Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What can we gain from the sutras? Are they all corupt?
Jeffrey
Veteran
Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
0
Comments
For a variety of reasons, i dont care much for the mahayana suttas. Part of it is that they are later additions, i will admit to my bias, but also because for me they seem overly complicated and not the simple basic every day teachings that drew me to buddhism.
Now of course someone else might feel the exact opposite of me, and that benefits their practice for them, live and let live, and our baises with regards to the suttas makes little real difference outside the realm of academic bickering. What is most important is our practice... OUR practice.
I feel no need to defend my practice against others, even non buddhists. Nor do i feel the need to be snide or look down on what they believe or practice, even if it seems totally silly and outlandish to me.
Just because I don't believe any written word is going to be EXACTLY the literal words from the mouths of people -who may or may not have even existed! - 2000+ years ago... doesn't not mean I view those writings as "Corrupt" or corrupted.
To me, corrupted means damaged, broken, made illogical or useless... I don't view the sutras/suttas as any of those negative things.
They are just not 'exact'. We can never EVER know what exact words were spoken at any time prior to written records, audio recordings, video or any other method of recording. This is why many people believe there is always room for interpretation and discussion... the basics are there, (and all just wonderful), but there's always fine tuning for any number of reasons.
But to your question, is a sutra wise? If so, what's the problem?
I look at the sutras like this: If you lived in 400 AD India, and you wanted to write a book, you had to fit it into the form the audience expected. Or no one would read your book. So it had to be a jakata tale, a sutra (with the Buddha giving a big speech to lots of important people), or some other recognizable genre. That they didn't have a clear concept of fiction/non-fiction, nor the Dewey Decimal System for that matter, doesn't bother me too much. I read the later Sutras the same way I read any other book on Buddhism at the book store.
After you published your book, you knew that relatively few copies would be make and it would be in constant danger of disappearing. So you filled it with stories about the wonderful things that would happen to people who made copies of the book.
In modern times, we have authors like TNH writing books like "Living Buddha, Living Christ", in 500 AD India, when someone saw an idea from a competing religion, they wrote a new sutra and incorporated it into things they like and things they thought would please the audience. And so we have the Amitabha Sutras (in part from Indians encountering Zoroastrianism).
Outside of things like Nichiren, the veneration of texts feels to me like an Abrahamic (Christian, Muslim, etc) approach to religion, left over from the time when literacy was rare and magic.
I pretty much agree with you, @vinlyn about there existing positive changes such as using an approach which westerners can sink their teeth into. My teacher doesn't teach about hell realms. She said that the first thing her teachers in the east taught here was about the hell realms. She asked him why he taught that and he said that he didn't want her to waste her time in the market place and wanted her to study and meditate. In my teachers own approach to her students she does not mention hell because her students were not brought up with FAITH in the dharma. If you have faith that the teaching is good then hell can be a reminder to study hard. But if you don't have any faith in the goodness of the dharma then you need to find that component first. For that reason my teacher starts out with meditation. In meditation you can easily be convinced of the transformative power of the dharma.
I have yet to hear john say something that doesn't accord well with what i know of dhamma, other then the dismissing of rebirth as an in this moment thing rather then literal, but that has little impact on the teaching and my practice.
how the west misunderstands buddhism.
if i ask you "are all bananas poisonous" what can you possibly reply with?
I would say not all bananas are poisonous because I have eaten many bananas. :wtf:
I don't get it @sova?
I like that song though by Ice Cube. I miss the 90s when I was in my salad years.
^^^ice cube
The reason I asked the question is because many were talking about the purity of teachings in a thread where I thought the focus should aline with the OP. The OP gave a teaching on Equanimity and my problem was that the subsequent discussion nobody mentioned Equinimity. :shrugs: so I made a thread where people could talk about the authenticity.
In retrospect I apologize to all that I used the word 'corrupt'. I was thinking of data loss and information age corruption of data.
the sutras are an integral part in the path of study. they are the word of the buddha and sometimes great bodhisattvas who progressed far along, so one should regard them with respect.
people doubt the authenticity of everything these days. who cares what other people think? if you want to study buddhism and benefit from the plethora of teachings available then do so. if you are forever skeptical then nothing will change in your heart. you try the path on. the whole path begins with refuge. refuge begins with faith.
it is not a waste of time to study and reflect. to weigh and consider. it is a waste of time to endlessly ask if studying is beneficial.
sutra just means thread. if you had a grocery list but in 15 different pieces then when you go to the store you'd have a hard time figuring out all what you needed. thread it all together.
i want to say more on the subject but am still pretty shocked with questions like this. the teaching is organic and real, it's not meant to be written down and pinpointed in words. it is something to be brought to life. the sutras are a fundamental support in learning reflecting and meditating. a pure mirror. they are words of enlightened beings. regard them as what their ultimate potential affords and you can then reap the ultimate benefits. to think that the sutras are extraneous or unnecessary highlights a fundamental misunderstanding in the process - it is all support for ultimate fruit. not a shred less.
