Whats the difference between a Sutta and a Sutra?

BhikkhuJayasara

I figured since I often explain this to the people I teach I might as well make a post about it here as well to avoid confusion.

in the Buddhist world you may see words that seem similar with the exception of a different letter.. it seems that way because they ARE similar .

There are two main languages used by the Theravada and Mahayana traditions. Theravada uses the ancient Pali, Mahayana uses the ancient Sanskrit. That is the only difference between the words I will list below. They mean the same thing

Pali -- Sanskrit

Nibbana -- Nirvana
Kamma -- Karma
Dhamma -- Dharma


so hence you will hear someone like me use the Pali translations of the word and someone of the Mahayana use the Sanskrit, one is not a "right" way to say over the other, it really doesn't matter.

vinlyn

Yup...what I always thought (although some have argued about this in the past), but you stated it so clearly. Your lesson plan and delivery gets and "exemplary". You're on your way to merit pay!

caz

Its said in the Tibetan tradition that Buddha spoke 64 languages.

misecmisc1

whats in a name that we call a rose, by anyother name would smell as sweet - Shakespeare. this was for different names in English language itself . here Sutta and Sutra, the words are different because they are of different languages Pali and Sanskrit, but they refer to the same thing.

Citta

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

ecdrewello1

Very interesting... I figured the two were interchangable, I just never realized that Pali and Sanskrit were related to the Theravada/Mahayana split.

BhikkhuJayasara

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

I've never heard this before, interesting. Is that definition a Theravada or a Mahayana invention? I can sort of see a Theravadan saying " yeah these sutras are not the real teachings" and making that distinction in the wording like a Mahayana might say " yeah those theravada teachings are "hiniyana", lower vehicles.

Yaskan

Jayantha said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

I've never heard this before, interesting. Is that definition a Theravada or a Mahayana invention? I can sort of see a Theravadan saying " yeah these sutras are not the real teachings" and making that distinction in the wording like a Mahayana might say " yeah those theravada teachings are "hiniyana", lower vehicles.

I can't answer your question, but I thought I'd just add my voice and say that I have heard the same distinction as Citta described above. In fact, it was the first explanation I came across for 'sutta vs sutra'. These days I consider it to mean sutta = pali canon and sutra = extras/additions, but this thread may change that.

caz

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

Takuan

Suttas are generally attributed to the Buddha as the Theravada schools have sort of a closed canon. The Mahayana's canon's, however, are considered to be more "open". This generally means that new sutras can be added at any time and by anyone. For example, the "Platform" sutra by Hui Neng.

It's also important to remember that the Pali and Sanskrit terms don't always mesh together so nicely. The Mahayana came about via a number of schisms in the early Buddhist communities, and the differences that caused these schisms can be seen in the interpretation of the sutras.

caz

Takuan said:

Suttas are generally attributed to the Buddha as the Theravada schools have sort of a closed canon. The Mahayana's canon's, however, are considered to be more "open". This generally means that new sutras can be added at any time and by anyone. For example, the "Platform" sutra by Hui Neng.

It's also important to remember that the Pali and Sanskrit terms don't always mesh together so nicely. The Mahayana came about via a number of schisms in the early Buddhist communities, and the differences that caused these schisms can be seen in the interpretation of the sutras.

New Sutra's ? I think you will find they are only accepted within a certain lineage. Authentic Sutra's must be the words of Buddha or inspired by Buddha at the time he was teaching.

Citta

caz said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

As this is a Pan-Buddhist forum Caz, I will qualify your correction. The view that the Mahayana Sutras are associated with Shakyamuni Buddha is the Mahayana view, and it is totally rejected by the majority of Theravadin commentators, who accept only the authenticity of the Pali canon..
Indeed that is is THE origin of their schism.

caz

Citta said:

caz said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

As this is a Pan-Buddhist forum Caz, I will qualify your correction. The view that the Mahayana Sutras are associated with Shakyamuni Buddha is the Mahayana view, and it is totally rejected by the majority of Theravadin commentators, who accept only the authenticity of the Pali canon..
Indeed that is is THE origin of their schism.

Indeed. This is common knowledge. In turn Mahayana commentators reject the assertion that Mahayana Sutra's are not the works of Buddha. Seeing as both streams where oral transmissions and Mahayana Sutra's where also revealed works its always worth the effort to address the profundity of what is being said in these works then let our bias be a source of greater Ignorance.

