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.
Judging the Authenticity of Buddhist Sutras
zombiegirl
beating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wasteland Veteran
Found an interesting article on the topic of "authentic" Buddhist sutras and thought I would share for those interested, since this topic does come up here from time to time. 
A few key points I enjoyed:
Article here.
Do you agree or disagree?
A few key points I enjoyed:
"Buddhism as a religion doesn’t have to depend on strictly Indian sources, as the religion places emphasis on praxis (doing stuff), not just knowing stuff. If the teachings in Buddhism prove to have practical, beneficial results (such as following the Five Moral Precepts), then the teachings are authentically Buddhist."
“Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they have the desire to learn.” -Parinibbana Sutta (DN 16 of the Pali Canon)
Article here.
Do you agree or disagree?
6
Comments
But all that is just my problem.
In general, I'll side with the Zen teacher Rinzai when he was said to have said, "Grasp and use, but never name." Whether a teaching or simple advice came from the chicken farmer down the road or is attributed to some shining light of the past, still, the proof lies in my own willingness to kick the tires -- to try it out, to investigate, and to try it out some more. Having done this, I will know what works and what doesn't, what is the best truth I can find ... and if it works, its 'authenticity' doesn't matter a whole lot. It's already authentic. Whether or not something called Buddhism accords with this point of view ... still, it's the best I can do and as Gautama was quoted as saying:
Better your own truth [Dharma], however weak
Than the truth [Dharma] of another, however noble.
I definitely share your sentiment on the word "authentic" lol.
Added later: Actually, ignore me. I don't know how to delete my post. I think even in the stuff that's considered 'original' that the Buddha developed his own teachings; or at least that's what I heard on Buddhist Geeks from some fella who seemed to know what he was talking about.
I think he also pointed out jokes that the Buddha told, or humour he used, and that those sutras (or parts of) could be considered original since humour is never written by committee.
Ignore me though. I don't know what I'm talking about.
Article here.
Do you agree or disagree?
I more or less agree; although I do have a soft spot for academic research in this area.
Article here.
Do you agree or disagree?
I more or less agree; although I do have a soft spot for academic research in this area.
So what I am saying is that 'authentic' can mean that you are powerfully moved by someone or something. We can't possibly study 'it all' and we should choose a practice that we can take to death.
Hm, I had to dust off my old, old account here. Interesting to see some familiar faces, as well as new ones.
I wrote that blog post 4 years ago; I'm surprised to see it debated now.
My stance on the subject hasn't really changed since then either. I used to worry a lot about the authenticity of the sutras, but over time, as the meaning started to sink in, I stopped caring and just made the most of them.
Some people believe that getting to the source is the best way to understand something, but it's just as important to appreciate how the tradition has evolved in the face of different times and environments. Certainly something we can learn.
To say "I'll find out if it's true" is not the same as saying something is "untrue." It is not a criticism of the sutras to say I plan to check them out, up-close and personal.
Sutras may seem to be very good pointers, so I may make the decision to verify what currently only seems -- intellectually or emotionally -- to be a very good pointer. Turning something into a bright theology is no gauge of authenticity ... it's just another tightly-held belief. That belief may encourage or inspire action, but it has yet to prove anything authentic.
PS. Any "Dharma" that might suffer a "downfall" sounds like a pretty shallow
"Dharma" to me.
But you know, I'm still okay... I don't think my brain is contaminated, lol. And when all is said and done, I am still thankful for everything I learned and that those experiences brought me to where I am today.
If Buddhists value Dharma we must investigate it and confirm it to the best of our ability if what it says is true. But we must never disparage it.
Such is even in the very beginning of Dharma as included in the refuge vows.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.013.than.html
Because Westerners who convert to Buddhism don't really know where to start, they naturally want to start with the background knowledge first, and work their way in.
However, based on my experiences in Japan, the emphasis is on practice first, and then work in the teachings over time. Some groups more than other perhaps, but there's a more gradual explanation of the teachings. If you hear a Buddhist sermon in Japan, it's very different in tone than the ones you hear here: more down to earth and less "intellectual", but somehow you come away learning something.
There was a time in my life where I did read a lot of sutras, and books, but over time this has fallen away and I don't really "do" much Buddhist stuff anymore. It's somehow sunk in, and just become a part of my life.
