Replies

"I'm sorry, but that is clearly overlaying an ancient text with a modern concept that at the time of their writing didn't exist. One could say the exact same thing about numerous other ancient stories of the either the fantastic or semi-fantastic."

You completely miss my meaning. I am not extrapolating from the present to the past. I am saying the modern concept at the time of their writing didn't exist--just as you say. Yet the writing is realistic. The psychology of the situation is dead-on. No such texts or anything similar appear in fiction until the nineteenth century. Only journalistic veracity can account for it.

Here, read it yourself:
____________________________________________________________
The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, "Isn’t this he who sat and begged?" Others were saying, "It is he." Still others were saying, "He looks like him."

He said, "I am he."

They therefore were asking him, "How were your eyes opened?"

He answered, "A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight."

Then they asked him, "Where is he?"

He said, "I don’t know."

They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight.

He said to them, "He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see."

Some therefore of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath."

Others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?"
There was division among them.

Therefore they asked the blind man again, "What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?"

He said, "He is a prophet."

The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight, and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"

His parents answered them, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself."

His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.

Therefore his parents said, "He is of age. Ask him."

____________________________________________________________

It has the ring of truth. The pharisees demanding answers, the blind man saying, "All I know is he told me to put mud on my eyes and wash and I did and now I can see." The pharisees getting increasingly annoyed, starting to call him names, finally calling in the parents who don't want to get in trouble and get a little surly in the bargain.

You completely miss my meaning.

Apparantly I must have.

I am not extrapolating from the present to the past. I am saying the modern concept at the time of their writing didn't exist--just as you say. Yet the writing is realistic. The psychology of the situation is dead-on. No such texts or anything similar appear in fiction until the nineteenth century. Only journalistic veracity can account for it.

You many want to avail yourself to many of the Buddhist texts. It is reasonable to posit that the two traditions spread quite rapidly in part due to the supreme simplicity of their respective natures, and how those were represented in their texts. They are essentially the same in style. However, it is, IMO, overreaching to state that 'only journalistic veracity' can account for it.

Although I consider it wasteful and inefficient to post line after line of sacred texts here (not that you are doing so), here:

Subhuti said: "If I understand correctly, one who wishes to reach perfect wisdom should study the way things are in the world and should practice the perfections fully and in depth, but should not believe them to be ultimately real, nor should he make concepts and doctrines out of them."

The Buddha replied: "Just so, Subhuti. The one who contemplates existence in this way knows the nature of the conditioned and of the unconditioned and makes himself an expert in pointing out the truth to others, both with words and without words."

Subhuti asked: "But is this just for the wise and the intelligent?"

"No, indeed," replied the Buddha. "This is open to all, even to the dull witted and to those who can't pay attention. The door is open to anyone who wants to tread this path--but not to the person who is lazy and indifferent."

As an aside:
Q: Do you know why the Buddha cannot vacuum the corners ?
A: Because his vacuum cleaner does not have attachments ...