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.
Why do many buddhists not know the holy book?
jll
Veteran
A famous buddhist monk once said that if you ask people what their holy book is, you will get different answers.
Christian; bible
muslim; quran
buddhist; dont know...
0
Comments
The mind is the only holy book we need to study. Actual books can help though.
Because ignorance is bliss ????
Do you mean the Dhammapada? I have a copy
That's because there is no one 'Book' in Buddhism.
I'm genuinely surprised you didn't know that, @jll.....
Theravada has the Tripitaka, but it's a comprehensive compendium for Theravada practice of the Theravada Canons... Mahayana has so many sub-schools, I would defer to those practicing a Mahayana Tradition, to respond to your post.
The problem with Buddhism is that written canonical bibliography is extensive. The most extensive of all religions, if I once read right. An acquaintance of mine, who is also a Buddhist scholar, says that Buddhism is basically the Four Noble Truths with the Noble Eightfold Path explained over 80,000 suttas in different levels of difficulty.
I personally would say that the Dhammapada makes a good gist, the closest to a Buddhist bible of sorts, with the Majjhima-Nikaya to help delve deeper in the concepts. They are the staple bibliography recommended to beginners by experienced Buddhists.
I have the Dhammapada and the Sutta-Nipata in a single volume and find that you can't go wrong if you start from there, either.
So there you have it. @jll; now you know what to say, the next time anyone asks you!
Not all Buddhists study/practice in a scholarly way, either. We focus more on practice than study with my teacher, and we, as a group, work on very few sutras. If one spends too much time studying and memorizing, there is far less time for actual practice. For me, my reading (whatever it is) supports my practice. Practice comes first and my practice, at this point, does not include memorizing sutras.
That is an accurate critique of some Buddhist schools @dharmamom.
Whole schools of Mahayana including the Vajrayana and ( I believe ) some schools of Zen rarely reference the 4NT or N8FP at all, and similarly make no use of the Dhammapada.
Just sayin'.
because there IS no holy book.. just in the theravada in the pali cannon the 4 main nikayas equal to about 6 bibles, let alone the other nikayas and then adding on the mahayana texts.
we use maps instead
That's precisely my problem. My teacher is Gelug and the meetings are more practice and pujas than study. Since I am very open to all branches of Buddhism and my teacher never actually provided a basic bibliography for the meetings, I like to read a lot of Theravada.
I know mixing traditions is not the ideal thing to do, but I really enjoy both Zen and Theravada as much as the Tibetan traditions.
Besides, where could you begin if you wanted an absolute beginner to have an idea of Buddhism from the Mahayana tradition standpoint?
I find that "The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra" or "Liberation in the Palm of your Hand," to name two of the books we have read with the group, are not quite for beginners or do not give a general idea of Buddhism.
I like to integrate all traditions.
@dharmamom, @vajraheart (his light and wisdom are sorely missed) once said to me that all turnings of the Wheel of Dharma are as inherently empty as everything else. The thing is I am a Theravadin but I read a lot of Zen and have read a bit about Lam Rim.
The differences between the practice are less than the correlations. The more I study Theravada the more I understand Zen. And take the Lam Rim meditation on the clarity of mind with Ajahn Sumedho's noticing space as a skillful means as a method of determining the boundless nature of awareness, the similarity and cohesion of the practice and there results is striking.
But then again I'm a Theravadin who doesn't discount the usefulness of the Mahayana Sutras and likes Mahayana cosmology. I practice Theravada as its easy to undertake the basics of this particular schools practices without the benefit of a teacher.
At this point, it would be interesting if people from different traditions chimed in to name the book which, in their opinion, could fill in that blank of a Buddhist Bible. The idea is a canonical text, not an interpretation or a commentary.
Because if you put all of Buddhism in one book, it would probably have something like several million pages and it would weigh more than your car. Not really something that you can put on your bedside table.
Not a single one, actually. My teacher is a Vajrayana teacher and it's just not something we focus on. I can't say I've read even a significant portion of a canon text to be able to say there is one that strikes me in such a way as to label it a Buddhist bible of any sort.
