, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

Hi P.

Apart from morality I was just interested to know what other values Buddhism offers you?

Also, without practice (right effort, right concentration, right mindfulness) how can we be sure that our morality isn't colored by ego?

And, can we call ourselves Buddhist if we don't accept the Four Noble Truths & The Eightfold Path, which is the cornerstone of Buddhism?

The way you begin your question seems odd to me ("Apart from morality..."). Although you didn't intend it, it almost makes it sound like morality is a minor thing almost not worth worrying about.

Of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, there is little that I have read with which I differ. Until, that is, we get to the desirability of nibanna.

First, it seems to be that the concept presupposes a CRAVING for nibanna.

Second, that the attainment of nibanna is something that everyone should work toward achieving in their current existence. I think it is at this point that I begin to play with the idea that I relate to Mahayana Buddhism -- that karuna and the postponement of entering nibanna is more noble than simply entering nibanna for one's own sake.

It is also the point at life's end that I have not settled in my mind...and will not be able to until that time comes. We just don't know.

[camerata]

First, it seems to be that the concept presupposes a CRAVING for nibanna.

We've covered this a few times already. The desire for nibanna has never been considered "bad" or "craving" in Buddhism. It is dhammachanda (spiritual desire/wholesome desire) as opposed to worldly desire. Once we attain nibbana we are uniquely equipped to teach others how to escape suffering, and that has an infinite ripple effect starting with those around us.

Second, that the attainment of nibanna is something that everyone should work toward achieving in their current existence.

It isn't mandatory. It's just the safest strategy. The point is, once you go onto another existence you have no idea what situation you'll be in. You could be in the animal realm - or worse - for an aeon. To believe you can choose your next existence like a Tibetan lama, you need a lot of faith.

that karuna and the postponement of entering nibanna is more noble than simply entering nibanna for one's own sake.

That should be an immediate warning flag to you. The idea of being noble, being heroic, is very attractive. But what happened to not-self and ridding ourselves to attachment to existence? IMO, the bodhisattva ideal is a cosmic ego trip devised to cater to our deep-seated desire for immortality. Nibbana, on the other hand, is presented as an exit strategy from eternal suffering.

It is also the point at life's end that I have not settled in my mind...and will not be able to until that time comes. We just don't know.

Right. And there really is no criteria with which to make a decision. Better just to live in the present moment.

[rockyysdt]

The way you begin your question seems odd to me ("Apart from morality..."). Although you didn't intend it, it almost makes it sound like morality is a minor thing almost not worth worrying about.

Sorry l might have given this impression P.

I lopped the top of my little finger with the garden secateurs the other day & haven't been succinct with my wording, perhaps due to some attachment to the pain.

My purpose was not to say that being moral is minor, but to learn why you relate to Buddhism other than the moralistic aspect.

For example, if one relates to Buddhism for its moral aspect alone, one doesn't need to call oneself a Buddhist or be associated with it to be moral.

Of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, there is little that I have read with which I differ. Until, that is, we get to the desirability of nibanna.

That is why I don't understand.

If you accept the Bhudda's teaching which is

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

And the path which is:

1. Right View

2. Right Intention

3. Right Speech

4. Right Action

5. Right Livelihood

6. Right Effort

7. Right Mindfulness

8. Right Concentration

but you've indicated that you allow laziness, notion of independence, attachment to nationality, & perceived dogmatism, to get in your way of achieving advancement.

Perhaps not Nirvana, but personal experience of true selflessness & compassion, & awareness of your true nature or egoless self.

Aren't you excited about discovering your true self?

Edited March 17, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

The question is why should it be changed if it already works? The Mahayanists changed it supposedly to make it easier and more accessible for the uneducated. In doing so, they changed the ultimate goal (with the exception of Zen) back to the same old "Big Guy in the Sky" to help us and eternal bliss (sometime) after death of all the other religions. In other words, they went backwards instead of forwards.

My studies and experiences are proceeding slowly. I'm frequently made aware of how little I know, but in what I have read and seen of Mahayana (via books, a retreat at Plum Village and one course on the Mind with the Foundation for Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT)) I haven't come across the Big Guy in the Sky theme. Of course I am aware that there are many Mahayana traditions and schools, some of which are quite alien to my way of thinking and others quite deviant (some of the Japanese schools, from memory). I also realize that, e.g. Tibetan Buddhism is saturated with magic and the occult. But how coherent is Theravada?

