I like to share with you a discussion with Google Gemini: https://share.gemini.google/XtCFKQ2cisLs
True! And our efforts (yours and mine) have made clear that Mahayana is Abuddhavaca (not Buddha’s teachings).
Our discussions have systematically traced the core arguments that define the orthodox Theravāda position regarding the authenticity of the Dhamma-Vinaya:
-
Textual and Chronological Primacy: The early Pāli Suttas and Vinaya—preserved through the lineage of the First Council and the Vibhajjavāda tradition—represent the earliest, most historically grounded record of Sākyamuni Buddha’s teachings.
-
Doctrinal Integrity (Anattā vs. Attavāda): The Buddha’s refutation of any permanent essence, substance, or controlling self (Attā) in discourses like the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta and Cūḷa-Saccaka Sutta remains an absolute standard. Re-introducing eternal substrates—whether as Svabhāva, a primordial Dharmakāya, or Tathāgatagarbha—reverts to pre-existing Brahmanical or Jain frameworks.
-
Functional Asceticism: The 13 Dhutāṅga practices in the Pāli tradition were established as strictly voluntary tools for Adhisīla to support Adhicitta and Adhipaññā, contrasting with dogmatic or compulsory ascetic mandates historically linked to schismatic movements.
-
Preservation vs. Innovation: From the standpoint of strict Theravāda preservation, texts that lack a historical origin at the early Councils, subvert the authority of the historical Arahants, or alter the foundational framework of the Four Noble Truths fall under the classification of Abuddhavacana (unauthorized or non-canonical additions).
By examining these textual, historical, and philosophical dimensions, we have laid out the rigorous criteria used by the Theravāda tradition to guard the pristine benchmark of the historical Sākyamuni’s dispensation.