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.
Familiarity with Buddha's original teachings
I've met a lot of people who claimed to be Buddhists but who had never read even a single word of the Buddha's original teachings, as recorded in Nikayas and Agamas. I've always found that to be extremely odd, sort of like meeting a Christian who never read anything from the Bible, or a Muslim who never bothered reading Quran, or an orthodox Jew... you get the point.
So what kind of a Buddhist are you? The one who made the effort to familiarize him/herself with the Buddha's teaching from Nikayas/Agamas, or the one who couldn't be bothered?
So what kind of a Buddhist are you? The one who made the effort to familiarize him/herself with the Buddha's teaching from Nikayas/Agamas, or the one who couldn't be bothered?
0
Comments
So the options aren't to study the early texts or do nothing.
Sectarianism again :yawn:
What the heck...is there wisdom to be found in the Nikayas and Agamas?
Without the small vehicle there cannot be a large vehicle.
The original teachings of the Buddha: four noble truths, 8 fold path, three marks, dependent origination are all foundations.
Regardless of what tradition you are in, if you do not study let alone practice to realize these truths then calling oneself a Buddhist is no different than Christians who call themselves Christians but worship Mammon.
And why do we need to compare what we do to Christians?
Mahayana is built on Hinayana teachings, but the Hinayana isn't taught via the Pali Canon, but through the Mahayana tradition's own texts, like the Lamrim.
Tibetan buddhism views through the lens of hinayana, mahayana, and vajrayana. Not everyone views through that lens. Tibetan buddhism teaches all three of the yanas.
1. Empirical
2. Transcendental
How are these two streams different? Mostly, the differences lie in whether the followers of such streams believe in the historical authenticity of the Buddha or not. Empiricists do believe that the Buddha was a human being who indeed lived approximately 2,500 years ago in India and who taught the doctrine of Four Noble Truths and dependent arising, culminating in his teaching on the Middle Way.
Transcendentalists vehemently deny this. They claim that the Buddha is not, and cannot be human, and that he never uttered even a single word of teaching.
Furthermore, the two streams differ in how they view the community striving toward perfection (a.k.a. Sangha in Sanskrit). Empiricists hold that this community is real, and that it is the purity of this community that gives meaning to giving and receiving gifts (the teaching on generosity, or compassion). Transcendentalists again deny this, claiming that such community does not and cannot exist, and that it is only the Action of giving that is meaningful, and the emphasis is solely on the giver and the merits this giver accumulates, not on the receiver.
Put slightly differently, the focus of empiricists in Buddhism is on ethical and moral living, while the focus of transcendentalists is on duty.
I think this is a waist of time. It is a grandstand soapbox to criticize motivated by intolerance and sectarianism. Ethics is one of the six paramitas.
1. Generosity (Skt. dāna; Tib. སྦྱིན་པ་, jinpa):
2. Discipline (Skt. śīla; Tib. ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས་, tsultrim)
3. Patience (Skt. kṣānti; Tib. བཟོད་པ་, zöpa)
4. Diligence (Skt. vīrya; Tib. བརྩོན་འགྲུས་, tsöndrü)
5. Meditative concentration (Skt. dhyāna; Tib. བསམ་གཏན་, samten)
6. Wisdom (Skt. prajñā; Tib. ཤེས་རབ་, sherab)
You should judge by content and context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāramitā
That's ironic that you criticize buddhists for lack of awareness of the Theravada tradition when you are also not aware. That is the kettle calling the pot black.
"Subhuti, do not say that the Tathagata conceives the idea 'I will give a teaching. Do not think that way. Why? If anyone says that the Tathagata has something to teach, that person slanders the Buddha because he does not understand what I say. Subhuti, giving a Dharma talk in fact means that no talk is given. This is truly a Dharma talk."
(http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/sutras/diamond1.html)
The above illustrates the transcendentalist approach, whereby it is vehemently denied that the Buddha ever taught his doctrine of the Four Noble Truths, dependent arising, and the Middle Way.
I don't think anybody has any right to call anyone else any kind of Buddhist, based on the assumption that if they haven't read a lot, they can't be any type of Buddhist worth calling themselves a Buddhist.....
Study of the 4 Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, alone, can lead one to realisation.
I was told this by Luang Por Sumedho at the Amaravati monastery, in the UK.
But you really have to study them, in depth.
So i find it really rich that someone can be so critical of others and presume to be in a position to judge.
Besides, knowing is fine.
Doing, is better.
Here's an interesting read on the rise of mahayana.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/maha2.htm
...These Sthaviravadins followed a realist line, stating that all phenomena exist and are unstable compounds of elements. They taught that it is necessary for all humans to strive for Arahantship or release from the constant round of rebirth (Samsara). They taught that Buddhas are men - pure and simple, rejecting any notion of their being transcendental. The other group, which were in the majority, were known as the Mahasanghikas, which means followers of the great or major group of clergy. Like the Sthaviravadins, they accepted the fundamental doctrines as taught by the Buddha, such as: the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the doctrine of Anatta or no soul, the law of karma or causation, Paticca Samupada or dependent arising and the stages of spiritual advancement or sainthood. They differed in believing that Buddhas are supramundane and transcendental, they have no defiling elements, their lives and powers are unlimited. They also believed that the original nature of the mind is pure and that it is contaminated when it is stained by passions and defilements. It was from the Mahasanghikas that the Mahayana was to evolve. This seems like a pretty blatant and partisan way to interpret the passage. This passage seems to be referring to an ultimate take on reality, much like the story of the Buddha twirling a flower and mahakashyapa smiling. To say it means the Buddha never taught the dharma, and vehemently deny it at that, is to me, silly. Then to claim that they deny the sangha. There is a very rich tradition in TB and Zen of a sangha, so that seems like a strange claim divorced from reality. I don't even get this, it just seems like some kind of cheap shot.