Citta

I think we have to acknowledge the Theravadin's right to their own view..which basically is that the Buddha before Shakyamuni was Dipankara, and that the next Buddha will be Maitreya, and from a Theravadin view.. thats it.
They do not recognise Vairocana, or Manjushri or Amitabha etc.
So any dialogue between the two schools needs I think to start with a recognition of those differences and then look for commonalities.

caz

Citta said:

I think we have to acknowledge the Theravadin's right to their own view..which basically is that the Buddha before Shakyamuni was Dipankara, and that the next Buddha will be Maitreya, and from a Theravadin view.. thats it.
They do not recognise Vairocana, or Manjushri or Amitabha etc.
So any dialogue between the two schools needs I think to start with a recognition of those differences and then look for commonalities.

There has been plenty of dialogue and these facts of view have already been acknowledged.

Citta

caz said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

Which didnt stop you replying in absolutist terms.

BhikkhuJayasara

Citta said:

caz said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

As this is a Pan-Buddhist forum Caz, I will qualify your correction. The view that the Mahayana Sutras are associated with Shakyamuni Buddha is the Mahayana view, and it is totally rejected by the majority of Theravadin commentators, who accept only the authenticity of the Pali canon..
Indeed that is is THE origin of their schism.

I'm certainly no historian on early buddhist culture.. but it was my understand that the schism happened largely over monastic rules no?

as for the whole sutta, sutra, theravada, mahayana.. in the end it really doesn't matter does it? it's not the words but the practice that makes the difference. While in all honesty I do hold some bias towards Theravada, and I did not feel I could be a buddhist until I bypassed Vajrayana and Mahayana and found Theravada, I do not look at Theravada or the pali cannon as " the best and only way"... there are many ways across the stream.

I get a kick out of thinking that i'm an "orthodox" Buddhist, which seems to be what many call Theravada.. I've never been "orthodox" anything in my life hehe.

Citta

I suspect that forum membership is self selecting Jayantha..you clearly take as liberal view of Mahayana teachings while identifying as having a bias towards the Theravada..whereas my background is largely Vajrayana...with a high regard for the Suttas.
But if you want to see how hard core Theravadins see the issue then you might some time visit the largest Theravadin forum..Dhammawheel, where you will see any appeal to the authority of the Mahayana Sutras shot down in flames muy rapido.
They are seen by many as a throw-back to the Vedic teachings.
Unfortunate perhaps, but thats the way it is.
We are fortunate that NB mostly shows respect for both traditions.

caz

Citta said:

caz said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

Which didnt stop you replying in absolutist terms.

People are entitled to their positions but out and out saying they are not Buddha's teachings is to badly try and shoot down the broadness of the Mahayana and its practitioners past and present, Mahayana bashing is a deceptive way of calling its practitioners Non Buddhist.

BhikkhuJayasara

Citta said:

I suspect that forum membership is self selecting Jayantha..you clearly take as liberal view of Mahayana teachings while identifying as having a bias towards the Theravada..whereas my background is largely Vajrayana...with a high regard for the Suttas.
But if you want to see how hard core Theravadins see the issue then you might some time visit the largest Theravadin forum..Dhammawheel, where you will see any appeal to the authority of the Mahayana Sutras shot down in flames muy rapido.
They are seen by many as a throw-back to the Vedic teachings.
Unfortunate perhaps, but thats the way it is.
We are fortunate that NB mostly shows respect for both traditions.

Oh I am there friend, as Jayantha( I received the name Jayantha when i took the 8 lifetime precepts) as well .. they are very disputatious over there and it often turns me away.. I think of all the dhamma forums I've found the people here at newbuddhist for the most part seem to be a little more harmonious and less set in views.

that being said.. for deep scholarly debate and talk about deep dhamma practice.. you can't go much further then dhamma/dharma wheel(two websites one for theravada one for mahayana)

I don't tend to look for or see authority in any text.. I look for truth that fits with my insight. I'll give an example. being Theravadan I'm not a huge fan of the whole Bodhisattva thing in Mahayana, it doesn't quite make sense to me and doesn't feel like it is in line with the original teachings. However I attended a Mahayana retreat and learned much about Bodhisattva and I took on one Bodhisattva as a good example for me.. that is the non disparaging Bodhisattva, I love that guy!

going around saying to everyone that he would never disparage them because he knows they have the nature to become a buddha, and continuing to turn around and so so while being chased out of town and having rocks thrown at him.. he is my kind of guy! lol. So now when I'm driving and someone cuts me off, or I feel some sort of ill-will towards someone for something I perceived they did to me, I think of the non-disparaging Bodhisattva and it makes me laugh, as well as brings back mindfulness.

