Is there any reason we wouldn’t expect the Sangha to be interested in preserving a record of the Buddha’s teachings? I’m leaving out the “verbatim” and “extensive historical” parts. Wouldn’t it have been out of character, at that time in Northern India, for the Buddha’s disciples not to attempt to remember the Buddha’s teachings as faithfully as they could?
How they were later written down and curated was largely a scribal activity.
I care about how the scribe made decisions.
Does it factor into my faith in the Triple Jewel? No.
Does it inform some elements of practice? Yes.
Does that have ramifications for how I view liberation? Yes.
I return to the Tendai monk, Rev. Jikai Dehn. At a critical point in the video, he addresses how Buddhists know things in his tradition: direct perception (pratyakṣa/paccakkha), inference through logic (anumāna/anumāna), and words of the Buddha himself (āptāgama/pāli equivalent?).
He then draws attention to the prajnaparamita sutra in 25,000 lines. He highlights the part where Arhat Subhūti teaches the Bodhisattvas. Under whose authority?
In this way, the sutra is the Buddha’s teaching. (I finally get it!) This doesn’t delegitimize the EBTs as I understand it from Rev. Dehn – or any of the more hagiographic parts. It appears that there is as much scrutiny in the various Mahāyāna traditions to legitimize the authority of one who gives birth to a sutra as there is in the EBT translation community to parse earlier vs. later parts of the canon.
Brilliant scrutiny. Thanks for your contributions, Beth!
This is a deep question. And my answer will be a mesh of more questions regarding curiosities that I find in the Canon, alas, I hope you’ll bear with me.
And you’ll find why I emphasise verbatim doctrine perhaps.
I think the story of Brahma imploring Buddha to teach is a very interesting bit, and for me, fits the idea of a Sage at Peace perfectly - if a person has managed to get rid of all desire and want, might they be less naturally inclined to teach? It seems plausible to me.. If nothing bothers or gladdens you, why bother? They’re at peace, come what may.
They would react, and react kindly, compassionately, for sure. Somebody asks you a question, you might as well answer them alright. But I suspect, many specific formulations could be the result of over-eager admirers, rather than the utterances of the “Sage at Peace”.
There’s a few glaring examples I can think of, regarding this: At times, Buddha seems far too occupied with his position and importance. For example, in MN 140, we have Buddha criticizing someone who calls him “friend” despite not knowing who he was:
Surely, bhikkhu, a transgression overcame you, in that like a fool, confused and blundering, you presumed to address me as ‘friend.’
Now, would that be something who utters these verses say:
They would never represent themselves as “equal”,
Nor conceive themselves “worse” or “better”. SNP 4.5
Never mind that practically, every time Buddha is spoken of, there’s several paragraphs of praising epithets. Would the speaker of the SNP verses above really be comfortable being praised endlessly so?
Loss of Context
Even when speaking online, we can’t always properly relay the nuances. A person coyly telling their partner “Ah no, stop it!” could just be teasing and playing. Same string of words could also declare something far more critical. Words are fickle like that; I’m not sure they always carry the tone we imagine.
A perfectly enlightened person would know this all too well. They would warn “Don’t mishandle the snake! Dharma is a raft, use it wisely and discard it at the proper time” precisely because I assume, people were already codifying, reifying, and trying to “grasp” the formula for salvation.
So I wonder just how much a Sage would be okay with over-systematisation of his “Dharma”, which brings to my next point…
Strategies, not Doctrines
Some of the greatest moments in the Canon come in the un-formulaic (or less-repeated) dialogues, rhetorics and strategies.
How compatible are the verses below:
They say: “In our Dharma purity’s found”
but deny that it is found in the Dharma of others.
On what they depend they say “it’s the best”,
and so settle down in their individual truths. SNP 4.8
With the declaration of DN 16:
“Subhadda, in whatever teaching and training the noble eightfold path is not found, there is no ascetic found, no second ascetic, no third ascetic, and no fourth ascetic. In whatever teaching and training the noble eightfold path is found, there is an ascetic found, a second ascetic, a third ascetic, and a fourth ascetic. In this teaching and training the noble eightfold path is found. Only here is there an ascetic, here a second ascetic, here a third ascetic, and here a fourth ascetic. Other sects are empty of ascetics."
Even now, ‘There is no self’ often seems to be treated as a doctrinal absolute, rather than a strategic lens; I’m unsure if that was ever the intention.
