We know of the Buddha because he appears in a series of texts descended from an oral tradition. So the Buddha that we know is first and foremost a literary figure. It’s the same thing with levels of enlightenment, we know about them because the texts mention them. And what does the Buddha of the suttas have to say about believing things based on oral tradition and faith, what does he say about whether such traditions are infallible or not:User1249x wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:44 pm
Unfortunately the problem of people clinging to and promoting dangerous views is completely out of control and is not something that is even attempted to be dealt with. A person can literally hold and promote the view that the Buddha was a social construct, that Ariya people are akin to OT levels of scientology and Parinibbana is annihilation of a soul, furthermore stating that Sutta are essentially corrupted and dismissing the commentary tradition entirely, nobody will ban this person. I think that if a person like this is debated repeatedly and is seen eal-wiggling and refusing to renounce his views he should be banned.
It seems that if we take the suttas seriously then we would be foolish to assume that it is absolutely the case that the Buddha existed, that the levels of enlightenment are legitimate, that the suttas have been infallibly passed down, or that the commentaries accurately explicate the original teachings of a historical awakened man.“Bhāradvāja, first you took your stand on faith, now you speak of oral tradition. There are five things, Bhāradvāja, that may turn out in two different ways here and now. What five? Faith, approval, oral tradition, reasoned cogitation, and reflective acceptance of a view. These five things may turn out in two different ways here and now. Now something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken. Again, something may be fully approved of…well transmitted…well cogitated…well reflected upon, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be well reflected upon, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken. Under these conditions it is not proper for a wise man who preserves truth to come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’”
https://suttacentral.net/mn95/en/bodhi
I think it’s much better to be intellectually honest, to preserve truth, and to practice with full knowledge of the uncertainties involved than to zealously overstate the evidence, ban those we disagree with, and preach hellfire to the unbelievers.