Why is it an issue whether the Buddha taught something or not?Dan74 wrote:Firstly, how can we be confident that every single teaching the Buddha gave has been recorded and passed down? I mean 45 years worth of teaching? Do we think we have it all??
Given that the earliest existing Pali document dates to about 1000 years after the Buddha's parinibbana, I think this is a big leap of faith.
Secondly, supposing that the Buddha really did not teach something (like the Ajahn Sumedho's Sound of Silence meditation for example). Does this mean it is irrelevant and of no use? This to me seems a big leap of logic. Surely we are a product of quite a different culture and quite a different conditioning to the audience the Buddha faced. Wouldn't it follow that some methods would be more appropriate today than they would've been 2500 years ago in India? A master may follow the Dhamma, attain liberation and elaborate the Buddha's teaching for his disciples in his (or her) own way appropriate to the culture and the audience.
Thoughts?
What is attempted to be accomplished by claiming "The Buddha taught this"?
What is attempted to be accomplished by claiming "The Buddha did not teach this"?
When people fight over what the Buddha taught or didn't teach, it seems to generally be about power trips and one-upmanship.
Although in one sense, a person living in modern times has to learn to deal with such things too, given there are so many fights over what the Buddha taught or didn't teach, and fights over what counts for Buddhism and what doesn't.