Is Any Religion True and Reliable? A Buddhist Answer
Is any religion true and reliable? It’s a question most of us carry quietly, and it gets louder the longer we practice. Every tradition rests on words, and every tradition tells us those words came from somewhere higher than the people who wrote them down. So when we learn that we can never be certain of the words, a harder question follows: what remains for us?
Here’s how it started nagging at me. Did you ever wonder who actually wrote down the sutras? Was it something like a Hollywood writers’ room, a table of monks tossing around ideas for the next episode? Did some half-starved monk sit alone in a dark cave for months until a cosmic visitor appeared and showed him the way? And if so, how is that different from an ayahuasca trip? While we’re at it, why have Buddhists spent so many centuries fighting over which sutra is best, when nobody can show that the Buddha spoke any of them?
These aren’t irreverent questions. They’re the honest ones, and after fifty years of practice I think they deserve honest answers.
Here’s what this essay will show. First, nobody heard the Buddha say any of it. That’s true of the Mahayana sutras we chant, and it’s just as true of the Pali suttas so often held up as the “original” teaching. Second, that isn’t a loss. The Dharma reaches us the way light reaches us from the early universe: as an expanding signal, carried forward and added to by people who practiced, found something real, and passed it on in the stories and images of their own time. Third, because anyone can claim to be adding to that signal, we need a way to tell a genuine layer from a counterfeit one, and the tradition gives us one. The question is never who spoke a teaching. It’s whether the voice stands beside the gate and points, or stands in the gate and charges a toll.
Nobody Heard the Buddha Say It
Let’s start with the facts, because they’re simpler than many of us were taught.
The Buddha taught for decades and wrote nothing down. His teachings were memorized and recited by communities of monks and nuns for roughly four centuries. By Sri Lankan tradition, the Pali canon was first written down in the 1st century BCE, about when the oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts, birch bark scrolls from ancient Gandhara, were made. Everything we have reached the page only after passing through many mouths.
Specialist reciters kept that transmission careful, and scholars comparing the Pali suttas with parallel texts preserved in Chinese by rival schools find a large shared core, older than the splits between those schools. But older isn’t the same as the Buddha’s own lips. No text can be traced to him by anything like a chain of custody.
The Pali canon also makes the same move we’ll see in the Mahayana, and makes it openly. Its third basket, the Abhidhamma, is systematic scholastic philosophy that took shape centuries after the Buddha. Theravada tradition explains its origin this way: the Buddha taught it to his mother, reborn among the gods, in the Tavatimsa heaven, and his disciple Sariputta relayed it to human beings. That’s a later teaching placed in the Buddha’s mouth by way of a heavenly sermon nobody on earth could witness.
The Mahayana sutras began appearing around the turn of the common era, written by monastics whose names we’ll never know. They were composed in layers, by communities, over generations. The Lotus Sutra grew chapter by chapter over a couple of centuries, and the earliest firm date we have for it is a Chinese translation made in 286 CE. So the writers’ room isn’t far off. It’s just a room that stayed in session for two hundred years.
For those of us in the Lotus tradition, the clearest case sits right next to our own sutra. In the first chapter of the Lotus, the Sanskrit text says the Buddha taught a “great instruction” before entering samadhi, a state of deep meditative absorption, and it gives that teaching no content at all. When Kumarajiva translated the Lotus into Chinese in 406, he rendered the phrase as a Mahayana sutra named Immeasurable Meanings. Within a few generations, a text with exactly that title was circulating in China, attributed to a translator credited with nothing else. No Sanskrit original has ever been found. Donald Lopez and Jacqueline Stone, in their guide to the Lotus Sutra, note that scholars therefore treat it as a work composed in China. It’s the source of a line Nichiren returned to again and again: “In these more than forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth.” The proof text used for centuries to rank the Lotus above every other sutra was most likely written in China, inspired by a single phrase in a translation.
The Heart Sutra may be another. Jan Nattier argued in 1992 that it was assembled in China from a longer Perfection of Wisdom text and only later rendered into Sanskrit, a case still debated but serious enough to show how thin the line between “translated” and “composed” could be.
None of this is a modern discovery. In 1745 a young scholar in Osaka named Tominaga Nakamoto published Emerging from Meditation and Then Speaking (Shutsujo kogo). He read the Buddhist canon as history and found a pattern he called kajo, adding on and superseding: each new school adds a layer to what came before and claims to rise above it. The Mahayana sutras, he concluded, weren’t the Buddha’s words but successive attempts to outdo earlier teachings. Tominaga died the following year, barely past thirty. Much of modern scholarship has since confirmed his basic instinct.
