Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Top Ten Cardinal Suttras?

MatSaltedMatSalted
edited February 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Hi Folks

If you had to just pick ten suttras from the Suttra Pitaka, being those that most capture the essence and teaching of Buddha dharma what which would you select?

I guess I may start with these, but that's because they are probably the only ones I know with any depth!:)
  1. The First Sermon
  2. The Second Sermon (The Anataman Suttra)
  3. The Fire Sermon
  4. The Compassion Suttra (The Metta Suttra)
  5. The Free Enquiry Suttra (The Kalama Suttra)
  6. The Right View Suttra (The Sammaditthi Sutta
  7. The Causes Suttra (Mahaniddana Suttra)
  8. The Last Days of The Buddha

But you may well have completely different list...

Thanks

Mat

Comments

  • BrotherBobBrotherBob
    edited February 2010
    1.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Brother Bob wrote: »
    1.

    Thanks Bob!
  • specialkaymespecialkayme Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Wouldn't your list depend on what school you belong to?
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited February 2010
    It would also depend on who you are, where you are in your practice and what you are dealing with in your life. There's a reason there are so many suttas. It's said that the Buddha taught over 80,000 doors to dharma. Different teaching will speak to different people for different reasons. I don't see how it would help anyone to pick out ten out of more than 10,000 in the Sutta Pitaka, when the entire body of the canon is so rich and diverse.

    I would, however, add the Satipatthana Sutta.
  • BrotherBobBrotherBob
    edited February 2010
    I imagined this question as like, 'If I were on a desert island and could have one sutra to train with, what would it be?'

    but, of course, that's just my delusion :lol::lol::lol:
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2010



    Ratnagotravibhaga

    Diamond Sutra

    Heart Sutra
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Brother Bob wrote: »
    I imagined this question as like, 'If I were on a desert island and could have one sutra to train with, what would it be?'

    but, of course, that's just my delusion :lol::lol::lol:

    Or how about, if you had to pick one suttra to most convey Dharma teachings, what would you choose?
  • BrotherBobBrotherBob
    edited February 2010
    Hi Mat,

    1.

    'cuz I imagine it as an evaluation and choice of what I imagine as most beneficial to my own training.

    I must reach Buddhahood in order to be of benefit to all beings.

    In this case, if I could only have one sutra to train with, I have confidence that the Sakyamuni Buddha's first discourse is enough to guide me there.

    Thanks for Asking.

    :):):)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    specialkayme wrote: »
    Wouldn't your list depend on what school you belong to?

    I am not sure. As I understand it it all traces back to the pali cannon, at least what we have remaining, so they we can assume are the closest to the original teachings. So i guess I am asking what are the key suttras there, ie those that most capture the teachings and events of the Buddha:)
  • specialkaymespecialkayme Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Key teachings and events is all relative. Relative to the individual, culture, tradition, and school. I think (or hope) this is an obvious point that everyone gets. If you ask 100 people (even very learned Buddhist monks) you will probably get 100 different answers, and most of their answers will probably be influenced by their background, and less on their view of "essential teachings." As such terms are subject to interpretation.

    The only reason I really bring this up is because it is posted in the "Buddhism for Beginners" section . . . implying that you are actually looking for an 'answer' and not so much a discussion of each individuals views (since usually such topics are posted in the "Tailgator" or other such sections). Just trying to make sure that is obvious as the discussion goes on.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    specialkayme wrote: »
    Key teachings and events is all relative. Relative to the individual, culture, tradition, and school. I think (or hope) this is an obvious point that everyone gets. If you ask 100 people (even very learned Buddhist monks) you will probably get 100 different answers, and most of their answers will probably be influenced by their background, and less on their view of "essential teachings." As such terms are subject to interpretation.

    The only reason I really bring this up is because it is posted in the "Buddhism for Beginners" section . . . implying that you are actually looking for an 'answer' and not so much a discussion of each individuals views (since usually such topics are posted in the "Tailgator" or other such sections). Just trying to make sure that is obvious as the discussion goes on.

    Hi, thanks for the post. I guess by "cardial" one means closest to the original teachings in time and structure. So these would certainly be in the Pali Cannon and specifically the SP.

    I appreciate that these wont be the cardial suttras for specific schools, so my question was more general to be specific, treating Buddhism as a whole:)

    Thanks

    Mat
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    Hi, thanks for the post. I guess by "cardial" one means closest to the original teachings in time and structure. So these would certainly be in the Pali Cannon and specifically the SP.