And this seems especially interesting given that, in at least one sutta, the Buddha refrains from declaring!
“And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’” SN 44.10
In SNP, we have a curious sutta that I’ve analysed that seems to discard the “Remainderless Nirvana”. Elsewhere, I’ve analysed whether the literal reading of Cessation (rather than an allegory) runs into contradictions with basic sutta doctrines.
The Sage of the Aṭṭhakavagga, as I read that chapter, doesn’t appear concerned with establishing a doctrinal system; if anything, he seems intent on rejecting any such attempt. The monastic-scholarly answer to this question has been along the lines of “The sage has no view, because he sees things as it really is”, which is the standard Commentarial view, only that this perspective is not made explicit in the Chapter, even as it describes a complete salvation.
Here’s the full verse in brackets. It would’ve been easy, verse after verse, to hint that “Sage sees things as they really are, therefore he has no view”, but I can’t see anything to that effect.
SNP 4.5
If, maintaining that theirs is the “ultimate” view,
a personage makes it out to be highest in the world;
then they declare all others are “lesser”;
that’s why they’re not beyond disputes.
If they see an advantage for themselves
in what’s seen, heard, or thought;
or in precepts or vows,
in that case, having adopted that one alone,
they see all others as inferior.
Those who are skilled say that, too, is a knot,
relying on which people see others as lesser.
That’s why a mendicant ought not rely
on what’s seen, heard, or thought,
or on precepts and vows.
Nor would they form a view about the world
through a notion or through precepts and vows.
They would never represent themselves as “equal”,
nor conceive themselves “worse” or “better”.
What was picked up has been set down
and is not grasped again;
they form no dependency even on notions.
They follow no side among the factions,
and believe in no view at all.
One here who has no wish for either end—
for any state of existence in this life or the next—
has adopted no dogma at all
after judging among the teachings.
For them not even the tiniest idea is formulated here
regarding what is seen, heard, or thought.
That brahmin does not grasp any view—
how could anyone in this world judge them?
They don’t make things up or promote them,
and don’t subscribe to any of the doctrines.
The brahmin has no need to be led by precept or vow;
gone to the far shore, one such does not return.
Briefly, I wonder whether doctrine was ever the central concern at all, rather than strategies tuned to context. And perhaps whatever “preservation” efforts would’ve been, could’ve been much more humbler in size and scope…
I’ve only, really briefly touched on such a dense and important topic. Going back to your first point:
Can not be stressed any more.
There’s a strain in Buddhist Literature, and Buddhist Practitioners, that’s openly embracing of skepticism.
‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—apparent in the present life immediately effective inviting inspection relevant so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’ AN 10.92
I raise some questions of an Ajahn’s paper, he replies graciously to me right here! We have people gently presenting their views, and their faith (Thank you for your reply, Paul!):
With all the points I’ve raised, I find Buddhist Literature an amazing treasure of humanity, and something that helped me immensely. I’m very grateful for the millenia of hard work in bringing it to us together, all parts of it.
So, it would not even be the last thing I want for someone who read this to think I’m dismissive of the Canon at all. There’s plenty in the canon besides doctrine.
The fact is that the various existing traditions, including EBTs, of Buddhist doctrine and practice are not entirely true to the teachings of the historical Buddha, and that in some cases they are actually misleading.
So, it is helpful to find out the formation of EBTs and beyond. This can be for both spiritual and academic interest in seeking out the original teachings of the Buddha.
I have seen many instances in the text where even enlightened monks consistently replied that they will remember as Buddha said, or even remember other monks to ask Buddha instead of them. It’s also easy to see that many texts do indeed follow what Buddha said and stop unnecessary speculations about Nibbana, Self, Cosmos etc. Buddha only declared Nibbana is Freedom and stopped describing it any further.
If you don’t think followers of Buddha didn’t try to remember teachings as closely as possible or intentionally altered, I think that assumption would also lead to the inference that the monks who did record were not enlightened. Or their teachers were also not enlightened because they didn’t correct them or their teachers also didn’t know the teachings correctly. It would also imply none of the lineage ever verified teachings(enlightenment) and correct the issues with texts. You are saying even though teachings is filled with sayings such as “There is no beneficial, falsehoods or useful fiction”, “Don’t lie - those who lie can do any evil”, “Remove delusion with truths” etc -they didn’t practice that at all.
