What did Buddha mean when he said this?

jll

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

Cloud

Reacting to what is pleasurable, rather than what liberates the mind.

DhammaDhatu

It is plain & obvious what the Buddha said

All of the Buddha's transcendent teachings (connected with emptiness) are plain & obvious

The Buddha said we will spend our time posting You Tubes of this & that guru

The Buddha said we will spend our time studying the theories of this & that teacher, especially studying those gurus that manufacture all kinds of rebirth and reincarnation theories out of the Buddha's Dependent Origination

If we ask the question: "What did the Buddha mean?", we just slander him even more

:-/

Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.025.than.html

Cinorjer

It means there was an argument among various schools of Buddhism way back then as to what was the authentic Dharma, that's all.

Please remember that any ancient Holy Scripture was written for the people of the time to address concerns of the time, and not a single sutra was actually written by Buddha. Unlike the Bible, we don't claim some divine miracle makes our holy scriptures the direct, inerrant word of God. Did Buddha actually say that? Maybe he said something like it, maybe not. It doesn't sound to me like something the Buddha would say. This is designed to sow discord, and the Buddha spent his life trying to keep his followers from arguing among themselves.

The monks back then who read this certainly knew which teachings were the "deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness" teachings of their own sect which used this to justify their side, and which ones were "elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders" of those upstart monks who taught something different.

The Dharma comes alive when you realize monks are only people struggling to comprehend the Buddha's teachings, and like us sometimes falling short.

aMatt

In addition to the ideas presented by Cloud, DD and Cinorjer, consider that not all minds connect to the transendent teachings. Hopefully, the disciples and poets who create words which are unlike Buddha's, help prepare a mind for deeper understanding... rather than aiding in the manufacturing of more delusion.

Buddha was obviously well aware that not all people were prepared to grasp emptiness.

jll

Cinojer, can you really say this when these
words were attributed to Buddha himself?

It means there was an argument among various schools of Buddhism way back then as to what was the authentic Dharma, that's all.

Please remember that any ancient Holy Scripture was written for the people of the time to address concerns of the time, and not a single sutra was actually written by Buddha. Unlike the Bible, we don't claim some divine miracle makes our holy scriptures the direct, inerrant word of God. Did Buddha actually say that? Maybe he said something like it, maybe not. It doesn't sound to me like something the Buddha would say. This is designed to sow discord, and the Buddha spent his life trying to keep his followers from arguing among themselves.

The monks back then who read this certainly knew which teachings were the "deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness" teachings of their own sect which used this to justify their side, and which ones were "elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders" of those upstart monks who taught something different.

The Dharma comes alive when you realize monks are only people struggling to comprehend the Buddha's teachings, and like us sometimes falling short.

Cinorjer

Cinojer, can you really say this when these
words were attributed to Buddha himself?

It means there was an argument among various schools of Buddhism way back then as to what was the authentic Dharma, that's all.

Please remember that any ancient Holy Scripture was written for the people of the time to address concerns of the time, and not a single sutra was actually written by Buddha. Unlike the Bible, we don't claim some divine miracle makes our holy scriptures the direct, inerrant word of God. Did Buddha actually say that? Maybe he said something like it, maybe not. It doesn't sound to me like something the Buddha would say. This is designed to sow discord, and the Buddha spent his life trying to keep his followers from arguing among themselves.

The monks back then who read this certainly knew which teachings were the "deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness" teachings of their own sect which used this to justify their side, and which ones were "elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders" of those upstart monks who taught something different.

The Dharma comes alive when you realize monks are only people struggling to comprehend the Buddha's teachings, and like us sometimes falling short.

Let me be clear about what I say here. I am not saying that the revered sutras are a pack of lies or that we should not take even seemingly paradoxical statements seriously or reject anything that doesn't agree with our own desires.

However, everything supposed to have been said by Buddha in the sutras is certainly not the case, as any scholar of the ancient writings will tell you. Exactly which ones should be questioned and how the various conflicting sutras fit together into the history of Buddhist thought is never going to be known for certain.

ddrishi

What Buddha has said holds true not only for followers of Buddhism but for the followers of all others religions too. In the initial stages of all religions, teachings are followed in letter and spirit but gradually followers tend to become more and more ritualistic and the spirit of teachings is lost somewhere. Buddha warns against the same.