    I appreciate that these wont be the cardial suttras for specific schools, so my question was more general to be specific, treating Buddhism as a whole:)

    Thanks

    Mat
    We have no way of knowing what the Buddha actually taught, or even if there was such a singular historical person to whom this philosophy can be traced. MatSalted, your posts remind me of a discussion I read several years ago on another forum: http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?t=214658

    I think the posters in that thread brought up some valuable points about Buddhism itself.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Glow wrote: »
    We have no way of knowing what the Buddha actually taught, or even if there was such a singular historical person to whom this philosophy can be traced.

    I agree with you 100% on this:) He may not even have existed at all.... but what we do know is that someone discovered Dharma and ultimately that is important:)

    Dharma is far bigger and far more fundamental than these cultural echoes we call "Buddhism":)


    >>MatSalted, your posts remind me of a discussion I read several years ago on another forum:

    Reading now... thanks!:)

    Mat
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    I agree with you 100% on this:) He may not even have existed at all.... but what we do know is that someone discovered Dharma and ultimately that is important:)

    Dharma is far bigger and far more fundamental than these cultural echoes we call "Buddhism":)
    I agree. Although, I guess what I'm confused about is, if this is the case, why you are concerned so much with what constitutes the original/core Buddhadharma. The way you are using the word "dharma' and the way you speak of other Buddhist concepts suggests to me you are approaching Buddhism as a heuristic philosophy, rather than as a body of philosophy with an unadulterated core. Why try to push certain things as closer to some hypothetical original? Isn't it more useful just to focus on the teachings that make sense and are useful to you, in this culture, in this time than be concerned about what someone might have taught 2,500 years ago?
  • sukhitasukhita
    edited February 2010
    Mat, I would definitely include specific teachings the Buddha gave to lay people. You have included the Kalama-sutta. Also important, to lay folks, is the Sigalovada-sutta (Advice to Sigala). :)

    My list will start with Mahaparinibbana-sutta (The Buddha's Final Nibbana).
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Glow wrote: »
    I agree. Although, I guess what I'm confused about is, if this is the case, why you are concerned so much with what constitutes the original/core Buddhadharma.

    I guess a fair number of reasons:)
    1. I think from a study point of view it is important to me.
    2. From a doctrinal point of view I want to know if there is evidence the buddha was a nonmystic.
    3. From a discussion point of view I think it is worth having a bedrock of doctrine we can at least largley agree on.

    The way you are using the word "dharma' and the way you speak of other Buddhist concepts suggests to me you are approaching Buddhism as a heuristic philosophy, rather than as a body of philosophy with an unadulterated core.

    I dont really know what that means in this context? The only dharma I am interested in is that which is evident and foundational, ie, from the Three Marks.

    The only suttras I am interested in are those that cohere with the Three marks and what is evident from them:)
    Why try to push certain things as closer to some hypothetical original?

    I dont see this foundational dharma as at all hypothetical! That's so crucial to me:) I cannot doubt it, the three marks are logically certain to me as, in more abstract senses, are magga, karma and dependent origination (Though not yet the 12 Niddyanas)

    I am wanting to know which of the suttras are compatible with this foundational dharma and which are not:) is that so bad as an investigation?

    Isn't it more useful just to focus on the teachings that make sense and are useful to you, in this culture, in this time than be concerned about what someone might have taught 2,500 years ago?

    Wow no:) I soooo don't see it like that. Dharma to me is utterly beyond and beneath any kind of cultural connection apart from as an aestehic or spiritual aspect (I see spiritual properties as possible in a nonmystyical universe)

    It doesn't matter if we were in the time of Buddha, neathderthals or sentient aliens, the Dharmic truths apply to all such systems. It wouldn't surprise me if other religions started off with more of a dharmic content. Maybe dharma has been lost to mankind on more than one occasion in our history?


    Thanks

    mat
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    sukhita wrote: »
    Mat, I would definitely include specific teachings the Buddha gave to lay people. You have included the Kalama-sutta. Also important, to lay folks, is the Sigalovada-sutta (Advice to Sigala). :)

    My list will start with Mahaparinibbana-sutta (The Buddha's Final Nibbana).


    the MPS is very encompassing isnt it. But its known to be written by many different soucres so its probably not that "accurate".