So yes, they made it up. Human beings composed these texts and attributed them to the Buddha, in the Pali canon and the Mahayana alike. Saying a teaching is the Buddha’s word doesn’t make it so.
There are two steps a reader can take from here. The first, admitting that later hands wrote the scriptures, is simple honesty. The second, concluding that the scriptures are therefore worthless, smuggles in a purity standard that no tradition survives. If only the Buddha’s own words count, then nothing counts, the Pali included. The rest of this essay is about what we can do instead of taking that second step.
The Signal Expands
The usual way of telling Buddhism’s story is a fading signal: a pure original teaching that gets copied, embellished, and corrupted as it travels, so that the further we are from the source, the weaker our hold on it. My view is the reverse. It’s an expanding signal.
I can’t prove this. It’s how I read the evidence, and the rest of this essay is about how to test it. The reasoning runs like this. If the Buddha’s methods worked, then people who practiced them got results. Some of them woke up, at least partly. And they did what awakened people have always done: they tried to share what they’d found, in the language, images, and stories of their own place and time. The cosmic dramas, the parables, and the visions of buddhas in other worlds are later practitioners paying it forward. Each layer adds to the signal rather than diluting it.
The Lotus Sutra makes the same claim about itself. In chapter 18 the Buddha describes a teaching passed from person to person until it reaches a fiftieth hearer, someone who encounters a single verse, secondhand, and responds with joy. He compares that person’s merit with the merit of someone who gave every means of happiness to beings in countless worlds and led them all to arhatship, the liberation of the early saints. The fiftieth person’s merit is greater beyond calculation: “immeasurable, boundless, and manifold,” in Rissho Kosei-kai’s translation of the Threefold Lotus Sutra. On the sutra’s own terms, distance from the source doesn’t weaken the signal. It’s still whole when it arrives.
The image that first helped me hold all this was the Big Bang. The Buddha’s awakening was the spiritual Big Bang of our world, and everything after it, the suttas, the sutras, the commentaries, the schools, flows outward the way the universe flows outward from its beginning.
The image has a flaw, and it’s worth naming because the flaw teaches something. A Big Bang is a first cause, a single point where everything starts, and Buddhism doesn’t allow first causes. The Buddha himself said he hadn’t invented a new path. He’d rediscovered an ancient one, overgrown and forgotten, like a traveler in the forest who comes upon an old road leading to a lost city. The Lotus goes further. In chapter 16 the Buddha reveals that his awakening under the bodhi tree was itself an appearance, because he had been awakened for inconceivable ages. On the Lotus’s own terms, Bodh Gaya wasn’t the beginning of anything.
Cosmology offers a better picture than the one most of us carry around. The oldest light we can see isn’t the Big Bang itself. It’s the cosmic microwave background, light released about 380,000 years later, when the young universe cooled enough to become transparent. Before that moment everything was already there, but nothing could shine through. That’s a truer image of the Buddha’s awakening. Bodh Gaya is first light: the moment the Dharma became visible in our world, not the moment it began. What the Buddha saw was always the case. Under the bodhi tree it became something that could be seen and shown.
A second detail fits even better. The Big Bang didn’t explode outward from a center. Space itself expands everywhere at once, so every point is equally the middle. Anyone steeped in Tiantai will recognize the shape from ichinen sanzen, three thousand realms in a single moment of mind, the whole present at every point. The signal doesn’t radiate from one sacred spot and weaken with distance. It’s available wherever someone practices.
Tominaga saw the same layering and read it as one-upmanship, each school climbing over the last. Some layers are exactly that. Others are gifts.
Nichiren belongs in this picture as one layer among many, though he wouldn’t have described himself that way, and here the expanding signal has to face Buddhism’s own decline doctrine. The teaching of the three periods holds that the Dharma weakens over time, from the Former Day through the Middle Day into the Latter Day of the Law, mappo, when the teaching survives but practice and awakening fall away. That’s the classic fading-signal theory, and Nichiren built his whole framework on it. Yet look at what he did with it. Faced with what he believed was a failing age, he didn’t treat the decline as the end of the road. He opened a new gate: an entire sutra compressed into a single phrase that anyone can carry, regardless of learning, rank, or leisure. Even inside the decline model, Nichiren’s answer was expansion. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is exactly the kind of gift the expanding signal predicts. (I’ve written about mappo itself in “Nobody Believes in the Apocalypse.”)
Zhiyi gave the Four Great Vows their classic form, and the third says: Dharma gates are inexhaustible, I vow to enter them all. Inexhaustible gates means the layering never closes. Nobody gets to declare the canon finished. Every generation that practices sincerely may open another gate, as Nichiren did, and our vow commits us to walking through them. But if anyone can open a gate, how do we tell a gate from a trap?
