How different Great Religions are?

[sayak83]

The issue is not with "good enough" - the issue is with degrees of enlightenment - the soul known as Bodhisattva underwent many births to continually progress to become the Buddha - there is a linear link - that is what all of us have been trying to say

Birth -> Rebirth ------ > Merge with the Light



And where are you getting that from? Direct link and source please.

He is talking about Kalki.

 

[ManSinha]

He is talking about Kalki.

I got that But was that ever ascribed to Sri Krishna?

I know that as part of his discourse with Arjuna - he is supposed to have said "Jab Jab Prithvi par Adharm hota tab tab mein prakat hota hun" or something along those lines but there was never a date or even the use of the word "Kalki"

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Not really. Most of Gnostic Christian texts are later additions and majority of scholars have very good reason to believe that John's book is also not part of the earliest tradition contained in the synoptics.

When it comes to Mahayana Prajnaparamita sutras, the followers themselves record that these were supposedly "secret" teachings kept aside by Buddha not known to anyone until they were discovered from beneath the sea at around 1st century BCE.

For example, the heart sutra was composed in China in around 200 CE.
Heart Sutra - Encyclopedia of Buddhism

However, based on textual patterns in the Sanskrit and Chinese versions of the Heart Sūtra and the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, scholar Jan Nattier has suggested that the earliest (shortest) version of the Heart Sūtra was probably first composed in China in the Chinese language from a mixture of Indian-derived material and new composition, and that this assemblage was later translated into Sanskrit (or back-translated, in the case of most of the sūtra). She argues that the majority of the text was redacted from the Larger Sutra on the Perfection of Wisdom, which had originated with a Sanskrit Indian original, but that the "framing" passages (the introduction and concluding passages) were new compositions in Chinese by a Chinese author, and that the text was intended as a dharani rather than a sūtra.[7][18][19] The Chinese version of the core (i.e. the short version) of the Heart Sūtra matches a passage from the Large Sutra almost exactly, character by character; but the corresponding Sanskrit texts, while agreeing in meaning, differ in virtually every word.[20] Furthermore, Nattier argues that there is no evidence (such as a commentary would be) of a Sanskrit version before the 8th century CE,[21] and she dates the first evidence (in the form of commentaries by Xuanzang's disciples Kuiji and Wonch'uk, and Dunhuang manuscripts) of Chinese versions to the 7th century CE.

So, yes, almost all Mahayana sutras were composed centuries after Buddha himself.

The scholars cannot prove or disprove that chapter of John is indeed divinely inspired or not. They can see if it they can establish the date the book first written can be known. The same with Buddhism Scriptures.
But, when we talk about Holy Scriptures, we are considering that, the Books are divinely inspired, or in a sense written according to Will of a divinity, thus, when was written cannot disprove the possibility of being true if it was indeed divinely inspired.
As regards, to the Buddhist Scripture that Kept Secret by Buddha, how do we know this is certainly false, or impossible?

Suppose, non of the books are actually recorded sayings of Buddha at the time, but, can we disprove the possibility that, whoever wrote it later, was not inspired divinely to write the Scriptures?

We are discussing based on Scriptures, and if everytime we see something we don't like, we can just come up with ways to question the authenticity. But wouldn't that be cherry picking?
I am not declaring any Texts as false, just on the basis of opinion of scholars.
In this thread as well as some other threads, i showed many cases, there are identical teachings, similar symbolic expressions across the Great Religions Scriptures as pieces of evidence that, there must be One inspiration source that people of the world derived their inspiration from.

 

[Vinayaka]

As far as we are speaking from Buddhism Scriptures, it uses the Term 'Heaven'.
But it is irrelevant here if you want to say Not aware enough, or Not good enough. Because, there is the Karma, and the Karma that determines if a person deserves to come back to this world (according to literal reincarnation). So, are you saying Buddha was not aware enough? How do we know that?

I never said any such thing about Buddha, but yes, in the many lifetimes before His enlightenment, He wasn't aware enough, or in Hindu terms, caught in anava and maya.

The Buddhist scriptures don't use 'Heaven'. They weren't written in English. Translations, sure, but how would you know it's an accurate translation? Moksha is often translated to 'heaven' by Abrahamic scholars, because they can't think outside of their own box.

This is why I support the Hindu scholar Malhotra in his attempt to make a list of untranslatable Sanskrit words. He estimates there are around 1000 Sanskrit words (and the concepts) that have been mangled by western Indologists.