I thank you for (calmly) pointing out the problem with my word choice rather than 'flaming' each other.
It isn't that I think Buddha was wrong but that after 300 years the message may not be preserved in any one interpretation. And even if it was, sometimes translation can obscure meaning.
Also, feats of bulk memorizing were a characteristic for most (all?) societies that descended from the Indoeuropeans, stretching from Iceland to India (both places had long, long traditions of teaching kids to memorize huge stories-- think Sagas and Vedas) And the stories that got handed down were preserved well enough that modern scholars can recognize the parallel stories.
In my humble opinion, this is all as important as gnat fart (no matter how fascinating) as it relates to suttas because they need to be valuable & useful on their own, regardless to age or accuracy or if they were written as fiction. The vegetarianism of Mahayana Brama Net Sutra-- work of later Chinese. The marrying monks (vinaya reform)? The work of the Meiji government in Japan. The strangely modern message of the Kalama Sutta, probably among the oldest. All three are good Buddhist ideas, despite the 1st being from a sympathetic fiction writing author, the 2nd from a hostile government and the 3rd probably from the historical Buddha himself.
If a time traveling Buddha came here today and said, "No, no, you got it all wrong. I said desire is the path to nirvana and nirvana is a nice ski resort in Nepal and you all should just be good Hindus" I'd say, I don't care, la-la-la, not listening!
So . . . perhaps the word organic rather than 'corrupt'?
Some require no threads, just the spirit of the thread. Some like to wave it. Add knots. Place it in a gold casket, chant it, translate it, interpret it, tease it, study it. Supersede it. Clean their nose with it.
. . . and now back to the preferred thread . . .
They claim to be trasmitted by nagas or other supernatural beings after the Buddha's death.
The whole idea revovles around the argument that while BUddha's teachings were good, ordinary people cannot achieve nibbana by following it.
Therefore further, easier teachings to help the ordinary folks were required.
Are they corrupted?
Well, they can be changed anytime a naga decides to descend and proclaim more teachings.
Verification comes by practice in your own experience, not just ready-made in a text. Pali and Sanskrit scriptures have spiritual value only insofar as they relate to practice and are tested. And if you test it once and it doesn't seem to work, set it aside and return to it later and try again. Look within your own practice to discover truth, not in a book.
I still have questions, but I really need clarify: i know nothing - i'm probably the most ignorant person in the discussion right now - in the sense of formal knowledge, and when i ask it is not to challenge but to learn.
Isn't the function of the "student" to question? If we don't ask such a question wouldn't the simple acceptance figure as a negative aspect: an attachment to the "written word" a delusion of knowing because it has been said?
Also (kinda offtopic) i've seen some videos where people claim they practice true buddhism with passion, I'm not saying that i know what is true about buddhism or not (as i stated i know very little) , but isn't the need to go around saying "I do it right" that
"what i do is true" and "I know the truth" against the basic teachings of buddhism itself? don't the 4 noble truths for a self evident concept?
All is as it should be friend, with the sangha and the world in general. :-)
That's why it is irrelevant whether Buddhist scriptures were literally said word for word by the Buddha or not. If I test it and something "works" then that method is a keeper. If another one doesn't, well, it's either (1) BS or (2) perhaps I'm not ready for it or (3) I haven't understood the method properly.
I just always thought it strange that the dharma of impermanence and non-separation would inspire a splitting of ways. Of course, in my mind, the Sangha couldn't be split if it tried.
It reminds me of people feeling different and wanting to belong so they form little groups with like minded individuals. The bigger the group gets, the more diverse the mindsets become (every person being unique) and a division in thought is inevitable.
It's funny because in reality, there is only one group and none of us can help but belong.
I'm just rambling now so I'm going to hit the hay.
Siddhartha didn't have any books yet he achieved enlightenment.
Ajahn Chah is quoted as saying " the only book worth reading is the human heart". All we really need is within this nama-rupa, mind and body. We don't REALLY need teachers and books.
what we NEED is the confidence in ourselves that we can find the way and trust in our own practice and ability to find the way. I think this factor is lacking in many people who have an over dependance on gurus/teachers and even the suttas.
that being said, I'm thankful for the Buddha and Sangha doing what they've done so that we can have the teachings 2600 years later to peruse and test.
there isn't a sutta or teacher I've listened to that I haven't challenged or tested in some way, even monastics I highly respect. Questioning and challenging doesn't mean being disrespectful, not does it mean verbal action... testing and challenging through my own experience is how it's done.
and so far for me, my practice has validated the teachings to such a degree that I'm moving towards the possibility of making it my life's work and becoming a monk. And if I become a monk and 10 years down the road I see no truth or value in the practice, I'll stop it and move on.