Two Voices at the Gate
The expanding-signal view has to face its hardest problem here. If later layers are justified because their authors practiced and got results, then anyone can claim results. Every new movement in history has said its founder woke up, and plenty of them have used that claim to sell something. Some of the cosmic dramas in our sutras may well be what the skeptic suspects: fever dreams from long fasts in dark caves, not so different from a bad night on ayahuasca. The expanding-signal view can’t simply wave that away. Without a way to tell real insight from illusion, it has no way to tell an added gift from an added distortion.
I teach this problem to students with a slightly silly picture. We all know the old cartoon of an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other, each whispering in our ear. The trouble is that in real life both voices sound reasonable. So I rename them. One is the Wise Guy: think of a made man from The Sopranos, charming and loyal-sounding, always talking about family and respect, always with an offer that seems to make sense. The other is the Wise Guide: the old shaman, the grandmother who’s seen everything, the teacher in a wisdom tradition who’s done the walking. Learning to tell these two apart is the kernel of awakening.
That’s where the third of the Four Great Vows turns out to matter more than it first seems. A Dharma gate is an opening, not a barrier. So the question isn’t whether there are gates, or even whether there are gatekeepers. It’s where the gatekeeper stands.
The Wise Guy stands in the gateway. We can’t get through without dealing with him, every passage runs through him, and there’s always a toll. It’s a protection racket: the teaching stays safe as long as we keep paying, and we’ll always need him. The Wise Guide stands beside the gate and points. He doesn’t block it, and he doesn’t sell tickets. Once we’re through, his job is done.
The tradition knew this distinction well. In the Pali canon, Mara keeps turning up in disguise with temptations and plausible advice, and every encounter ends the same way. The Buddha recognizes him, Mara realizes he’s been seen, and he vanishes on the spot. Recognition is the whole remedy. A wise guy who’s been made has no leverage left. The Christian contemplative tradition reached the same insight. Ignatius of Loyola taught his students to watch the beginning, the middle, and the end of a train of thought, because a false voice often starts with something good and leads somewhere smaller.
Our own tradition sharpens the test. Tiantai’s reading of the Lotus turns on opening the three vehicles to reveal the one: the earlier teachings aren’t thrown away but shown to have been parts of a single whole all along. A round teaching contains the partial ones. That gives us a criterion with teeth. A genuine layer includes what came before and adds a way in. A counterfeit layer defines itself by walling other gates off.
Run that test on Nichiren himself, and it cuts both ways, which is the point. The daimoku passes. It opened a gate for people shut out of the monastery, the scholar’s study, and the long retreat, and it points past itself to the sutra it names. Nichiren’s polemics against the other schools fail it. They stand in the gate and wall other gates off. The same person can stand beside the gate in one breath and in it the next. So can we.
Now turn the test on our own scripture, because it applies there too. In chapter 13 of the Lotus Sutra, the bodhisattvas vow to teach the sutra after the Buddha is gone, and they list the abuse they’ll endure. Among their accusers are monks who will say, in Burton Watson’s translation, that the sutra’s upholders “fabricate their own scriptures / to delude the people of the world.” It’s a remarkable passage. It shows that people at the time were saying exactly what a modern skeptic says: you wrote this yourselves. On the facts, the critics were right. The question is whether being right about where a text came from settles what it’s worth.
And notice how the sutra answers. It doesn’t offer evidence. It describes the critics as cunning, arrogant, and greedy for profit. That’s the Wise Guy’s move: don’t answer the question, discredit the people asking it. Even our own sutra has a Wise Guy moment, and we’re better practitioners for being able to hear it.
Institutions face the same test. Max Weber called it the routinization of charisma: a founder’s living authority can’t outlast him, so it gets turned into offices, rules, and approved texts. That isn’t always corruption. Without gatekeeping, nothing would have reached us at all, and the reciters who carried the canon for four centuries were keeping a gate. The question is never gate or no gate, but whether the gate protects the teaching or the people holding the keys. History mostly shows both, in the same institutions and often in the same people.
This is how we can decide between Tominaga’s reading of the layers and the expanding signal. They describe the same mechanism. Tominaga saw the Wise Guy at work: each new layer standing in the gate, claiming to supersede what came before. The expanding signal is the Wise Guide’s version: each new layer standing beside a gate and pointing, adding a way in without walling off the others. Both kinds of layers exist. The test is which way they point.
It also answers the questions we started with about the cave and the ayahuasca. A vision’s origin doesn’t settle its value. A fever dream that leaves us more grasping and more certain of our own specialness is a Wise Guy in costume. A vision, however strange, that loosens our grip, includes rather than excludes, and points beyond itself is doing a guide’s work. What separates them isn’t the experience but what it produces over time.