I think it could be said that the Buddhist holy book is the mind of a realized teacher.
I think hearing that the Buddhism (maybe Mahayana) has some sutras with over 100,000 lines. And there are tons of sutras. The longer ones are more specific and the concise ones like the heart sutra are quite short though they are a very subtle view that is hard to attain.
In the Karma Kagyu, one of four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, there is a book, the Jewel Ornament of Liberation, that contains the entire gradual path of their teaching all in one book. It is the full path from Buddha nature to Buddha though it is written in the medieval times I think maybe 12th century?? The gradual path is the sutra path as opposed to the gurus pointing out instructions.
In addition to that the dharma is actually only a pointer. The text itself is unreliable without the light of the mind that reads it. So the frozen bodhicitta must be melted into the mind of the one who reads it. So to speak.
as far as " the" book for the Theravada, it would have to be the Majjhima Nikaya: The Middle-length Discourses, with 150+ discourses it pretty much covers everything major taught by the buddha.
@Jayantha If they were going to cut out the monk's rules and the abhidharma, they'd at least stop there and keep all of the sutras, don't you think? No real reason to only keep the middle-length ones. Already I think Theravadins (at least monks/nuns) generally present the Pali Canon as their "book", so cutting down to the "basket" of sutras is already a major edit.
I was responding to this comment:
"At this point, it would be interesting if people from different traditions chimed in to name the book which, in their opinion, could fill in that blank of a Buddhist Bible. The idea is a canonical text, not an interpretation or a commentary."
@Jayantha Oh then I was asking why you thought that. Instead of, say, the entire Sutta Pitaka (I think I spelled that right!).
Books were invented after written words were invented. Buddhism existed well before written words were invented, yet the teachings had lasted to this day. That is proof that the content of the teachings are more important than the printed copy of the teachings.
Correct.
>
Incorrect...
Debatable.
Yes, those Christians have it really easy.
this is not correct - written words existed, because Vedas were already available during Buddha's time, as Buddha's story tells.
i think that since Buddha did not appoint a junior monk to write down his teachings in a book or he himself did not write them and then did not freezed that book - and also after Buddha's passing away, after some hundreds of years later, the sutras got written by the scholars (till that time, it was only oral transmission of the sutras from one generation to next generation) - so because of this, there is no single book of buddhism, which can be considered as its holy book. though Tipitaka comes very close to be a holy book in Buddhism, but the varying traditions like Zen (which does not recommend even 4NT directly, leave about a book) and with major traditions like Therevada and Mahayana having different views about the way to the end-result, makes the traditions vary differently so much that one book cannot cover both aspects, so also there is no single holy book in buddhism.
i am a hindu and not a buddhist, so my above thinking may be wrong due to my not complete knowledge about buddhism.
Maybe we need to pause and think for a bit.
How many Buddhas do some people believe existed before Gotama? If you do believe that (which I don't), then yes, Buddhism existed before the written word.
One source indicates that, "The first Indian script, developed in the Indus Valley around 2600 B.C." Even with the new interpretation of the age of an early Buddhist temple -- if that is correct -- that only puts Buddha's birth back to 550 B.C. Based on that interpretation of historical Buddhism, Buddhism did not exist before the written word.
So perhaps the question comes down to which version you go by.
See the 'sacredness' thread ....... hahahaha
In South East Asia, where there are more Muslims and Buddhists than Christians, you could still find missionary school and today, in certain schools, one can still take Bible studies as a subject. Muslims are taught too about their religion in school and Muslim parents also take an extra effort to send their children to learn the Koran from teachers in the afternoon or at night. I don't see Buddhism being taught as a subject in school ; so, I suppose Buddhist don't know that they have their own three baskets, which they don't carry around to temple or refer to often in time of grief. That probably is a shame.
Buddhism is taught in Thai public schools...usually by monks.
You don't need to write to be a Buddha. I think there were at the least bodhisattvas before writing. But it is good karma to be in a world with writing, the printing press, computers, and the net.
