Grigoris wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:40 am
PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:43 amTo give an absurd example. Suppose someone excavating in Sarnath comes across a sealed container dating back over two thousand years with a complete set of the prajnaparamita sutras inside. We would be very interested in that. Then suppose Omarosa’s book contains a version of a new sutra that she says she received from Elvis in a dream. Sadly the latter would probably be read by more people than the former. But you see my point.
That you don't like Elvis?
Ever heard of pure visions and terma? Are they invalid because they were not found in 2000 year old sealed containers?
So what is your point?
I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious. When drinking water one considers the source. I gave two extreme examples, one of something we would almost certainly consider reliable, and one that we would almost certainly consider unreliable, to show that we do in fact have to make judgements on this, and adopting the "it's all upaya" position isn't helpful.
Of course I have heard of pure visions and terma: every Vajrayana practice is a revealed teaching of some kind. Judgement has to be applied as to whether these are genuine teachings or made-up BS. There are prominent Tibetan masters who wrote at length complaining about the amount of made-up BS in circulation at different points in time. Differing standards have been applied over time to determine what is and isn't Buddhavacana - for instance, whether some Tibetan scribes could find a Sanskrit original for a tantra, whether it accords with other Dharma texts considered to be reliable, whether other famous lamas would lend their approval to a terma, or whether a bunch of the practitioners of it achieved the rainbow body. As has been discussed at length in other well-spoken threads, there is no authoritative standard by which you can judge something to be genuine. But everyone has to have some standard they apply.
And for the record, I consider Elvis to be grossly overrated, apart from possibly the early period.