Camerata speaks of "Modern Theravada", presumably a reformed and less encrusted form, which suggests there is a traditional Theravada that either lacks reasonableness or is overlain with impure practice and teaching. In Thailand I am aware of at least four different kinds of Theravada - Mahanikai, Dhammayut, Dhammakai (which I think is situated within Mahanikai) and Santi Asoke (which is outside the State-approved Sangha). In some respects these forms of Theravada differ radically from one another. Consider the contrast between Dhammakai, which devotes so much time and energy to soliciting donations and identifies merit with a materially successful life, and Santi Asoke, which discourages donations and advocates and practises personal austerity and economic self-sufficiency. Dhammayut tried to banish popular forms of religion and devotional practices aimed at Nibbana (or rebirth in the time of the Buddha Mettya/Maitreya), but was unable to, and these things are happily encouraged by Mahanikai clergy. Dhammakai has taught that "Nibbana is atta", for which it was publicly censored. I gather that Phra Photirak (Santi Asoke) has a problem with sunyatta, though my source is anecdotal.

The inner core of the Buddhist religion in my view is the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Then there is an outer core that incorporates anatta, and anicca (dukkha being inner core). Then the great teachings on the mind and its development. The rest of it - nibbana, buddhahood, the bodhisattva ideal, the arahant state, etc, is non-essential and a matter of choice, presumably based on ratiocination, reflection and practice. It could even be that one follows the Mahayana path in preference to the Theravada because the Mahayana Sangha is more welcoming. This would not be an acceptable choice to a rationalist, but rationalists are locked into texts, preferred discourses and, perhaps, reductionism - the whole is the sum of the parts (so you'd better get all the parts right).

The great Medieval philosopher and theologian, St Thomas Aquinas, had a mystical or revelatory experience of some kind toward the end of his life, at which point he stopped writing because, as he said, "All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me". In a way, though I would hardly like to dismiss the value of discussion about teachings and doctrines, these teachings may in a way, apart from the core, lack real substance and stability, like straw.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[phetaroi]

Rocky & Camerata,

Let me begin by saying that you are both excellent posters, and I learn a lot from you.

However, I fundamentally disagree with both of you on a number of things. One of the most wonderful aspects about Buddhism is that -- unlike Catholicism -- I'm not going to be excommunicated.

I am perfectly content with saying that we will have to agree to disagree.

[rockyysdt]

One of the most wonderful aspects about Buddhism is that -- unlike Catholicism -- I'm not going to be excommunicated.

The problem with Buddhism is that, if it's factual, everyone will be governed by it regardless of their views.

[camerata]

My studies and experiences are proceeding slowly. I'm frequently made aware of how little I know, but in what I have read and seen of Mahayana (via books, a retreat at Plum Village and one course on the Mind with the Foundation for Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT)) I haven't come across the Big Guy in the Sky theme. Of course I am aware that there are many Mahayana traditions and schools, some of which are quite alien to my way of thinking and others quite deviant (some of the Japanese schools, from memory). I also realize that, e.g. Tibetan Buddhism is saturated with magic and the occult.

"Big Guy in the Sky" was just my shorthand for relying on supernatural deities for help of some sort. Tibetan Buddhism has all kinds of deities. Japan's Shingon has its 13 buddhas. Tendai has multiple buddhas and bodhisattvas. But the most prevalent form of Buddhism across East Asia is Pure land, in which you chant a mantra to Amitabha and get whisked away to heaven when you die. Worship of Kuan-Yin (Avalokitasvara) is pretty much the same. Some of the defunct sects (with just a few temples in Nara) have Mahavairocana, "the Cosmic Buddha." The Buddha said, "Be a lamp unto yourself" and yet most Mahayana sects "evolved" back into seeking the help of deities.

If you take a look at the traditional literature on bodhisattvas like Kannon in Japan you'll see that the help people get from him/her in the tales recorded is always material. It's never a Dhamma teaching. It's never helping people to help themselves to escape from suffering - the essence of Buddhism.

Camerata speaks of "Modern Theravada", presumably a reformed and less encrusted form, which suggests there is a traditional Theravada that either lacks reasonableness or is overlain with impure practice and teaching.

Actually, this was just a designation used by e-sangha to separate "classical Theravada" (according to the Pali Canon and commentaries) and modern attempts to get to the core of the teachings (mainly Thai Forest Tradition and Ven Buddhadasa, as I recall). I don't know how far I'd go in calling a system Modern Theravada, rather than "Western Buddhism" a la Jack Kornfield or Stephen Bachelor.

It could even be that one follows the Mahayana path in preference to the Theravada because the Mahayana Sangha is more welcoming. This would not be an acceptable choice to a rationalist, but rationalists are locked into texts, preferred discourses and, perhaps, reductionism - the whole is the sum of the parts (so you'd better get all the parts right).