If you are convinced that this is true, why would you believe that liberation is possible through Buddhism at all?
Thank you for the questions! I agree they are critical and necessary ones.
There’s a few things to unpack here.
J. R. Bhaddacak, a Theravādin monastic from Thailand, writes in his post:
Does the noble eightfold path have things to do with liberation? As asserted by the Buddha himself, the eightfold path is the way to get enlightened. (…)
A more serious question, however, is what you exactly mean by liberation or enlightenment. I will not go to this metaphysical problem.
I suggest instead that those who lead themselves with the Buddhist way of training eliminate ‘liberation’ or ‘enlightenment’ or ‘awakening’ or ‘nibbāna’ or ‘arhatship’ or the like from their vocabulary. You hardly need the terms. Once you have any concept of liberation, you will set it as a goal and attach to it. Just do your work, and forget about where to go.
So yes, people and texts can be falliable, as it’s warned to us in Kalama Sutta. How much blind faith should we have in a single body of text, tradition or assembly? And what does faith mean; does that imply that everything should be taken without critical thinking?
Conversely, I might have faith in a certain person not to harm me; they might succumb to anger and hurt me, and then apologizing later, correcting their course. Does that mean my faith was ill-placed?
In fact, we see in the very suttas the importance of critical thinking. Buddha invites inspection, Buddha warns us of relying on tradition, literature, ascetics, Buddha tells us to abandon the raft at the right time. It’s all in the canon.
Buddhist Literature is quite unique in the world literature, in its virtue-ethics. Again, from Bhaddacak:
After I studied Buddhism seriously and critically, it happens that many things taught by the tradition have to be discarded. I do not want to make myself in trouble by rejecting the tradition. But rather my integrity does not allow inconsistency happens. When we really understand things critically, we cannot help rejecting things not conforming to what we hold as true.
Still, many things in Buddhism survive the bomb of critical thinking, and we can apply them to our contemporary life.
In short, we don’t need to have a maximalist attitude towards the Pāli Canon (which is not the only Buddhist Canon!) in order to be inspired and leading a good life through it.
Richard Gombrich, one of the most staunch defenders of Pāli Buddhism, doesn’t even personally believe in rebirth. This means he doesn’t believe in the Theravādin account of enlightenment verbatim! And he still has studied the Pāli Canon so much, taught Pāli to countless students, and thinks it’s something so worthwhile to put his efforts into understanding.
Bhantes Sujato and Brahmali still think his opinions are interesting enough to pay attention to him.
In this way, I think they examplify some of the best virtues of Buddhism - open-minded, humble, critical, even if as they disagree with him on the goal of the path.
Their attitude (which is no doubt inspired with Buddhist tradition) speaks volumes for the usefulness of the Canon.
Well, let’s see if anything of this sort has happened in the history of Buddhism. You would be familiar with Mahāyāna, yes?
Theravāda and Mahāyāna famously disagree on just what constitutes enlightenment. Could it be that it represents a strand of traditionalists who disagreed with the increasingly literalist depictions of Nirvana?
Now, “Mahāyāna” is huuge, and one can find many things both extremely critical (Like Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras), and very embrasing (like Lotus Sūtra).
However, many Mahāyāna traditions also study the EBTs extensively, and respectfully. They just have a different interpretation on it. Might that be an example of what you call “correct the issues with texts”?
It isn’t to say Mahāyāna (taken as a whole, a collection of traditions that also conflict with each other) is right or that. It’s just, there’s plenty of evidence of people breaking off and challenging the tradition and establishing different Buddhist traditions, so yes, there are historical examples of what you’re saying.
I don’t know if there’s a warning in suttas against “fiction” per se (I would love to see a sutta reference!); even though I do remember something about “Making up stories”, which is what you might be referring to.
This is, in fact, the very questions I’m asking the “EBT maximalist” position, in that, why would the Sangha make up stories of Jātakas, for example?
And hence again, as I’ve repeated many times in this thread: This is only a problem if their intentions didn’t match their efforts. That is, if they were deliberately telling a fiction as “historical truth”.
Lotus Sūtra, for example, warns not to view Śrāvakayāna Canon as a lie, but rather as a skillful means, accepting the legitimacy of the efforts of the community that transmitted them.
