Is this site Buddhist if its users routinely claim that parts of the Buddhist canon are not authentic?

It happens, but I think that the answer is clear -- no.

| |
  • If I were to act more annoyed, I might ask who is generating merit, in the place of the grand history of Buddhism – user2512 Aug 3 '17 at 6:54
  • 1
    "We are getting aggravated." "Yes, we are." (from The Matrix Reloaded) I looked in the phone book for churches, and there were about 47 different sects of protestantism in my small city. Then there is Catholicism, the Mormons and who knows what-all else. Look at what happens in Islam, with divided sects. Look at what happened immediately after the Buddha left his body, with half the followers wanting a pyre and half a burial! The only way to make a belief system uniform is to narrow it down and down until you are inside Jim Jones's cranium. As soon as you leave certainty, all bets are off. – user2341 Aug 3 '17 at 11:04
  • @nocomprende i'm not gonna argue about it. you can "narrow it down" on a personal level. – user2512 Aug 3 '17 at 11:27
  • @nocomprende surely it matters. surely! we can dismiss this high ranking website as a bunch of stoned lunatics, if we like – user2512 Aug 3 '17 at 11:32
  • For me, narrowing it down personally means Nonduality. Consider the Heart Sutra, or the idea of Tathata. Once you have seen that, no one can ever argue with you again. – user2341 Aug 3 '17 at 12:22
  • @nocomprende sorry but i don't see the relevance to claiming that this or that isn't buddhism. what is it? – user2512 Aug 3 '17 at 13:19
  • @nocomprende "no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue" etc.. buddhism is litered with arguments, not dogma. take some repsonsibility imo – user2512 Aug 3 '17 at 13:23
  • 1
    Well, the responsibility is on each person to determine for themselves. That is what is meant by Nonduality, and it is the goal that Buddhism aims at. As the Buddha said, "This cannot be taught." But a path can be. Nagarjuna said, "No truth has been taught by the Buddha at any time." The Buddha said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." So, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." To answer your question - this or that isn't Buddhism - Buddhism isn't Buddhism. The old saying is, "you can't win an argument with your wife": if you are arguing, you have already lost. – user2341 Aug 4 '17 at 12:17
  • @nocomprende i'm not so much trying to convine you, you seem quite set in your ways. i would like the site to cut out the flakey and the inane. but, it's the internet. – user2512 Aug 4 '17 at 15:36
  • @nocomprende ok maybe i should apologise. if it's inane, then you have to assume that's obvious, and no-one is about to be tricked into thinking that zen / mahayana / tripitaka / vajrayana / whatever buddhism isn't buddhism. good luck with whatever you do – user2512 Aug 4 '17 at 16:37

Personally, I think it's a disservice to wrap this kind of claim with the flavor of certainty while providing but a rough sketch of a justification or no justification at all. I suppose it could mislead readers into thinking that the claim is common knowledge, when it's only someone's personal opinion.

But I have no problem if it's explicit that the claim is the author's personal opinion.

| |
  • I think you are right. – user2512 Aug 6 '17 at 0:06

I think it's about balance; between repeating dogma, and not talking rubbish.

The question is a bit too confrontational (apologies), and the site can be Buddhist despite not getting e.g. te mahayana, as many devout Buddhists have done so.

I agree with the above though, that without citing someone who claims that X isn't Buddhism, it should definitely be couched as opinion.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.