No.
I think the four nikayas are corrupted.
And I am 100% against each and every single one of those corruptions.
The Buddha already decided.
Its up to all other beings to decide what they wish to do with the Dhamma-Vinaya that he taught - whether we wish to add, subtract, and modify everything as we wish willy nilly - add Quanyin here, add that there.
If Dhamma-Vinaya as already been corrupted and misrepresented, it is up to us to decide whether now we wish to become dogmatic defenders of the corruptions and modifications - or to try to correct those very same corruptions and modifications! What would you like to do?
It seems many beings here become defensive when I call into question whether modifications and changes that were not authorized by the Buddha himself. It makes me wonder if beings have become attached to and cling to the modifications like Quanyin.
Why care so much if what was wrongly added into Buddhism later on later gets deleted out of Buddhism? Why get so upset if Quanyin is rejected and no longer considered Buddhist? Why does it hurt?
We can do as we wish in terms of how we represent the Dhamma-Vinaya, but we all reap what we sow, I think we would all do well to remember that.
What if beings who try to accurately represent the Dhamma-Vinaya suffer less harm and enjoy more benefit than those who tolerate, defend, advocate, cling to, accept, and even initiate misrepresentations of the Dhamma-Vinaya.
What if these latter category of beings end up suffering more harm and enjoy less benefits?
Would they blame others? Like say the Chinese government for their dukkha? Or would they realize that their modifications of the Dhamma-Vinaya have very real, real-life consequences for themselves and what they experience in the future by misrepresenting the Dhamma-Vinaya.
I think the first step is to acknowledge that misrepresenting the Dhamma-Vinaya in any way at all under any conditions is harmful and unbeneficial to that degree.
Otherwise, I think beings will keep making excuses, justifications, rationalizations to misrepresent the Dhamma-Vinaya. I won’t reap what they sow though, they will.
Examples of excuses that I have come across:
-
there are distortions and additions in all the sources we have already (and instead of trying to correct those, we should promote even more distortions and additions because we feel helpless to correct it)
-
creativity is good (thus, all beings should be allowed to take creative liberties on the Dhamma-Vinaya, rather than say, creating their own religion and take responsibility for this new doctrine they created - that would be “true” creativity!)
-
how can we know what is Dhamma-Vinaya? (instead of trying to figure it the answer, they use it as an excuse to excuse distortions)
-
no one can know what Dhamma-Vinaya actually is! (clever phrasing to make it sound like it is 100% impossible to know what is Dhamma-Vinaya at all - close-minded skeptic - maybe they mean that they don’t know…and project their feelings of confusion into the universe and declare: no one can know!)
-
who is the judge?! (The question is inappropriate and irrelevant. Again, a diversion tactic that distracts from the task at hand: figuring out what the Dhamma-Vinaya actually is)
-
One thing in common that all of these excuse have in common is that they seem to lazily excuse the “toleration of distortions of Dhamma-Vinaya” under the guise of “tolerance” - I have encountered beings who use it as a ploy to extol their own virtue “look how tolerant I am!” and try to slander me saying “you are close-minded, dogmatic, narrow-minded, etc.” - but when the conversation is said and done - they “go back to their life and whatever they have to do” and never really make an attempt to systematically investigate what actually is Dhamma-Vinaya - “I don’t what what Dhamma-Vinaya is…but I am more tolerant [of all-too-human of misrepresentations of Dhamma-Vinaya] and thus better and more compassionate than the other person.” It seems more difficult to investigate and figure out what the Dhamma-Vinaya actually is than to “act tolerant and tolerate everything as equal and worthy of respect.”
I don’t think there is anything compassionate at all about misrepresenting the Dhamma-Vinaya.
To the contrary, I think it is not compassionate to misrepresent or defend misrepresentions of the Dhamma-Vinaya.
I think it is compassionate to accurately represent the Dhamma-Vinaya.
I think it is out of compassion for gods and humans that beings try to accurately represent the Dhamma-Vinaya and pull, attract, draw, and persuade beings out of wrong view into right view regarding what Dhamma-Vinaya actually is.
I think this forum/SuttaCentral is based on the premise that it is possible to discern what the Dhamma-Vinaya taught by the Buddha is to some degree through piecing together early sources.
If distortions should be tolerated and accepted as Buddhist, what’s the value of early Buddhist texts at all?
Why not “mix all of the teachings into a giant pool of so-called “Buddhist texts” where all of us are free to creatively add whatever want into the mix and we can all jointly shove it into the mouth of the Buddha. Why? Because we are all “Buddhists” of course!”
Yes, the teachings has to be “identical in meaning” as “what the Buddha actually said” for it to be “accepted as said by the Buddha.”
Do you think that things were not actually spoken by the Buddha should be accepted as spoken by the Buddha?
Do you think that things that were actually spoken by the Buddha should rejected as not spoken by the Buddha?
I am not understanding what point you are trying to make here.
Are you suggesting that I should accept Quanyin as a Buddhist embodiment of compassion?
Is the Buddha himself not a perfect embodiment of compassion? What is the need to accept Quanyin then?
I think Quanyin should be rejected as non-Buddhism guised as Buddhism - i.e. not actually taught by the Buddha. It should be kept separate. Call it a Chinese cultural relic, or something more accurate - no need to call it Buddhist.