@Kensho That’s not exactly correct though. Whether to read texts literally or not depends on the context of each text, so there are things that must be read literally, some aren’t.
Piya Tan actually has an article about celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism, and how they are not in conformity with the early texts, perhaps you should read that as well.
I’m not some kind of Anti-Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhisms (I was actually a Mahayana Buddhist myself), it’s just that the claim of the historical Budda teaching Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhims is simply incorrect. Studies of the Mahayana/Vajrayana texts’ vocabularies, structures, narratives, etc are among many of the best evidence in proving that the historical Buddha didn’t teach them. Thus they can’t be used as evidence for the existence of the historical Buddha.
If Mahayana/Vajrayana teachings (texts) are really good, you don’t need the “stamp” of the historical Buddha to lend authenticity to them. Let those texts speak for themselves. Have confidence in the Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Don’t let the fact that the historical Buddha didn’t teach those texts cast doubt on you. In fact, if they were indeed taught by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas that appear in Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhisms, then claiming that the historical Buddha taught them instead of the actual teachers (Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhas and Bodhisattvas) does them a great disservice in my opinion.
@Coemgenu Haha, when I said in one of my previous posts not to use Wikipedia as a source for specific Buddhist studies like Early Buddhism and the formation of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhims, I really mean it.
If it’s Early Buddhism, I study Venerable Analayo’s and Venerable Sujato’s researches.
If it’s Mahayana Buddhism, I study Seishi Karashima’s.
If it’s Gandharan Buddhist Manuscripts, I study Richard Salomon’s and Mark Allon’s.
If it’s Gandhari Dharmapada, I study John Brough’s and Timothy Lenz’s
@Timothy Sorry for derailing, but I believe that my posts are still within the topic since I discussed the history of the early Buddhist texts, which are one of the evidence for the historical Buddha, and Mahayana/Vajrana Buddhist texts, which on the other hand, are not.