I asked you where you got your information and who stated it. That is part of the answer. i see you have a need for defined ordering of things. That's fine by me.
My post does answer the questions, but perhaps not for you. If you wish to uindetsand than you will. I am rather plainly spoken.
You answer questions with questions? How is this an answer at all?
The meaning is left for you to choose.
One tradition says that the Pali canon is the teaching of the buddha and others who were his close associates. The other traditions are less clear in the history of the teachings, some are older than others.
I am sorry that you feel someone should point to one thing and call it the teachings of the buddha. that is like saying "All birds fly north is the spring, those that fly other directions are not birds".
"Bird" has a set definition. It includes birds that fly in any direction.
"Taught by Buddha" also has a set definition. It includes everything that the Buddha himself taught, himself. If it doesn't then it wasn't "Taught by Buddha". Get it? Pretty circular and simple. If you can't identify what Buddha taught or didn't teach then just say it. Stop beating around the Bush.
So there are ways to try and figure out what the original teaching was. Or make a good guess at best.
So Buddhism is a guess then?
"So two and a half thousand years later we are left with what? A set of documents, one that is an edited and collated version of an oral tradition written two thousand years ago. Then there is a huge variety of documents written at various times in various places."
Is a question and a statement of the apparent facts.
So?
That is a suprise? not to me. Do you think Omeru actualy composed the Iliad, or just wrote it down?
The Iliad isn't a religious text that people attempt to base their lives on. If the source of the text is doubted and the text relies on it's source then the text itself is doubted.
That statement was clear. Perhaps you should ask your mother what it means.
Or perhaps you should be clearer and elaborate.
No you didn't.
Some buddhists think of the Pali canon as the teachings of the buddha, others take other sources.
That is not me contradicting myself, that is a statement of fact.
Which do you take as the teachings of Buddha? Just the Pali canon?
Are you a catholic or something? That is a rather narrow defintion of what comprises a group of people. I think you should be prepared for reality to not meet your demands.
There is a not a single accepted teaching of the buddha, big whoop. Welceome to reality.
Not a single accepted teaching of the Buddha? No agreement on whether or not he existed? Sounds like Buddhism has no meaning to me. At least as you're portraying it.
So people have to conform to your desires, prepare for disappointment.
It's a fact of English. If people don't fit a definition of a word they can't use that word to describe themselves.
Sorry to disappoint you but the reasons will vary. isn't that grand!
So why would you want to call yourself a "Buddhist" again?
Yeah so, a defintion can vary.
"Constancy is the hobgoblin of the small minded"
-Lao Tzu (allegedly)
A definition can vary? Sure, Some words have multiple meanings. Given specific contexts their meanings decrease. I've provided the most common definition of the word "Buddhist". My definition is consistent and reasonable, yours is fallacious and meaningless. Tough choice.
I have and I will, but just because you demnad it?
I think not.
The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by T.N. Hahn is a good place to start.
Try a web source that I can read here and now.
So?
he told them to examine the teaching all along.
And then when he died he contradicted all of his teachings and told his followers to follow themselves. Making Buddhism meaningless.
Please do tell people how to conduct themselves and expect the world to meet your expectations.
Your path is yours. If you wish to define a buddhist differently than please do so.
It seems pretty clear that you're not a Buddhist. You simply idealize Buddhism and try to contort it's definition to the point of having no meaning just so that you can label yourself a "Buddhist".
Please tell me how I should discern fact from fiction. When there are two and a half thousand years in between. I shall then see if your guidelines are similar.
You're changing the subject. Maybe you can't discern fact from fiction in what were really the teachings of Buddhism. In that case you're left with a hodgepodge of stuff that are self contradicting and contain little meaning.
Did Jesus wear a purse? was a purse worn by jesus? Did he use a backpack.
You can figure out the rest,.
I have no idea. You still didn't answer my question.
You need to learn to think for yourself before you pretend to engage in critical thinking.
Think for myself? Really? You mean following the teachings of some Indian from 2,500 years ago as the facts of life?
Or maybe making up definitions, contradicting myself, ignoring questions, and contorting a religion into a meaningless word.
I can't help your ignorance and lack of effort.
I would rather engage in critical thinking than be able to spell.
Unfortunately you seem to be unable to do either.
