Dear Robert,

> Not sure what Jesus has to do with it?

Sorry about that. I left a piece of text I thought I'd deleted by mistake. I
started a paragraph rattling on about other religions having "doctrines" of
various sorts but thought better of it.

> I think people have many doubts about the Buddha's teachings. My
> question was why you thought Mt. Meru might have come about through
> an imaginative scribe. Is there evidence for this?

Not AFAIK -- almost anyone else on the group would have a better idea 8-). I
don't know anything about this particular case but was just using it as a
starting point for a discussion about how one weights different parts of the
canon. I am meaning to research it when I'm able though, now my attention's
been drawn to it.

This topic is of interest to me as a westerner because the cosmological
content of the canon is often glossed over or completely omitted in
portrayals of Theravada "doctrine" to western audiences.

<< snip >>

> Last month on another group I had a discussion with a Buddhist who

<< snip >>. Arguably, the Buddha himself

> > suffered from delusions such as possessing omniscience and
> > superpowers, seeing all of his former "rebirths," visiting

<< snip >>>
You see he disbelieves many parts of the Tipitaka but doesn't assume

> that monks made it up, he thinks it was the Buddha who might have
> been wrong.

Fortunately it's a core Buddhist doctrine that all things are to be tested
through one's own experience.

For this reason, if no other, I'm not really interested in believing or
disbelieving anything in the Canon, but this doesn't mean that one might
want wise advice as to the relative merits of different parts, just as one
should seek out the company of the wise, surely one should seek out the most
reliable parts of the canon as a basis for practice?

Regards, nich