The Mormon Petition: A Proclamation For Truth

[_Bhodi]

Wait a second. I said I don't necessarily doubt the authenticity of your teachers' lineages. Clearly I do have concerns, because it is entirely possible that they are New Agey "modern" Buddhist types who have no more idea what they're talking about than you do, and that you are merely parroting their nonsense. That's why I don't think it was inappropriate to point this out, and have nothing to apologize for, because you are saying things that are demonstrably false.

No, the concept that the Buddhist story is not entirely accurate is very threatening to you. You are definitely insulting other leaders, but that is to be expected.

When people say "the historical Buddha" they are referring to Buddha Śākyamuni. There is no other Buddha that they mean. When you want to refer to Kāśyapa Buddha or Dīpaṃkara Buddha you say "the previous Buddha" or "the Buddha from a previous aeon." It's really that simple. When you say "the historical Buddha" you mean the Buddha who was born in Lumbini, attained enlightenment in Bodhgaya, taught at the deer park in Sarnath, and passed into parinirvana at Kushinagar.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. That story could easily have belonged to a previous Buddha, which is not threatening unless you are shackled to a particular interpretation. This is actually contrary to Buddhist teachings, being shackled.

My question is why you are so eager to throw away the life story of the Buddha. Why do you want the story to be untrue? Actually, let me back up. Which parts, specifically, of the Buddha's life story do you doubt? And why? Clearly you don't doubt that there are Buddhas, and you don't doubt that Śākyamuni Buddha was only the most recent Buddha. Is it just too much to accept that we actually do know, more or less, where he was born and where he taught?

That is an odd accusation. I am neither eager, or insistent on the issue. The story is instructional, has value, so the fact that it may have happened, or may not, is irrelevent.

As for your other question, apart from the fact that Buddhas are supposed to accomplish all of the Twelve Deeds--that's definitionally what makes them Buddhas--of course it changes everything if the Buddha's story is "not true," though I'm still unclear on what exactly you think is untrue about it. In any case, if the Buddha did not really attain enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, then he did not turn the wheel of Dharma and there is no point in studying or practicing his teachings. But if you don't doubt that the Buddha really attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, then why would you doubt that he was born wealthy, abandoned his wealth for the life of a Saddhu, attained enlightenment and then wandered until his Parinirvana teaching the Fourfold Noble Truth?

Very odd insistence, but then again, this is a conflict with Zen that many of the more rigid have had. Please follow the path that works for you, but rigidity is generally unproductive.

[_Samantabhadra]

This started when you claimed that "It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true." That is a patent falsehood.

When pressed, you furthermore claimed that Suzuki Rōshi put forward this view in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. But I quoted from Zen Mind to demonstrate that you are wrong, that he referenced the received story of the life of the Buddha and referred to him as the "historical Buddha." At which point you accused me of being unfamiliar with the text, as though I were the one making baseless claims about what Suzuki Sensei taught, unsupported by any actual evidence. Or can you provide me with a quotation from the text where Suzuki Sensei says that "the story of the Buddha is not really true"?

I don't really care what you think. But I do care about the Dharma, especially when it gets mixed up with the ideas and the prejudices of Westerners. If you claim to be a Buddhist but don't believe that the Buddha attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree (and can't even spell "Bodhi" correctly), well that's a shame, but hardly worthy of pause. However when you tell people who wouldn't necessarily know otherwise that "It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true," well then it becomes necessary to correct your mistaken ideas.

In any case, I think I'm done here.

[_Bhodi]

This started when you claimed that "It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true." That is a patent falsehood.

Except it is not. It is accepted in Buddhist circles. You do not like it, but it is nonetheless. I am content to let you rage, but I have not done anything that would warrant the anger.

When pressed, you furthermore claimed that Suzuki Rōshi put forward this view in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind.

Actually I did not. I said that Suzuki advocated killing the Buddha. I did not say that Suzuki believed or did not believe that the story of Siddhartha was of the most recent Buddha or a past Buddha. I know some of his direct disciples do, so I suspect he either does, or does not care, but if you have to change what I am saying to make a point, your point is probably not that good.

But I quoted from Zen Mind to demonstrate that you are wrong, that he referenced the received story of the life of the Buddha and referred to him as the "historical Buddha." At which point you accused me of being unfamiliar with the text, as though I were the one making baseless claims about what Suzuki Sensei taught, unsupported by any actual evidence. Or can you provide me with a quotation from the text where Suzuki Sensei says that "the story of the Buddha is not really true"?

Actually you ran out and bought a copy, a good thing, then briefly skimmed it to try to make a point, based on a misrepresentation. I suggest really taking the time to study the book, and do a little Buddha killing in your own life. Consider, you are shackled to the story of the Buddha as true, because it matters in your life. As a Zen practitioner, I do not care in the slightest. Who is free?

I don't really care what you think. But I do care about the Dharma, especially when it gets mixed up with the ideas and the prejudices of Westerners. If you claim to be a Buddhist but don't believe that the Buddha attained enlightenment under the Bodhi tree (and can't even spell "Bodhi" correctly), well that's a shame, but hardly worthy of pause. However when you tell people who wouldn't necessarily know otherwise that "It is generally accepted in Buddhist circles that the story of the Buddha is not really true," well then it becomes necessary to correct your mistaken ideas.

As I said before, I have found that many Tibetan strains can be a little too orthodox, and a little too restricted, but you are free to believe as you like. I do not think you are free to believe for everyone else, however. I would also caution you on your German ethnocentrism and related anti-Semitism. No good can come of that path.