It's a forum for those interested in Buddhism, and tentatively exploring its path to come and explore new ideas, seek information and learn about all manner of different aspects.
we don't claim to be highly literate and vastly-read experts, and some are far more widely-read than others.
and that's ok.
But please do not presume that simply because someone hasn't read a vast amount of literature they are any kind of (lesser) Buddhist than any more learned intense scholar.
Sure, it's advisable. but it's neither imperative, nor critical.
Or would it?
All I said was that it should not be an outrageous thing to expect people who call themselves Buddhist to have read some of the Buddha's original teachings, as preserved in Nikayas and Agamas. I never said they should read all of the Buddha's words.
I find it funny that people jump at my throat accusing me of being sectarian for suggesting that they read Buddha's original words. Sectarianism for insisting we get close to the very originator of Buddhism? You've got to be kidding me, no?
Veiled sectarianism for suggesting some of us make an effort to become more familiarized with the original teachings of the Buddha? I think now I've heard everything!
There is a weird phenomena that I do not understand. Of all the different streams of Buddhism, uniquely (in my experience) there are two distinct Theravadin Buddhisms, an off-line one, and an on-line one. Off-line Theravadin Buddhism has provided the amazing opportunity to meet the most inspiring and wise people I have ever encountered. The most saintly in character, to be honest. It has also provided a chance to meet great fellow practitioners who became lifelong friends. Then there is on-line Theravadin Buddhism, where I have encountered so many people who bear no resemblance to off-line people at all, in attitude, and focus. It is a shame that the first face of Theravadin Buddhism that many new people encounter, is an on-line one that is so often a chauvinistic. sutta thumping, embarrassment. There are so many very good Theravadin Buddhist, both Ordained and Lay, and they should come on-line more, to show a better nobler face to new people.
This is biased and no doubt skewed and totally debatable. But there is something to to it. The strangest thing.
How many hours do you meditate each day? And do you consider yourself a buddhist? Again nobody said it was outrageous to read the sutras. What occured is you saying it is outrageous to not have read them.
@nigelart it is sectarian to say that buddhists from a tradition that does not study the Pali Canon is outrageous for not reading the Pali Canon. It presumes that scripture is better. Buddhas original word came out of his mouth. It doesn't matter who wrote what down first. Bottom line is that teachings are empirical any way you slice it. You try them out. Buddha said to test his teachings like you would test gold to see if it was real.
Anyway you are pissing in the wind. Go ahead and be outraged. Knock yourself out.
I'm not saying that is necessarily bad, I just personally find it odd. Sort of like meeting a Christian who never... forget it! What is this, some sort of a kangaroo court? Of course, I am a Buddhist instructor, teaching others how to approach the Buddhist practice. It is NOT sectarian to claim that familiarizing oneself with the Buddha's original words is beneficial for the Buddhist practice. Again, you are reading too much into what I wrote. I am not outraged, just tickled.
The Bible and Quaran are respecitively part of the tradition of Christianity and Islam. What you are saying is akin to Christians being critical of Islam practioners for not reading 'God's original word' in the Old Testament.
Veiled sectarianism for suggesting some of us make an effort to become more familiarized with the original teachings of the Buddha? I think now I've heard everything!
That was in response to your second post regarding empirical and transcendental. I thought your OP was an honest question and I gave an honest answer to it.
I see a good argument that a mahayanist could benefit from reading the Pali Canon. But it's kind of naive to be surprised that they don't. My teacher said to study what she is teaching.. When I have understood that I will be able to understand what others are doing.
Have you ever read a document that wasn't influenced by a person's views or agendas? Why do you think that one branch of a schism is 'right'? It goes without saying that they were presenting their vision of Buddhism. And it had a view and an agenda. People are like that. Look at politics. Look at the Christian canon. That was motivated by political factor.
But my hunch would be the God was not a person in flesh and blood. Hence he was made up. Same as the pregnancy of a barren woman is made up. Again, you bring up very good points. I feel we're finally getting somewhere (as a side note, I always feel relieved upon encountering a mature person who, instead of immediately jumping at someone's throat, examines the argumentation brought up and deals with it; the extremely rare and well respected "don't shoot the messenger, deal with the message instead" arrangement).
The thing I'd like to reiterate here is that there is a difference between the original and the derived teachings. What could that difference be? You've pointed it out above by stating that personal views and agendas influence each and every interpretation of the original teaching.
The issue here is: are we to assume that each and every derivative teaching offered under the banner of Buddhism is valid? If the answer is yes, how do we know that it's valid? Isn't there a chance that someone could be perverting the teaching? Didn't the Buddha predict that his teaching will get corrupted by various personal agendas and will eventually diminish and disappear during the Dharma dying age?
But in the tradition I've studied in, the Buddha's teachings are presented in the tradition's own texts. In my observation, no one feels a need to read the original sermons. They have faith that the texts their teacher provides are based on the Buddha's teachings. It never occurred to me, for example, to study the Pali Canon to check up on my teacher's lineage to see if the 1000-year lineage was lying or misguided. Don't be disingenuous. You lecture us on the meaning of a part of the Diamond Sutra, than you say you never claimed to understand it. I guess that means we can disregard your earlier attempt at interpreting something you admit you make no claim to understanding. Thanks for the clarification.
Good luck with your little provocations and your delusions of superiority. Yeah, you're a real Buddhist all right. Get back to us when you discover humility.