Finally again, the usefulness of the literature doesn’t depend on it being correct on its entirety fully. I very much doubt anything of that sort could happen in real life: Even in life, Buddha’s followers are depicted as sometimes confused and transmitting the Dharma incorrectly in Pāli Canon.
Societies, traditions, literature are vast phenomena. I think it’s unreasonable to expect the Sangha’s understanding of Dharma to be “completely inerrant” even while Buddha was alive, let alone for 2500 years following his Nirvana.
As Bhante Sujato once said in a video: “A map doesn’t have to be perfect; it just needs to get you where you need to go.”
I hope this answers some of your questions. Thank you for directing them patiently and gently, and feel free to press on any other points that may be.
i don’t see any contradiction between these two. look at the 32 marks: they’re basically saying the buddha is handsome, comely, attractive etc. they’re not unusual features. handsome but bald and dressed identically to other monks would make the buddha largely indistinguishable to the casual observer.
your insistence that the suttas represent fictionalised stories means that you’re saying that the dhamma is made up through logical reasoning of some person(s).
then that same applies for the mahayana sutras as well. then there’s no bodhisattvas, no buddhas, no arahants, no enlightenment, and no end of suffering. isn’t that the logical conclusion of your your train of thought?
seeing the end of the path and experiencing the end of the path are two different things. one can see a mountain in the distance and know it exists just as described to you by someone else who has travelled there before. however seeing the mountain in the distance isn’t the same as climbing to its summit.
there are different kinds of knowledges - path and fruit of the four stages. you’re ascribing one kind of knowledge to all noble beings. that’s not the case, and the suttas make that clear.
Again, whether specific descriptions in the suttas are fantastical or not is a whole lot of different bag. All those details and scientific arguments can get back and forth for a while. And a person might still just choose to believe despite scientific plausibility as well, in which case the usefulness of the debate would be questionable to begin with.
Therefore again, I’d kindly ask that this thread is confined to the assumptions that at least not all of the depictions in he Nikayas can be correct. If, however, you’d like to discuss individual descriptions, feel free to make a new thread and I’ll meet you there.
Well, conventionally, we can talk about these things; yet even in suttas, Tathāgata is said “not found” in life. But that’s a different tangent!
But I think basically you’re saying that I assume “Fiction = Unreal, therefore useless”, or something like that: I’m explicitly saying that’s not the case. In fact, both of these things can be true:
An enlightened sage can compose a fictional story as a mnemonic device to help educate people in Dharma.
A schizophrenic patient’s ramblings can be logged correctly and still be useless as a Dharmic device.
What I’m saying is Whether something is fictional or not has no bearing on its usefulness as a Dharma teaching tool.
For example, a story can explain how a car works down to its most minute detail, and still, all the plot can be imaginary, and all the car-mechanic details can be correct.
This, I presume, was also the opinion of the Ancients who included things like Jātakas in their Canon, of which Bhantes Sujato, Brahmali, Analayo (and countless others) have remarked on the fictional status.
The difference between me and these Venerables, is that I think there’s reason to cast the net of “Fictionality” of the Canon deeper than they do so. Hence my questions and investigations!
Well, that’s basically what I’ve said earlier, that knowledge isn’t enough, which you’ve surmised with “Seeing the mountain isn’t the same as climbing to its summit.” So, that is what I was precisely saying earlier.
Dear @IndyJ ; I’d begun to compose my answer before the post was deleted. While moderators’ actions are necessary to keep a civil environment, I’d still like to try to reply to some of your arguments to the best of my abilities.
I might just convince you that my intentions are good, and that I’m offering a path of study that works for me, while inquiring for alternative paths that I can’t think of. And this is a good excuse to practice sīla and kalyāṇīmittatā, so, shall we?
Let’s start with the basics once again:
Suggestion 1: The Theravādin position is that entire Pāli Canon is Buddhavacana.
Suggestion 2: Monastic EBT Scholars such as Venerables Sujato, Brahmali, Analayo have raised doubts on the authenticity of certain parts of the Canon, most notably Jātakas, parts of Vinaya Stories, etc.
Problem: If the Canon was always a historical & faithful recollection of Buddha’s life and Dharma, then how come Ancients started to include materials that Monastic Scholars consider “inauthentic” in the Canon?
Solution 1:The transmission was at fault, monastics started passing off fictional stories as real events for unknown reasons.Note: This is NOT my position, but just a logical conclusion.