The Physician Leaves
The Lotus Sutra’s most famous parable gives us its clearest picture of the Wise Guide. In chapter 16 a skilled physician comes home to find that his children have swallowed poison. Some take the medicine he prepares and recover. Others, their minds confused by the poison, refuse it. So the physician leaves the medicine with them, travels to another country, and sends word that he has died. Grief shocks the children into their senses. They take the medicine and are cured. Then the father comes home.
The sutra explains why he left. If the Buddha remained always in plain sight, people would grow complacent. They’d lean on him and never take the medicine themselves. His departure is the pointing. He leaves the remedy within reach and steps out of the way, and the children have to drink it on their own.
That’s the line between our two figures. The Wise Guy makes himself indispensable. The physician makes himself unnecessary. And chapter 16 adds a final turn: the physician never really goes anywhere. The Buddha is always here, unborn and undying, near at hand even when the confused don’t see him.
The parable also speaks to the question we started with. The physician sends word that he’s dead, and that’s false. So the Buddha asks his listeners whether anyone could call that physician a liar, and they say no: a falsehood that cures isn’t a lie. The sutra never says this about its own authors. The physician’s lie is the Buddha’s act inside the story, and putting words in the Buddha’s mouth is a different act altogether. But if the authors understood their work at all, it was probably in the physician’s terms: a story told for the sake of a cure.
We should be careful here, because that logic only holds under the test we’ve been building. The Wise Guy also lies for our own good; that’s practically his job description. The difference is where the lie leads. The physician’s ends with the children cured and no longer needing him. The Wise Guy’s ends with us owing him. That’s the standard any sutra, any teacher, and any later layer has to meet.
The same test appears, without parables, in one of the early discourses. In the Kalama Sutta, the people of a small town come to the Buddha confused. Teacher after teacher passes through, each praising his own doctrine and reviling everyone else’s, and the Kalamas can’t tell who’s telling the truth. That’s the sutra wars in miniature. The Buddha’s answer, in Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s translation, begins: “don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture.” Nor, he says, by the thought that this teacher is our teacher. Instead we’re to test a teaching by what it does when we put it into practice, whether it feeds greed, aversion, and delusion or loosens them, whether it leads to harm or to welfare. And we’re to check what we find against the judgment of the wise.
That last clause matters. The Kalama Sutta isn’t permission to trust our gut. It asks us to test in practice and then check our results with people who’ve walked further than we have. That’s exactly the Wise Guide’s place: not standing in the gate, but standing beside us, pointing, and confirming what we’ve found.
And there’s a fitting irony. The Kalama Sutta itself reaches us the way every other text does: memorized, recited, written down centuries later, unsigned. We can’t prove the Buddha said it. By its own standard, we don’t need to.
What We’ve Seen
We began with a hard question: is any religion true and reliable, when we can never be certain of the words?
We’ve seen three things. First, nobody heard the Buddha say any of it. That holds for the Pali canon as much as for the Mahayana, from the Abhidhamma’s heavenly sermon to the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings. Tominaga Nakamoto saw it nearly three centuries ago, and the critics in chapter 13 of the Lotus were right on the facts. Insisting that only the Buddha’s own words count leaves us with nothing at all.
Second, the Dharma reaches us as an expanding signal, not a fading one. The Buddha’s awakening was first light, the moment the Dharma became visible in our world, not the moment it began. Later practitioners who found something real added their own layers, and the Lotus itself insists that the fiftieth hearer receives the teaching whole. Even Buddhism’s own decline doctrine, in Nichiren’s hands, produced a new gate rather than a lament.
Third, because anyone can claim to add a layer, we need a test, and the tradition gives us one. The Wise Guy stands in the gate, charges a toll, and walls other gates off. The Wise Guide stands beside the gate and points. The good physician leaves so that the children will take the medicine themselves. The Kalama Sutta tells us to test a teaching in practice and check it with the wise.
So when a teaching reaches us, from a sutra, a teacher, a tradition, or an essay like this one, we can carry a few questions with us:
• Does it point beyond itself, or ask us to stay?
• Does it make itself less necessary over time, or more?
• Does it include the other gates, or wall them off?
• Does it loosen greed, aversion, and delusion, or feed them?
• Do people who’ve walked further than we have confirm what we’re finding?
So is any religion true and reliable? Not in the sense of a sealed chain of custody back to its founder. No tradition has that. But a teaching can be reliable the way medicine is reliable: it does what it says when we take it. That’s the only kind of reliability the Buddha ever offered.
This essay is a layer too, offered from one practitioner’s time and place, and it has to pass its own test. So it points to the gate, and steps aside.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo
Comments