Regardless of whether you choose to study first, or practice first, sooner or later it will just sink in and become a part of you. There is a good theological reason for this (see the Yogacarin notion of "perfuming the seeds" if you're curious), but it's not required knowledge.
I've known some of Buddhists in Asia who are kind, patient and somehow embody the teachings without necessarily knowing "a lot". They've been just doing it for 10,20, or 30+ years, and gradually came to master the practice, but also acquire the necessary background knowledge in a gradual way.
Long story, short: don't rush.
But then the real practice is to let go and your own drain tool can get stuck in the drain itself. That's basically how the lojong mindtraining works.
There are are other equally sane and rational people who require a lineage, a pedigree before trusting what appears to be experience.
Neither approaches or right or wrong..there is a spectrum of personality types, and when approachng dharma they will require different forms of reinforcement.
So, for those who require a pedigree in order to trust the way might be to find texts that there is a consensus about in terms of authority and suspend disbelief long enough to allow it to talk to you.
You might change you view later..but thats ok too.
Any discipline evolves over time, but if it is simply the techniques which are evolving, and they all lead to healing/liberation, is it proper to even suggest that the originators of the discipline should be frozen in time, copied exactly, and never have their theory applied, or have it worked with and thought about and commented on? I think without applying the original theory, it's sort of dead. Most of the Buddhist texts subsequent to the earlier texts seem to me to be examining and investigating and applying the original theories.
If a Pali text says "all beings were your mother," or a Tibetan text says "envision all beings as your mother," I see that as exactly the same philosophy. The latter is simply providing a sort of guided exercise based on the earlier teaching.
The proof is in the pudding thought - if a new technique doesn't result in healing, or a new application of the Buddha's thought doesn't result in progress along the spiritual path, we can say that this application or that is better, though it may simply be better for us, and the other application may be better for someone else.
....Jesus said:
“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
I think in an ideal world one approaches a teacher who will know how to cater for both types, by experience.
The sturdy pioneer spirit that characterises many Americans has much to commend it it general terms..but it can be a bar to seeking the advice from more experienced people that we sometimes need.
A wise word at the right time can clear up years of going in circles.
the authentic history of your family?
why should buddhism be any different?
If we take the history of America for example, the parallel would be if American history only began to be written down in the century after this one...The first Buddhist Suttas in written form date from about 450 years after the Buddha. So if we take 1776 as the foundation of the USA, it as though written historical accounts do not begin until 2176.
This leaves aside the fact that America has a whole history before the existence of the USA which is hardly recoverable at all.
So " authentic" history in Buddhist terms starts to look like a matter of pragmatism...what works.
Being guided by our own experience does not mean our current understandings of our experience align with reality - in my Buddhist practice I have challenged many of my unknown preconceived ideas and they have changed. Authority figures cause difficulties for many people due to their understandings about their early experience with them.
Anyway..the point is the earliest suttas were written down a long time after the Buddha and in a language different to his. The evidence is that they retain an element, possibly a large element, of hos actual teaching..
But the Buddhadharma does not rely on written authority alone. In addition to the Dharma Jewel and of course the Buddha Jewel there is the Sangha Jewel, which is flawed and human, but intact and a huge resource.
Indeed. To a degree where sometimes meditation practice can only begin when we have resolved to some degree our conflicted attitude to authority..whether that takes the form of unquestioning acceptance or whether it takes the form of rejection . Or as is often the case flip-flops between.
It very common for example for people to reject formal authority but to give unquestioning credence to certain male or female figures that represent however distantly an idealized Pop or Mom.
can some one suggest a book i could read to further my knowledge
thank you Coz
something by pema chodron ^ might be good?
"Somebody says a mean word to you and then something in you tightens — that's the shenpa. Then it starts to spiral into low self-esteem, or blaming them, or anger at them, denigrating yourself. And maybe if you have strong addictions, you just go right for your addiction to cover over the bad feeling that arose when that person said that mean word to you. This is a mean word that gets you, hooks you. Another mean word may not affect you but we're talking about where it touches that sore place — that's a shenpa. Someone criticizes you — they criticize your work, they criticize your appearance, they criticize your child — and, shenpa: almost co-arising.[13]"