Solution 2:Transmission of Dharma always included fictional creativity (even if it’s based on a true person, events & Dharma); historical accuracy wasn’t a priority, and Dharmic faithfulness was more important.Note: THIS is my position.
Origins of the texts is a seriously hard job to do. I’ve briefly touched on what I think could’ve happened, but honestly, your guess is good as mine. We can spend an entire lifetime specifically devoted to the historicity of these texts, and make little real progress.
Therefore, for a Buddhist Practitioner (such as me or you), I think the Solution 2 is a useful strategy (rather than an absolute truth that can be proved) for the purposes of studying Dharma for various reasons:
It doesn’t try to divide the Pāli Canon into “early/late”, “historical/fictional” or “authentic/inauthentic”; it doesn’t divide “Pāli Canon / Mahāyāna Canon” on such divisions either.
1.1. This serves to redirect the discussion from “Did Buddha speak this text / did this really happen?” to “What does this text teach / is it aligned with how things really are?”
1.2. Rather than viewing late materials as an unfortunate fault of the transmission, this Solution tries to meet these texts for what they are, going back to the Point 1.1.
All of these teaches us to be both humble for the texts we prefer, being open minded enough to allow both for ourselves and the texts to be faulty, without clinging to any extremism.
It also allows us to reject some things if they don’t meet our conscience. Garudhamma rules is a famous example that troubles a lot of sensible people. Eating meat is another for me.
You’ve talked about internal integrity of other traditions and Pāli Canon. That’s a fair point - I don’t agree with the logic of most Mahāyāna texts, let alone all of it. I’m not here to defend one school or the other, rather, I’m trying to find a framework that is consistent that enables me to study the broader Buddhist literature fairly and respectfully.
I’ve deliberately refrained from discussing “What’s specifically fantastical or not” - again, for example, 32 marks (something the three aforementioned Venerables also question the authenticity of) is very questionable to me, but seeing @REddison talk about it’s plausibility, I’ve refrained from any further comments.
Just for the sake of discussion, I think we could point to Ud 8.10 as an interesting story:
While venerable Dabba Mallaputta, monks—after going up into the sky, and sitting in cross-legged posture in the air, in the firmament, entering the fire-element, and emerging—was attaining Complete Emancipation, his body burning and being consumed, there was no charcoal and no ash evident.
I don’t think people generally fly into air and burst into flame, so this is just one gentle example.
Furthermore, two people can hold different parts of the Canon truthful and fictional:
Person A thinks X is fact, Y is fictional.
Person B thinks Y is fact, X is fictional.
Without devolving the discussion into “Is X or Y fact or fiction”, they can both discuss why there are things in the Canon that they think are fictional. This is part of the reason I refrained from getting into the specifics of the fantastical elements.
Finally, what we believe or hold true from the Canon is, probably a wide spectrum for the visitors of these forums. Some people might be completely Secular, some people might hold everything to be true. You don’t know what I hold true regarding Canon, so I don’t think it’s fair to be accused of holding “Western sensibilities” (when I am, in fact, neither a Westerner nor raised with such sensibilities).
But perhaps, it would be useful just to briefly touch on a few things, if all these posts have made it seem like I’m a hardline Secularists: Having viewed the idea of Rebirth with skepticism at first, after investigating the matter at the persistence of the Canon & fellow Buddhists, I’ve come to accept it more freely now. Likewise, I accept that there are different dimensions and modes of existence, which we can call “Deva” or “Brahma” or some such other stuff.
I still don’t think that’s relevant for this discussion, but maybe it is, for people to understand where I am coming from, so there you go.
If you’d like to reply, it would be great if you could phrase it without assumptions or crossing the limits of civility, so that we could actually talk without the moderators having to take action.
agree - people don’t generally do this - but arahants do regularly do this. there are stories of arahants in this day and age from the thai forest tradition doing so.
that’s in the very definition of enlightenment provided by the buddha in the pali suttas. the fact that it is apparently corroborated in modern arahants suggests that what’s in the suttas 2000+ years earlier is indeed correct. that’s an offence to our westernised minds, but accepting that there are things that buddhism knows about that western science / knowledge doesn’t is part of the path.
there are many things that can be misinterpreted in the suttas. the 32 marks of a great man are one - they’re not fantastical ridiculous marks. they’re just elements that make a person handsome, and are the results of good kamma.