BhikkhuJayasara

Citta said:

I suspect that forum membership is self selecting Jayantha..you clearly take as liberal view of Mahayana teachings while identifying as having a bias towards the Theravada..whereas my background is largely Vajrayana...with a high regard for the Suttas.
But if you want to see how hard core Theravadins see the issue then you might some time visit the largest Theravadin forum..Dhammawheel, where you will see any appeal to the authority of the Mahayana Sutras shot down in flames muy rapido.
They are seen by many as a throw-back to the Vedic teachings.
Unfortunate perhaps, but thats the way it is.
We are fortunate that NB mostly shows respect for both traditions.

Oh I am there friend, as Jayantha( I received the name Jayantha when i took the 8 lifetime precepts) as well .. they are very disputatious over there and it often turns me away.. I think of all the dhamma forums I've found the people here at newbuddhist for the most part seem to be a little more harmonious and less set in views.

that being said.. for deep scholarly debate and talk about deep dhamma practice.. you can't go much further then dhamma/dharma wheel(two websites one for theravada one for mahayana)

I don't tend to look for or see authority in any text.. I look for truth that fits with my insight. I'll give an example. being Theravadan I'm not a huge fan of the whole Bodhisattva thing in Mahayana, it doesn't quite make sense to me and doesn't feel like it is in line with the original teachings. However I attended a Mahayana retreat and learned much about Bodhisattva and I took on one Bodhisattva as a good example for me.. that is the non disparaging Bodhisattva, I love that guy!

going around saying to everyone that he would never disparage them because he knows they have the nature to become a buddha, and continuing to turn around and so so while being chased out of town and having rocks thrown at him.. he is my kind of guy! lol. So now when I'm driving and someone cuts me off, or I feel some sort of ill-will towards someone for something I perceived they did to me, I think of the non-disparaging Bodhisattva and I tell the person I would never disparage them! it makes me laugh, as well as brings back mindfulness and a mind of metta.

Citta

THat is why the broad position of New Buddhist is so important to maintain...
If we say that the Mahayana teachings ARE emanating from the Buddha without acknowledging that the Theravada take a different view there is little prospect of finding commonalities.. although of course that is the Mahyana view of the Sutras..
But imo we should try to avoid the kind of polarisation that one finds on some forums where either all Mahayana teachings are dismissed as bogus or where the Pali suttas are dismissed as " hiunayana "..

BhikkhuJayasara

Citta said:

THat is why the broad position of New Buddhist is so important to maintain...
If we say that the Mahayana teachings ARE emanating from the Buddha without acknowledging that the Theravada take a different view there is little prospect of finding commonalities.. although of course that is the Mahyana view of the Sutras..
But imo we should try to avoid the kind of polarisation that one finds on some forums where either all Mahayana teachings are dismissed as bogus or where the Pali suttas are dismissed as " hiunayana "..

Sadu Sadu Sadu

DairyLama

Jayantha said:

.. in the end it really doesn't matter does it?

Not really. Some of the sutras are really poetic and profound, but I prefer reading the suttas because I can understand some of them...

Takuan

caz said:

New Sutra's ? I think you will find they are only accepted within a certain lineage. Authentic Sutra's must be the words of Buddha or inspired by Buddha at the time he was teaching.

If you look at the history of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, there were a number of new sutras added to the Chinese canon. Some of these were forgeries, which were later discarded, and others were original works written by patriarchs and masters, such as Hui Neng. This is why I said that Mahayana canons were more open.

Jason

Citta said:

caz said:

Citta said:

Actually there is another important difference.." Sutta" ( Pali ) is used by the Theravada to mean a teaching given by Shakyamuni Buddha...Gautama Siddhartha.
A Mahayana " Sutra" ( Sanskrit ) can mean teachings attributed to Buddhas not necessarily recognised by the Theravada, such as Amitabha Buddha or Manjushri Buddha.

This requires some correction. All Mahayana Sutra's are the works of Buddha Shakyamuni, Sutra's can be inspired through the power of Buddha for example the Heart Sutra was inspired through the power of Buddha's Siddhi's the conversation is mainly between Shariputra and Avaloketishvara and approved by Buddha at the end.

