That is the problem. We start with preconceived notions and then search for the evidence in the suttas. What we like we accept, what we don't like we say "later additions!"manas wrote:Regarding this quote from earlier, not sure who originally said it:- or could it rather be, that's what we want to find.In a sense, the modern Buddhist is trying to get at the more ancient and more traditional buddhism [or more correctly, Dhamma], and what we are finding is a Buddha who looks a lot more like a modern scientist.
I can see how reasonably (older->newer)
a) mysticism -> technical stuff
b) technical stuff -> mysticism
could have developed.
Also, it does seem like suttas were modified at least slightly and gave us a "digest" of what was said. I just can't believe that real dialogue could go like it is in the suttas and how even a master debater who could make "pillars sweat" would be crushed so easily. In the online forums we see people much more tough then in the suttas. Of course "digest" begs the question: what was missing from the suttas? Would that missing stuff change our current beliefs about what the Buddha said or not?