This narrative gets called “The Great Apostasy” in Protestant Christianity. Islam believes in a similar narrative concerning the singular religion of God, which is always Islam, which is sent down to humanity through the prophets, and then forgotten when the texts are altered (taḥrīf) and the teachings are lost. Mohammed is believed to be the “Seal of the Prophets”. Giving the original teaching in a definitive form that will not be altered.
Whichever “Great Apostasy” narrative: the idea is generally that the prophet originally taught “our version”, but then there was a great apostasy away from the true teaching.
For instance, some spin this narrative involving Early Buddhism and Mahākāśyapa, the early saṅgha being the setting for the apostasy, Mahākāśyapa being the instigator, altering the Buddhavacana & inserting all of this business, allegedly, that there was ‘no self’.
The issue is coming up with the proof for such an apostasy, be it the early Roman Church allegedly apostatizing, the early followers of the pre-Mohammed dispensations of the prophets of the “One True God”, or the early bhikkhu-saṅgha.
in response to the thread’s title question: yes. but then again, i do know that there are A LOT of people who will definitely disagree with me, but at least that’s my opinion based on my observations that I have noticed by reading about different religions, talking with other people from different religions and many other things and to be honest, so far I haven’t met anyone to change my opinion. but then again, this is only my opinion so peace to everyone!
Well, without any substantive arguments, such opinions are ultimately just empty statements.
One would have to give good reasons for any opinion to be taken seriously.
So far perennialists have failed to do so which is why I and others disagree.
It’s not like we disagree because we dislike the idea, or that the idea isn’t nice. It would be nice if all religious ideas and all ethical ideas led one to the same happy place, because that way one would not have to worry too much.
I respect your opinion. My problem is with the Buddhist monks who say like this. If a Buddhist monk think like that why don’t they disrobe and go refuge with another religion?
As I was reading your comment I was reminded of statements in the EBT’s . Buddha describes himself finding an ancient path traveled by previous awakened ones. He states that there are no other teachings of his time that describe this. And if you don’t follow his teaching you are doomed to endless rebirths in samsaric realms. Aside from the fact that eternal hell sounds worse than endless rebirths in samsara - it is pretty much the same story.
Thank you for the correct terminology. I think we also see this currently over the commentaries - are they a true understanding of the original teachings or a corruption? ( a rhetorical question), with secular Buddhism - is rejecting rebirth heretical? and so on. Seems like all religions go through this cycle. I recall a sutta where Buddha is asked why so few people awaken now and he says it is because of counterfeit teachings by his own monks and nuns so the process starts early on. Isn’t Sutta Central in a sense a response to this as well? An effort to get back to the basics?
Yes, but the “Great Apostasy” narrative generally is an example of sectarian polemics, be that sect/ideology Protestantism, Buddhism, or Perennialism. For instance, “Great Apostasy” narratives is what leads to “Greek Buddha”.
Or the pop-historical New Age notion that the Gnostic Gospels constitute the earliest dispensation of Jesus Christ.
IMO there are meaningful differences between the various world religions, but the “common core” is all about kindness, compassion, morality, generosity and so forth. These are preliminaries, yes, but they are essential.
‘Are all recluses and brahmins, sir, wholly of one creed, one practice, one persuasion, one aim?’
‘No, ruler of gods, they are not.’
‘But why, sir, are they not?’
‘Are all recluses and brahmins, sir, perfectly proficient, perfectly saved, living perfectly the best life, have they attained the right ideal?’
‘No, ruler of gods, they are not all so.’
‘Why, sir, are they not all so?’
‘Those recluses and brahmins, ruler of gods, who are set free through the entire destruction of craving, only they are perfectly proficient, only they are perfectly saved, only they are living perfectly the best life and have attained the ideal. Therefore is it that not all recluses and brahmins are perfectly proficient, perfectly saved, living perfectly the best life, and have attained the ideal.’
In Buddhism, these are just means to an end. Or the initial state of mind for a beginner.
In other religions, this is the end.
Another problem of other religions is they have compassion etc only for one category like a human not for animal or your enemy.
Well, perhaps some religions are like that. Jesus, on the other hand, said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
To pray might mean to request something from God, in this case, you would be requesting that your persecutor (someone who is out to get you) be well/happy/attain salvation etc…
For many, “praying” for someone probably entails giving rise to a mind of goodwill for that person, and not wishing them misery and misfortune.
people say, there are many roads leads to Rome, but there are more roads that don’t leads there, this is just an analogy, so if we ask ourselves, are all religions different path to same destination ?. The answer can be ‘Yes’ and ‘No’,
Because there is a Universal Law of dualism of the ‘True’ and ‘False’, this will make the possibility that there are also the right and the wrong paths…