 

[sayak83]

I got that But was that ever ascribed to Sri Krishna?

I know that as part of his discourse with Arjuna - he is supposed to have said "Jab Jab Prithvi par Adharm hota tab tab mein prakat hota hun" or something along those lines but there was never a date or even the use of the word "Kalki"

Correct.

 

[sayak83]

The scholars cannot prove or disprove that chapter of John is indeed divinely inspired or not. They can see if it they can establish the date the book first written can be known. The same with Buddhism Scriptures.
But, when we talk about Holy Scriptures, we are considering that, the Books are divinely inspired, or in a sense written according to Will of a divinity, thus, when was written cannot disprove the possibility of being true if it was indeed divinely inspired.
As regards, to the Buddhist Scripture that Kept Secret by Buddha, how do we know this is certainly false, or impossible?

Suppose, non of the books are actually recorded sayings of Buddha at the time, but, can we disprove the possibility that, whoever wrote it later, was not inspired divinely to write the Scriptures?

We are discussing based on Scriptures, and if everytime we see something we don't like, we can just come up with ways to question the authenticity. But wouldn't that be cherry picking?
I am not declaring any Texts as false, just on the basis of opinion of scholars.
In this thread as well as some other threads, i showed many cases, there are identical teachings, similar symbolic expressions across the Great Religions Scriptures as pieces of evidence that, there must be One inspiration source that people of the world derived their inspiration from.

The early Buddhist suttas are well attested in 4 independent textual traditions:- the Sri Lankan, the Chinese, the Tibetan and the Gandharan. Inter-comparison between the suttas from these independent sources have provided excellent insight into their early provenance and authenticity.

Early Buddhist Texts - Wikipedia

The beginning of this comparative study began in the 19th century, Samuel Beal published comparative translations of the Pali patimokkha and the Chinese Dharmaguptaka pratimoksa (1859), showing they were virtually identical.[32] He following this up with comparisons between the Chinese sutras and the Pali suttas in 1882, accurately predicting that "when the Vinaya and Āgama collections are thoroughly examined, I can have little doubt we shall find most if not all the Pali Suttas in Chinese form."[33] In the following decades various scholars continued to produce a series of comparative studies, such as Anesaki, Akanuma (who composed a complete catalogue of parallels), Yin Shun and Thich Minh Chau.[34][35][36][37] These studies, as well as recent work by Analayo, Marcus Bingenheimer and Mun-keat Choong, have shown that the essential doctrinal content of the Pali Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas and the Chinese Madhyama and Samyukta Agamas is mostly the same, (with, as Analayo notes, "occasional divergence in details").[38][39][40]

Pre-sectarian Buddhism - Wikipedia

According to scholars such as Rupert Gethin and Peter Harvey, the oldest recorded teachings are contained in the first four Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka and their various parallels in other languages,[note 9] together with the main body of monastic rules, which survive in the various versions of the patimokkha.

British indologist Rupert Gethin writes that "it is extremely likely" that at least some of the suttas in the four main Nikāyas "are among the oldest surviving Buddhist texts and contain material that goes back directly to the Buddha."[67] Gethin agrees with Lamotte that the doctrinal basis of the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas is "remarkably uniform" and "constitute the common ancient heritage of Buddhism."[68]

Richard Gombrich agrees that the four Nikāyas and the main body of monastic rules present "such originality, intelligence, grandeur and—most relevantly—coherence, that it is hard to see it as a composite work" and thus concludes that it is the work of one genius, even if he agrees that when it comes to the Buddha's biography "we know next to nothing".[69]

Peter Harvey affirms that the four older Nikāyas preserve an "early common stock" which "must derive from his [the Buddha’s] teachings" because the overall harmony of the texts suggest a single authorship, even while other parts of the Pali canon clearly originated later.[44]

The British indologist A. K. Warder writes that "we are on safe ground only with those texts the authenticity of which is admitted by all schools of buddhism (including the Mahayana, who admit the authenticity of the early canons as well as their own texts) not with texts only accepted by certain schools."[70] Warder adds that when the extant material of the Tipitakas of the early Buddhist schools is examined "we find an agreement which is substantial, though not complete" and that there is a central body of sutras "which is so similar in all known versions that we must accept these as so many recensions of the same original texts."[71]


Thus I am not cherry picking. I am merely sticking to what careful study has revealed to be most likely to go back to Buddha and his immediate followers. It is you, who is cherry picking here from whatever apocryphal sources that best match your preconceived religious views.