As an ex-Christian, I had done lots of reading, LOTS, compared to just reading the bible ten times or more in 20 years of time. The so-called Bible is one thing, the real-life teachings I got were based on many more books than just the Bible.
That said, I like the Buddhistic approach of choosing what to believe instead of being told what to believe as in Christianity in practice. As first a contemplative Christian I find thinking and letting Mind speak to me is wholesome. Am I a enlightnened one-- not yet, I am just a novice Buddhist and might be so for the next 20 or so years.
Millions of Christians also choose what aspects of their religion they believe.
Quite right. In fact, I'd venture to say that "most" Christians choose what aspects of Christianity to follow and which to discard.
I think we all choose. Even if someone tells us it's true, we still make a conscious decision as to what we'll do about it. I sometimes think that our (Buddhist) assertions that we, by virtue of the fact that we consider oursleves Buddhist, view other religions as mindless automatons. Big mistake
My spry 79 year old neighbor is a devout Methodist. I asked her about a week ago if she thought Jesus really fed the multitude with a few fish and bread. Her answer: "I strongly doubt it."
It seems to me that when Gotama Buddha decided to start teaching, and created a sangha, that is when what he did/became, gained the title of Buddhism. If others were Buddha's before that, that doesn't necessarily mean Buddhism itself exists before Gotama taught it. It could me (couldn't it?) that others became Buddha's without opting to teach other people, and thus never labeled their individual paths.
@vinlyn - I think the best definition I have heard about Christianity was put to me as "If Jesus taught it and said it, then it's Christianity. If it has gone through multiple Interpretatons it's Churchianity and should most likely be discarded. That's why many people will be turned away when they cry "Lord Lord" and they are disowned"
I'm down with that explanation
For once, I don't get your post.
my thinking says: Buddha just taught Dhamma, which he had discovered in order that other people can try to follow his teachings to end their suffering in their life - his idea was not to create a new religion, as it was the concept of religion which he was against with, because he may have already seen that the beliefs of a religion usually take preference over the actual teachings of that religion and he would have wanted people to practice the path, rather than just having belief that since they have come to his teachings, then he will take care of them as a God - which unfortunately, in recent years have turned out to be the current situation for a majority of people having Buddhism as their religion.
This is the OP. I think your conclusion is correct @jll.
Because Buddhadharma has no holy book in the same sense as is the Bible or the Qu'ran.
And that's quite OK.
@federica - close the thread - because there is no mil
There are three types of Buddha. One is the Samyaksambuddha, another is Pratyekabuddha, and the last in Savakabuddha. Of those three only the Samyaksambuddha turns the wheel of Dharma. The Buddha Shakyamuni is a Samyaksambuddha.
There have been Buddhas before Shakyamuni of all three types there have been no Samyaksambuddhas since. If there's nothing written about them, we still have the Buddhadharma, the three turnings of the wheel of Dharma. That's all we need.
Buddhism, to me is the practice of the the Sangha created by Shakyamuni. What other Samyaksambuddhas established, is beyond our knowing and is inconsequential.
Indeed. Some written down, some oral directions. Some such as the sangha, exemplified. Different routes. Same root.
I'm agreeing with what you said
Mil? Mother-in-law is the first thing that came to my mind.......
:eek2:
Oh, ell, okay...you must be right then! ;-)
That's the spirit!!!!!!!!! oh wait......................
XD
Buddhism was an oral tradition for several hundred years.
Indeed,the first recorded written form of Sankrit was ** Brahmi** and dates from about 100 years BC. The first record of written Pali dates from about the same time period , and seems to have developed in Sri Lanka.
The Buddha could not read. Not because he was illiterate per se..but because he was born into a culture that had no written language.
He spoke a language called Magdhi which is related to the group of languages that includes Pali and Sanskrit..
Pali was never strictly speaking a vernacular language. It was a lingua franca.( I am assuming that anyone interested will do some googlin'...)
It was devised to express philosophical ideas.
So the idea of a 'Buddhist Holy Book' which dates back to its founder, does not compute.
Yes, we all know that and have discussed that -- with all its limitations -- fairly often.