As this is a Pan-Buddhist forum Caz, I will qualify your correction. The view that the Mahayana Sutras are associated with Shakyamuni Buddha is the Mahayana view, and it is totally rejected by the majority of Theravadin commentators, who accept only the authenticity of the Pali canon..
Indeed that is is THE origin of their schism.

Not quite. The origin of this schism mostly likely had a long and complicated history, including this aspect of textual evolution, but I'd hesitate to say that it's the origin of it. It's a pretty complicated topic, especially when trying to sift through all the available historical evidence and minutia of what technically constitutes a schism, but according what's most likely the earliest account, the Sariputrapariprccha, the first major schism after the Buddha's death resulting in the creation of the Sthaviravada and Mahasanghika schools (which Theravada and Mahayana eventually evolved from, respectively), centered around a dispute over vinaya or discipline. The Mahasanghikas, in their account, accuse the Sthaviras of trying to add rules to the Vinaya. Later texts suggest that either the ten lax practices (e.g., handling money, eating after midday, etc.) of a group of monks identified with the future Mahasanghika or disagreements over five doctrinal issues about the nature of the Buddha and that of arahantship were responsible (the Dipavamsa and the Samayabhedoparacanacakra and Nikdyabhedavibhangavydkhydna, respectively). For more on this interesting subject, I recommend Bhikkhu Sujato's Sects & Sectarianism and Charles Prebish and Janice J. Nattier's Mahasamghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism.

Jeffrey

I don't care about the history. I care about what my teachers teaches me and how it makes sense, helps me, and expands my horizons.

Jason

Jeffrey said:

I don't care about the history. I care about what my teachers teaches me and how it makes sense, helps me, and expands my horizons.

Nothing wrong with that, @Jeffrey. Doesn't mean the history isn't also useful for expanding horizons, though.

Daozen

Some Mahayana Suttas/Sutras were not directly taught by Buddha - they were written hundreds of years after he died.

Does this matter? The answer depends ...

BhikkhuJayasara

Daozen said:

Some Mahayana Suttas/Sutras were not directly taught by Buddha - they were written hundreds of years after he died.

Does this matter? The answer depends ...

well if we want to get technical ALL buddhist writings were written hundreds of years ( the first writings were 500 years after) the buddha died :P

jll

Theravadan Buddhists accept the earliest collected teachings of the Buddha, the Pail Canon, as the true authoritative Dharma. (Pali was a language used during the Buddha's lifetime.) While the suttas (teachings) of the Pali Canon are accepted as authentic in every branch of Buddhism, we shall see that other traditions recognize other teachings as well as authentic.

there is no disagreement concerning the pali suttas.
the disagreement arise concerning the mahayana sutras.

jll

the theravadas do not accept the mahayana sutras.
that is a fact.
whether you like it or not.
it is the reason why, theravada n mahayana is different.
it is incorrect to say that it is all the same bcos it just aint.
having said that, whether you choose theravada or mahayana
is none of my business.
and all the best to you.

Jason

Just for reference, we had a similar thread started by @Sile a while back if anyone's interested in checking it out: The Languages of Buddhism.

Daozen

Jayantha said:

Daozen said:

Some Mahayana Suttas/Sutras were not directly taught by Buddha - they were written hundreds of years after he died.

Does this matter? The answer depends ...

well if we want to get technical ALL buddhist writings were written hundreds of years ( the first writings were 500 years after) the buddha died :P

True: instead of "written" I should have said "created hundreds of years after he died" (unlike the Pali sutras, which came directly from Buddha's actual teaching).

caz

Takuan said:

caz said:

New Sutra's ? I think you will find they are only accepted within a certain lineage. Authentic Sutra's must be the words of Buddha or inspired by Buddha at the time he was teaching.

If you look at the history of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, there were a number of new sutras added to the Chinese canon. Some of these were forgeries, which were later discarded, and others were original works written by patriarchs and masters, such as Hui Neng. This is why I said that Mahayana canons were more open.

As I said only certain lineages. Tibetan Mahayana has a closed set of Sutra's due to its close connection to the Indian pandits who bought them over.

Citta

Or like Marpa Lotsawa ( "Marpa the Translator " ) the farmer/sage who travelled to India to bring the teachings back, having recieved them from his teacher Naropa on the banks of the Ganges..which resulted in the series of teachings called " Ganges Mahamudra ".