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.
How authentic are Buddhist texts?
jll
Veteran
How authentic are Buddhist texts?
0
Comments
In terms of learning about the history of Buddhism I care.
In terms of whether or not they are "authentic", I don't care...only that they are wise teachings.
I do hope the speaker gets the irritation on his right arm looked at. It seems to be an authentic irritation.
Authenticity, like most things, is in the eye of the beholder.
BEAR with me here:
I remember once in Jr. High, (ugh, feels like ages ago now) one of my fellow classmates laughed at the idea that evolution made everything when he believed the Christian God did.
Being an atheist at the time, I could only laugh at his stupidity. Not to his face, but I was sorely tempted as he had laughed in mind. After that he went off with his friends to do whatever.
It was then I had a realization - it didn't matter if it was God or Evolution. Human beings are here regardless of what created them.
I've always thought the whole "argument an atheist can't win" concept had some merit (i.e. Well if the universe didn't exist before the big bang, what created big bang except for God?) but what some Christians rarely consider is the fact that I could use the same argument about God - If we can agree that something cannot come from nothing, who created God?
In my experience, Christian reaction to that is....less than positive. Being engaged on evidence-based beliefs works for atheists and others like them because they (I) believe in the logical realm.
Faith-based beliefs, as I understand them, are supposed to work on a personal belief in something that cannot be proven; one chooses to believe something regardless of facts or evidence.
Broken down to core concepts, God is simply a belief while Evolution is simply a fact.
Both of these things can be good or bad: it depends on how you use them.
THAT all being said:
I wouldn't care if the Buddha turned out to be a madman, or if the texts were made up by a bunch of bored stoners.
While I am not awakened as Buddha was, I have faith in his methods because I accept the idea that they could lead to enlightenment as a fact. Whether he actually existed or was a figment of someone's imagination the message Buddha delivered to the world is one I believe in.
I don't see a contradiction if we believe him to be authentic, or if all the evidence in the world points to him never actually having existed.
I accept the Buddha's message - and that is enough for me.
@Aspiring_Buddhist, I agree with you to a large extent. But let me ask a couple of questions:
Are you saying that Christians don't live in the "logical realm" because they believe in God? And what is -- to you -- the logical realm? Is it the realm of Mount Meru? Or Mara? Or some of the many devas (as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism) ) floating around in the air?
So, you believe in enlightenment? Have you ever experienced it? Do you personally know someone who has experienced it? What does enlightenment really mean? When Buddha became enlightened, did he really see all knowledge for all time?
Would you really "follow" a mad man?
Now again, I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote. I'm just asking some clarifying questions.
If a man says to you, "don't step in the dog shit," does it matter whether he has a halo or not? The teaching makes empirical sense, as anyone who has stepped in dog shit can tell you. To me, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path make verifiable sense and I don't much care if Gautama or Mr. Potato Head came up with them.
"Authentic" stands out in my mind as a word betokening uncertainty. It's no big deal ... everyone's uncertain in one way or another. But assuming that "authenticity" could still that uncertainty strikes me as a stretch. Better, assuming that something catches your affections, is just to authenticate it.
Hey Vinlyn, thank you for your interest.
Each person also has their own beliefs which may not necessarily be in sync with the natural world. This does not alter the fundamentals of the natural world (the tree has green leaves whether you're Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc.) but what is changed how we interpret the "why this" regarding the fundamentals (the tree has green leaves because it evolved that way, the tree has green leaves because God wills it, the tree has green leaves because its leaves are green).
Christians live in a logical realm within the natural world, and within the "belief world." Most beliefs have to "feel right" in order to be accepted, and logical thinking helps that "right feeling" along.
I don't share the same logic as Christians do regarding the "belief world," but I do believe they live in a "logical realm." This isn't to say that what they believe is illogical, I just don't agree with their "belief logic."
As for Devas, I don't know. I've mostly been trying to learn how to meditate and follow the Eight-fold path. I'm a very recent convert to Buddhism, so I haven't poured over the lore yet - but when I do, I will let you know what I think about Devas. (Yes you provided a link, but I'd like to roll the idea around in my head for awhile.)
Enlightenment, to me, means one has completely realized the Four Noble Truths by meditation and walking the Eight-fold path. One's Karma is positive and they've obtained much Merit.
Did Buddha see all knowledge? I'm not sure the mind can adequately comprehend all knowledge - there are so many facts about the universe we don't know.
Or do you mean "all knowledge" as in "Buddha accepted the correctness of the Four Noble Truths?" Until Buddha was enlightened, the Fourth Noble Truth, how could he confess it to the world?
Or, perhaps, do you mean all relevant knowledge to the Buddha himself?
To answer your question, I believe the Buddha could retain all the knowledge that any other human could retain. I don't know the upper limit of knowledge an Awakened being could retain.
It isn't madness that convinced people to follow Hitler, he had a (NOT TO ME) rhetoric that some people agreed with. I DO NOT AGREE with Hitler's rhetoric, but I do agree with the Buddha's.
Thanks again for your questions.
Interesting. You write very well.
It doesn't matter to me whether they are truly authentic, either. I find valid teachings in many forms, and most of them, of course, are very much the same. The way they are explained in Buddhism just works the best for me. I like Buddhism because the teachings are basically out there for anyone at this point. If you can understand them and find a teacher, if needed, to help you along, you can do it. You can be Buddha, and you have access to that all the time. Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) seem to me to suggest that special people have access to God. That we normal folks can pray to him, but pastors/priests/Rabbis and so on have special access. They act as a go-between to us and God and that we meet that bridge by attending church. That is how it is taught here, anyhow, and it just doesn't work for me. To me, it wouldn't be an authentic teaching if I didn't have access to it, yet the Christians I know prefer it that way. They believe they don't have access to certain knowledge of God or a certain relationship to Him because they aren't as worthy as priests etc are of that special calling.
