Coëmgenu wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:21 am
If anything, a literalist account, "it happened just like how I think the text describes it happening" is a better guard against fake Buddhas.
Yes, absolutely, thank you for pointing this out.
When the options are whittled down to either 1. insist in the text, regardless of what it says, or 2. invent a plausible-seeming, but worldly explanation, I think it's better to go with the former.
However, I wouldn't call this a deliberate, rational decision. I think it's a matter of reverence -- something that isn't talked about much in these corners, and which is not easy to explain esp. to scientifically-minded people. (And I admit I have some fear about risking the disapproval of some posters.)
I think it's sad that many people don't seem to distinguish between gullibility and reverence, and think it's all gullibility. And there are probably others who believe it's all reverence.
Is the Tathāgata found in his supernatural displays or his dhamma? Is there a difference between his supernatural displays and his dhamma?
I'm afraid this is above my paygrade. I did ask Venerable Dhammanando for help. He used to have a passage in his signature about reverence. I don't remember it exactly, but it was about the importance of reverence.
“One man’s “magic” is another man’s engineering. “Supernatural” is a null word.”
- Robert Heinlein