Jack Kornfield's recent book caused me to think about this. If one isn't aiming for nibbana in this life and can get a reduction in suffering from practising Mahayana, does it really matter which type of Buddhism you choose? He doesn't advocate seeking the help of deities, of course, but he does talk about following the bodhisattva ideal in this life and having "Buddha nature."

[phetaroi]

One of the most wonderful aspects about Buddhism is that -- unlike Catholicism -- I'm not going to be excommunicated.

The problem with Buddhism is that, if it's factual, everyone will be governed by it regardless of their views.

The problem with Christianity is that, if it's factual, everyone will be governed by it regardless of their views.

The problem with Islam is that, if it's factual, everyone will be governed by it regardless of their views.

The problem with Hindusim is that, if it's factual, everyone will be governed by it regardless of their views.

The problem with __________ is that, if it's factual, everyone will be governed by it regardless of their views.

Or, perhaps there's more than one path available.

Or perhaps none of these religions has it quite right.

Or perhaps each of these religions has a part of it right.

What's interesting about the conversation we've been having, is that it's very much about "power".

When I was a school principal in the States, I was the center of power in that school. Not much made me nervous, except when a group of teachers would speak up during a faculty meeting and say, "A group of us have been meeting and we think...."

When I would go to a principals meeting with the Superintendent, I could almost see him break out into a sweat when a group of us principals would speak up at the meeting and say, "A group of us have been meeting, and we think...."

That's why the Catholic Church is so controlling. Thinking Catholics are a risk.

As I understand it, there is a supreme Sangha here in Thailand that controls Buddhism in Thailand. It seems to me that they are comparable to the "Elders".

As I understand it, Buddha went to the Elders of his day and attempted to learn from them, but found their path wanting. The more he questioned, the closer he came to the Truth (the capital T is intentional).

In this forum, I think there are some who are more traditional and dogmatic who align themselves very much with the "Buddhist Elders". I think there are others who are more questioning. I think both groups make each other nervous.

[rockyysdt]

I hope you haven't taken me personally as one of my conditioned faults is that I can become attached to debate.

After reading the 4 noble truths & the eightfold path, I've come to the view that knowing about the Buddha & what he taught is worthless unless I practice it.

As I'm very much anchored to my ego anything I do in life is colored by my conditioning & impermanence including my sense of morality.

For this reason I won't call myself a Buddhist but will seek personal experience through practice.

I also suffer from negative self talk & am known to skip my practice.

I was hoping I could encourage you to take the plunge as I'd hate to see you come back as an ant and have to start all over again.

I suspect your biggest hurdle is (as you've indicated in the past) the notion that meditation doesn't come easily to you.

Maybe Camerata & others living in Thailand can offer to assist you to overcome this.

You and others on this forum have been my teachers for some time now.

Everyone has something to offer.

Edited March 18, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

With a generic question, such as "How do we know the Buddha was correct?" I think all we can do is relate our personal experience. Everyone is free to do that. I don't see it having anything to do with power. In fact, listening to others' first-hand experience is the best part of web forum discussions, as far as I'm concerned.

In my case, I can say with absolute certainty that what the Buddha said about Right Speech (as one example) was correct and produced the desired results for me. As for something like rebirth, I think the only answer is "There is no way to know for sure."

But Buddhism isn't science. It's more like psychiatry - some people get excellent results, others don't, and the reason for the discrepancy is not totally clear.

[Xangsamhua]

My studies and experiences are proceeding slowly. I'm frequently made aware of how little I know, but in what I have read and seen of Mahayana (via books, a retreat at Plum Village and one course on the Mind with the Foundation for Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition (FPMT)) I haven't come across the Big Guy in the Sky theme. Of course I am aware that there are many Mahayana traditions and schools, some of which are quite alien to my way of thinking and others quite deviant (some of the Japanese schools, from memory). I also realize that, e.g. Tibetan Buddhism is saturated with magic and the occult.

"Big Guy in the Sky" was just my shorthand for relying on supernatural deities for help of some sort. Tibetan Buddhism has all kinds of deities. Japan's Shingon has its 13 buddhas. Tendai has multiple buddhas and bodhisattvas. But the most prevalent form of Buddhism across East Asia is Pure land, in which you chant a mantra to Amitabha and get whisked away to heaven when you die. Worship of Kuan-Yin (Avalokitasvara) is pretty much the same. Some of the defunct sects (with just a few temples in Nara) have Mahavairocana, "the Cosmic Buddha." The Buddha said, "Be a lamp unto yourself" and yet most Mahayana sects "evolved" back into seeking the help of deities.