Anyhow, not to go off-topic. Buddhism works because it makes sense. I try to keep an open mind, and I don't believe that just because I believe in something means it'll happen. I think whatever happens to humans when they die, happens to us all the same, and that just because someone believes in Heaven, doesn't mean they get there in the sense they believe they will. I don't believe that belief is required. I can still be a "good Buddhist" if I am not sure where I stand on Karma and if I don't focus on it while I practice. I could not be a "good Christian" in my experience, by refuting the idea that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins. Belief and faith are required in Christianity and many other religions. They are not required in Buddhism. That's why the teachings work for me, regardless of where exactly they come from. I don't have to feel guilty about the things I don't understand or don't necessarily agree with yet.
Any chance of us agreeing on a definition of ' authentic ' ?
Does it mean that we can show that Buddha said it. ? Or does it mean that it works ?
Nah.
Probably not, but that's okay.
My view of authentic here is that Buddha said it. But that means that I question the authenticity, unless we can agree that the scriptures are highly paraphrased.
If it means that they work, then I will say that there is a great deal of wisdom in Buddhist scriptures, as there are in some other religions. Wisdom is where you find it.
I agree with what @vinlyn said. I guess for authentic, I consider the sutras to be considered authentic. The thousands or more of books written about the sutras, less so. That doesn't mean they can't contain a lot of wisdom but it is something each person must discern for themselves and we are unlikely to agree on who the best teachers and the best teachings are in that manner. But while the sutras no doubt were still left to interpretation by the people who initially wrote them down, not to mention problems in translations, they are the closet we can get to conversing with Buddha himself. To me, they have a certain nature about them that is less clouded (not unclouded) especially in today's world.
I've read a lot of Chogyam Trungpa's stuff, and I didn't know the man. Many say he was full of ego. But I don't see it in his words, in his teachings. I see authenticity in his teachings despite the problems he had. But then there is a man who is a dzogchen (supposedly) teacher. He is coming to my town to do a retreat in August, and my sangha group leader is very excited about it. I picked up the book and I joined the FB discussion group, and wow, I just have such an aversion to this guy. It is probably just me, but trying to get into his teaching just feels fake and ego-ridden. So to me he doesn't at all come across as authentic, but that might just be my perception of him. We don't click, at all, and I'm debating even going to the retreat, even though everyone else seems to think of it as an amazing opportunity.
So, I think we all have to judge what is authentic to us, or not. And I think within the realm of Buddhist teaching, the sutras are as good as it gets, but not the only source of wisdom. Sometimes when I read commentaries on sutras, I'm amazed at what people get out of them. I don't see at all what they see in the sutras, LOL, so I have a lot of reading practice to work on!
The oldest sutras are authentic expressions of what Buddhists were practicing and believed at least as far back as several hundred years after Buddha taught the Dharma, near as historical scholarship can tell. Beyond that, do they contain the exact words of the man who preached and was called Buddha, the only answer anyone can honestly give is, "Don't know." Given human nature and what we know about the history of literature in general, it's not unusual for later writers to put words into the mouths of important people to make a point and because it's something they believe the person would have said, anyway.
But does that mean a sutra written later, say a thousand years after Buddha's death, is not authentic? They are also expressions of what Buddhists believed and understood at the time they were written. Depends on if you consider authentic Buddhism to be something delivered to us complete and perfect from the mouth of Buddha only, or if you consider the Dharma to be a living, dynamic thing that can be translated and comprehended in different terms by each new culture and generation.
It's a debate even monks have been engaged with for a hundred generations without a clear winner. In the meantime, Buddhism stumbles along and the Dharma captures the minds of another generation.
I think that's a good summation of the facts @Cinorjer.
I personally find it hard to accept that a modern can pick up a translation of a Pali text and from it discern what the Buddha said and what it means...
However I find it easy to accept that those who are living out the experiential means bequeathed by generations of Dharma followers find that they do what it says on the tin.
Its all about the upayas.
And skilful means is an authentic teaching, because it can be verified experientially.
If you can accept the ideas in them, then they are authentic.
Zut Alors I can accept many ideas, that is no more 'acceptable' than rejecting the 'non-authentic'.
In a sense we have to be independent of our ideas centred around preferences. I find the non acceptance of ideas can lead to madness or a potential more 'enlightened' perception. Not sure where I got that idea from but will throw it in the idea pool . . .
. . . and now back to acceptable authenticity . . .
Thank you! ^_^
If you can be sure of discerning the ideas in them seeing that they are 2500 years old and have gone through a number of translations from languages no one alive speaks as their first language any more you can then decide whether to accept them or not.
On the other hand if you undertake the PRACTICES traditionally recommended by the Buddhist community you can see for yourself whether they lead to peace of mind and a clearer view of what is.
I found out about this new book and that video a few days ago. I think Ajahn Sujato was very open minded in this video, he definitely was not putting a value judgement on specific traditions and the various suttas but showed how each tradition's suttas are questionable and how each tradition focuses on various aspects of the original teachings that survived.
Im looking forward to reading the book, i enjoy the topic of early buddhism(which as ajahn Sujato states is not very popular in buddhist scholarship) from a historian point of view. I think it helps me connect with the buddha and the period of his wandering, which is not necessarily essential to my practice per say, but still valuable.