What does one mean by “real”?

If by “real” you mean which has the most fidelity to what the historical Buddha taught, then one must ask fidelity to the letter or to the true spirit? And how does one discern that exactly as we don’t have a time machine to go and check for ourselves.

I believe that the closest we are going to ever get to the traces of the historical Buddha’s words and actions is through the Pali canon and other records of the early teachings such as preserved in the Agamas preserved in Chinese translation. But even those were not recorded until a couple hundred of years after the Buddha passed away and show signs of not being the exact words but the produce of development over time.

The Mahayana sutras that are the basis of many forms of East Asian Buddhism (including Zen) and of Tibetan Buddhism are, I believe, the product of anonymous monks. These show clear signs of later development, and the teachings preserved in the earlier records are the obvious jumping off point for them, as they play with the terms and teachings found in them. I do believe, however, that these sutras delve into the deeper implications of the earlier teachings, and preserve the true spirit of awakening and the practice to awakening. They are an important link in what has kept the tradition alive and relevant to other times and cultures.

What is “real” Buddhism. It is the Buddhism that helps you discover what is “real” for yourself. If the practice and teachings you take up and follow aren’t able to help you do that, then they are not “real” for you. If they do help you do that, then you have made them “real” and have authenticated them through the authenticity of your own practice, realization, and actualization.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,

Ryuei