If you were to follow a particular religion...

[Angrboda]

---

Um, I don't believe in a soul. So, to use your favorite term, "Straw man!"

Really? What then is your understanding of the Buddha's teaching of anatta?

And the question is not whether the Buddha himself advocated agnosticism on these questions, I'm told he did, and lacking research on the matter, I'm willing to accept that as true, pending further study.

QED.

The question is whether any particular Buddhism is defined authoritatively by what we have of the Buddha's exposition.

Not at all, really. Any sect that calls itself "Buddhist" answers to the Buddha's teachings, and most relevant here is the Four Great References. You have heard of them...?

(Ignoring side issues for the moment.

Not a side issue at all. At the very core, actually.

In one of the sutras, he is reported to have said it is impossible to identify a Buddha, so he himself may not be a Buddha, by his own reasoning.)

Your source?

Off the top of my head, it would appear that many forms of Mahayana Buddhism differ with specific things Siddhartha said, or is reputed to have said. That doesn't make them something other than Buddhism.

NO, but nonetheless any claim they make must answer to the Buddha's own teachings.

Arguing that Buddhism is what we have of what he said is an example of the genetic fallacy.

Ah, that straw man you found was yours, not mine.

---

Asked and answered. When you actually have a real point or question, let me know.

....any claim they make must answer to the Buddha's own teachings

This is the point I addressed and referred to as an example of the genetic fallacy. Either you don't know what the genetic fallacy is, you don't know what your claim is, or you don't know what a straw man is (which you assert my bringing up the genetic fallacy is). Whichever it is, I really could give a rat's ass, because you obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. (For example, your accusing me of believing I have a soul when in the very post you were responding to I announced that I was an eliminative materialist. Apparently, in Taqiyya land, it makes sense to respond to a post you don't fully understand. What, the, fuck, ever.)

The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.

Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.

—