tiltbillings wrote:So, “Why was it important to you, personally, to say that your path is Buddha-dhamma?” If it is not Buddha-Dhamma, what is it? (Of course, I am not advocating an “everything goes” version of the Dhamma.)
Either Dhamma (natural law), or not.
The way you find out is to put it in practice. If your path, constructed on the Dhamma of the Buddha, Buddhaghosa, Nyanaponika, Nanananda, Joseph Goldstein, Munindraji et.al is achieving results commensurate with the Dhamma, then it is Dhamma. If it is not, it is not. The path which provides fruit is inseparable from both the practice and the theory/instruction.
tiltbillings wrote:What I practice is Buddha-Dhamma as I understand it.
The "as I understand it" makes a significant difference to the context - it's a big improvement! The "as I understand it" you introduce here is an acknowledgement that this understanding is entirely fallible, and it incorporates and acknowledges the fabrication that is taking place in the fabrication of your path.
Even the great Sariputta taught things as an arahant that the Buddha rebuked him for. Now, see, I'm not an arahant, nor am I Sariputta... but if an arahant can teach that which deviates from the Buddha's satisfaction, how can anyone short of a Buddha themselves, claim to "teach Buddha-dhamma"?
Hence, unless one is a Buddha, "I believe pushing post-Buddha paths as Buddha-dhamma is wrong, and (depending perhaps on your intention) slanderous to the Buddha.". Or, if that's going to give rise to rage in those who find dissatisfaction in my words, how about we listen instead to the Blessed One's own words...
AN 6.13 wrote:"You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One"
Does anyone wish to harangue the Buddha about his words and his preference for not being misrepresented?
Alternatively, does anyone wish to harangue the Sangha for seeking to ensure the Buddha's teaching is not misrepresented?
AN 3.57 wrote:Now those who report this: Are they reporting the Master Gotama's actual words, are they not misrepresenting him with what is unfactual, are they answering in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing them? For we don't want to misrepresent the Master Gotama."
SN 12.25 wrote:In this case, friend Sariputta, what is the Blessed One's doctrine? What does he teach? Answering in what way will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, and answer in line with the Dhamma so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticism?"
But what if it is
misrepresented? Must we sit idly by out of some notion of tolerance and acceptance, or out of some view that everyone is entitled to their own Buddha-dhamma so long as they wish it to be so? Let's see...
MN 136 wrote:"Not so, friend Potaliputta, do not say thus, do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One; the Blessed One would not say so"