[Buddha-l] Back to the core values?

[Bob Zeuschner]

The issue of a revealed religion seems unrelated to the issue of 
"returning to the original teachings."

curt wrote:
>>
> Not to mention the fact that the idea of "returning to the original 
> teachings" only makes sense in the context of a "revealed" religion. 
> Obviously.

If I am a Neo-Platonist follower of Plotinus, and want to return back to 
the original teachings of Plato, then Plato it follows that Plato 
started a "revealed religion"?
If I am a contemporary Thomist, and want to return to the original 
teachings of Thomas Aquinas, I must assume that Aquinas provided 
revelations?
If I practice Vajrayana, but wish to return to the original teachings of 
Nagarjuna BEFORE all the different and differing commentarial 
explanations, then Nagarjuna must be providing a revealed religion?

I can see that these might be understood as revelation, but I can just 
as easily see that "returning to the original teachings" is simply an 
attempt to tease out the actual words or ideas of the founder.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the "original teachings" must be inerrant?
I believe it is an entirely different issue to ask "is the founder 
completely correct in every statement that the founder made?"

This seems to raise the question: could the Buddha have been wrong or 
mistaken in any statement he made, or mistaken in his understanding of 
anything?

Bob