Well, such narratives may be true or false, but modern scientific methods and perspectives are not prepared to test that claim.tomamundsen wrote:Well it's interesting. I thought the Mahayana narrative wasn't really that these other sutras existed in the human realm during the early period. I was under the impression that most Mahayana teachings (definitely tantras, but also most sutras) were taught by Shakyamuni in other realms. Or the ones that were taught in Jambudvipa were not preserved by humans and had to later be recovered from the other realms. Then these teachings entered the human realm at a later time. This would imply that the Mahayana narrative is not contradictory to the Theravada narrative. Am I mistaken?Coëmgenu wrote:I think this is the crux of the two perspectives. This fact leaves nebulous the "doctrinal" oneness of Early Buddhism, to a certain extend.Coëmgenu wrote:"Early Buddhist Schisms" are not on doctrinal grounds.
Contributors at SuttaCentral would have such different opinions on this thread. It is interesting to see what different communities say on this issue, given how "political" it is.
When dealing with "Buddhist history" in these frameworks, it is largely to do with trying to retrace the historical movement of form and matter on the surface of the earth. What document went where. Which documents survived. What got written down (and what didn't, which is also very important, but alas, untestable).
Anything outside of that and "we" (assuming a theoretical scientist "we") simply can't test it, or I can't imagine how one would go about doing it "scientifically".