the garudhammas are another - intended for the protection of female monastics or for the establishment of seniority rules between the two orders (just as they existed previously within the male monastic order), they are frequently misinterpreted as sexist, when ironically, the buddha places the same obligations he lays on individual male monastics equally on the female monastic order.
there are indeed many things that are misinterpreted in the suttas. however that doesn’t mean that what’s in the suttas is wrong - rather, it may actually mean that our interpretation of them is wrong.
on the other hand, there are many things in the suttas that western science has corroborated only very recently (e.g., the presence of galactic clusters, the presence of cosmic voids, the use of urea-based medicines, the health benefits of fasting, the health benefits of congee).
i’m sorry if you’ve felt i’ve been uncivil. you can surely understand that in offering that the suttas are a fanciful creation, you’re bound to offend a large part of your target audience here, and you’re going to get some firm pushback. i don’t believe my response was rude - it did take your intellectual positions to their logical conclusion and ask you some pointed questions that those positions result in. i would have thought that that’s the kind of questions you needed put to you if you were looking for genuine feedback.
my best wishes to you - may you find the true dhamma,
Crossing over to the other shore … for the realisation of the 4NTs ….. everything else is worthless !
He who is so much preoccupied with doctrinal controversy, furnishes, indeed, a fitting illustration of one who carries the raft of the Dhamma on his head or shoulders; and, in his case, this will be not after the crossing but before he has done, or even seriously tried, the fording of the stream.
In fact, this famous parable of the raft will in most cases apply to those who, in the words of the Dhammapada, “run up and down the river’s bank” on this side of the stream, without daring or wishing to cross. We find them using the raft for a variety of purposes: they will adorn it and adore it, discuss it, compare it — indeed anything else than use it.
Few among men are those who cross to the farther shore. The rest, the bulk of men, only run up and down the hither bank.
Hi, so sorry for the late response. I wrote most of this very soon after your reply but I’ve been busy.
My objection is that I don’t think you’ve sufficiently explained why it is more likely that these fictional or ahistorical elements in the canon were intentionally composed compared to the predominant view, which is already well-established and well-evidenced, that they came about through error and the strong trend in Indian literature toward mythologisation.
Yes, it’s unfortunate if the early Sangha let incorrect details in, but all evidence suggests this is exactly what happened, regardless of whether or not it seems out of character for them on the surface.
Quick comparison of our views on the issue
Our views intersect at crucial points but differ on the finer details. To quickly compare our views, I think we agree on the following points (some of which I haven’t expressed here):
Much of this fictional content is important and serves a purpose
There was always a loose distinction between historical and fictional
Over time, fictional elements gained higher status than they had previously
But we disagree on the following points:
The reason why so much of the canon contains fiction
I think it was largely unintentional. A small portion of it may have come from intentionally fictional morality tales like “little Sujāta didn’t give adequate respect to the tiratana, so he was reborn as Dujjāta in hell” but I don’t think these were added intentionally.
How much the early Sangha cared about historical accuracy, and in what way/s
Explained in detail later in this reply
Whether or not believing the early Sangha unintentionally added fictional or ahistorical details to their texts is unduly ascribing error to them
I believe it isn’t.
When fictional elements began to be taken seriously
I believe this was very early.
On the contrary, I think it’s precisely a certain value for accuracy that led to many of these erroneous details being added to texts. If your canonical account of the Buddha’s death doesn’t contain all these well-known stories about all the gods that visited when it happened, or this miracle he performed there, why keep it like that? In some cases this can be relegated to commentary (which many sects incorporated into the root text anyway) but in others there’s no reason not to just place it in the older version of the text.
I do think we cannot say much about
in that we cannot assume them to have had the same strict standards of historical accuracy as we do, but not that we cannot assume that they cared at all about accuracy. It’s obvious they cared to some degree, I just don’t think it was in the way that we do now and so if we don’t find evidence of that it doesn’t mean they were making things up.
We are 2,500 years away from the Buddha and Buddhist Studies is still far from perfect, so we have to account for that separation.
Placing far later, strongly divergent texts as equal to those few possible remnants we have of the actions and sayings of the historical Buddha and his arahant disciples with regard to their potential for truth and accurate dharma is a mistake no matter how open a mind we should ideally have about it.