If you take a look at the traditional literature on bodhisattvas like Kannon in Japan you'll see that the help people get from him/her in the tales recorded is always material. It's never a Dhamma teaching. It's never helping people to help themselves to escape from suffering - the essence of Buddhism.

Camerata speaks of "Modern Theravada", presumably a reformed and less encrusted form, which suggests there is a traditional Theravada that either lacks reasonableness or is overlain with impure practice and teaching.

Actually, this was just a designation used by e-sangha to separate "classical Theravada" (according to the Pali Canon and commentaries) and modern attempts to get to the core of the teachings (mainly Thai Forest Tradition and Ven Buddhadasa, as I recall). I don't know how far I'd go in calling a system Modern Theravada, rather than "Western Buddhism" a la Jack Kornfield or Stephen Bachelor.

It could even be that one follows the Mahayana path in preference to the Theravada because the Mahayana Sangha is more welcoming. This would not be an acceptable choice to a rationalist, but rationalists are locked into texts, preferred discourses and, perhaps, reductionism - the whole is the sum of the parts (so you'd better get all the parts right).

Jack Kornfield's recent book caused me to think about this. If one isn't aiming for nibbana in this life and can get a reduction in suffering from practising Mahayana, does it really matter which type of Buddhism you choose? He doesn't advocate seeking the help of deities, of course, but he does talk about following the bodhisattva ideal in this life and having "Buddha nature."

Thanks Camerata. As always, a thorough and helpful clarification. I especially resonate with your last paragraph.

East Asian Mahayana does seem to abound in deities, as you have illustrated, though I don't see them as in any way approaching the BGITS concept. Perhaps derivatively they do, but they haven't featured in my personal exposure to Mahayana, which is via the DL, TNH and Western Mahayana teachers, monastics and laypeople.

Metta to all Buddhism Forum members and mods. I shall be overseas for three weeks to see family, but will try to look in on the forum every couple of days. As Phetaroi said, this is a good forum. People may disagree, but they are respectful and courteous.

[camerata]

East Asian Mahayana does seem to abound in deities, as you have illustrated, though I don't see them as in any way approaching the BGITS concept. Perhaps derivatively they do, but they haven't featured in my personal exposure to Mahayana, which is via the DL, TNH and Western Mahayana teachers, monastics and laypeople.

Well, TNH is Zen (though he does talk about Avalokitasvara on his CD), but surely you've noticed that some Tibetan teachers in the West simply omit teachings about deities because they know they are problematical for Westerners. It's similar to the situation with Theravada, where teachers addressing a Western audience often omit or barely mention rebirth and celestial beings for the same reason. Check out Ajahn Sumedho's books or Henepola Gunaratana's books.

[phetaroi]

I was hoping I could encourage you to take the plunge as I'd hate to see you come back as an ant and have to start all over again.

Everyone has something to offer.

Oh not me...I have a tough exoskeleton, so I'm sure I'll come back as a giant Thai cockroach!

Absolutely...well, almost absolutely...any serious poster has something valuable to offer to all of us, even when their view is completely different than our own. At the very least, a different view increases our awareness.

[phetaroi]

With a generic question, such as "How do we know the Buddha was correct?" I think all we can do is relate our personal experience. Everyone is free to do that. I don't see it having anything to do with power. In fact, listening to others' first-hand experience is the best part of web forum discussions, as far as I'm concerned.

In my case, I can say with absolute certainty that what the Buddha said about Right Speech (as one example) was correct and produced the desired results for me. As for something like rebirth, I think the only answer is "There is no way to know for sure."

But Buddhism isn't science. It's more like psychiatry - some people get excellent results, others don't, and the reason for the discrepancy is not totally clear.

Great post!

[camerata]

Ajahn Jayasaro touches on faith and dogma at the beginning of his excellent talk, Come, See and Test it Out. He then goes on to describe the reason for and benefits of meditation.

[phetaroi]

Ajahn Jayasaro touches on faith and dogma at the beginning of his excellent talk, Come, See and Test it Out. He then goes on to describe the reason for and benefits of meditation.

I don't suppose these are in text form anywhere?

[camerata]

I haven't seen them in text form. I prefer reading to listening myself, but it's so much easier to simply record a talk than transcribe it. I tried transcribing one of Ajahn Brahm's talks myself once, but gave up after 4 hours work had resulted in only 15 minutes of the talk typed up.