    I have just read the suttra you pointed to for the first time. It seems a bit sexist!:) And whats wrong with singing and dancing? I cant imagine the same man or woman who found dharma would be against a bit of boogie!:p

    Well wishes

    Mat
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Mat even if you find your top 10 sutras keep in mind that one man's junk is another man's treasure and vice versa. I hope you wouldn't want to create a canon of 'true' sutras and then criticize others for benefiting from 'untrue' sutras. Well its ok if you do it in Matopia but just don't impose it on the rest of us :D.
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited February 2010
    That is not what I am asking, MatSalted. As you have discovered, people on this forum have varying degrees of belief in certain concepts. Some believe in rebirth, others remain agnostic, others reject it. Some believe in the god and hell realms, others remain agnostic, some reject it altogether. Yet, they present their perspectives as "This is what how I myself have come to understand it..." or "This is what has been helpful for me..." or "This is what I have heard from such-and-such..." None of us make any pretensions to knowing what the historical Buddha taught or did not teach, what constitutes "true" dharma and what does not. This has not prevented us from having many fruitful discussions of a variety of issues relevant to practice.

    Why, then, are you so bent on selling your own particular experience to everyone else as "foundational dharma" when you have no way of knowing what is "foundational dharma" or not?
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2010
    I think I was sensing the same trend Glow.
  • sukhitasukhita
    edited February 2010
    Hi Mat,
    MatSalted wrote: »
    the MPS is very encompassing isnt it. But its known to be written by many different soucres so its probably not that "accurate".!

    I'm aware that the MPA is a narrative stitched together by incorporating various shorter accounts, many of which are found elswhere in the Pali canon. This has made it the longest sutta (so I've read) in the Pali canon. Some commentators have estimated that in toto only about one-third of the sutta is original... but at the same time they point out that the sutta is also a carefully crafted whole.
    I have just read the suttra you pointed to for the first time. It seems a bit sexist!:) And whats wrong with singing and dancing? I cant imagine the same man or woman who found dharma would be against a bit of boogie

    Seventh precept: "To abstain from singing, dancing, music, shows, perfume, cosmetics and decorative accessories." Lay folks practice this at least on uposatha days. I don't (as yet) - still listen to songs and play guitar ;). But there are a lot of good advice for lay people in the sutta - even if some may be a bit over the top by western standards. Consider who the audience was at the time of the Buddha.

    With kind regards,
    Sukhita
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Glow wrote: »
    That is not what I am asking, MatSalted. As you have discovered, people on this forum have varying degrees of belief in certain concepts. Some believe in rebirth, others remain agnostic, others reject it. Some believe in the god and hell realms, others remain agnostic, some reject it altogether. Yet, they present their perspectives as "This is what how I myself have come to understand it..." or "This is what has been helpful for me..." or "This is what I have heard from such-and-such..." None of us make any pretensions to knowing what the historical Buddha taught or did not teach, what constitutes "true" dharma and what does not. This has not prevented us from having many fruitful discussions of a variety of issues relevant to practice.

    Why, then, are you so bent on selling your own particular experience to everyone else as "foundational dharma" when you have no way of knowing what is "foundational dharma" or not?


    Foundational dharma is that which comes from Annica, Anataman, Dukka.

    That ain't my "brand" at all:) snt it just the start of the dharnic system? What am I missing?

    Maybe you really missunderstand me:)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Hi:)
    sukhita wrote: »
    Seventh precept: "To abstain from singing, dancing, music, shows, perfume, cosmetics and decorative accessories." Lay folks practice this at least on uposatha days. I don't (as yet) - still listen to songs and play guitar ;). But there are a lot of good advice for lay people in the sutta - even if some may be a bit over the top by western standards. Consider who the audience was at the time of the Buddha.

    I guess behind my point was the idea that i can see why, in clear dharmic terms, intoxication is bad. I cant see the same for singing etc It was an asside, not an issue of mine:)

    Peace

    Mat
  • specialkaymespecialkayme Veteran
    edited February 2010
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    I think I was sensing the same trend Glow.

    In agreement.
    MatSalted wrote: »
    I guess a fair number of reasons:)
    1. I think from a study point of view it is important to me.
    2. From a doctrinal point of view I want to know if there is evidence the buddha was a nonmystic.
    3. From a discussion point of view I think it is worth having a bedrock of doctrine we can at least largley agree on.

    While I can't blame you for trying, will receiving an answer actually help you? In particular, will answering number 2 help you out in any way?

    I don't mean to criticize, as actually about three years ago I was in a similar situation. I thought I could take the "best" and "most important" Buddhist works and combine them into one book, making it the "Buddhist Book" or the "Buddhist Bible." The more I thought and talked with others about it, the more I realized that it wouldn't help me or anyone else out. The works are organized in such a way that I can take this and leave that, whatever benefits me as an individual, along my path. So if I was able to get a "Buddhist Book" it would actually only be "My Buddhist Book" and in doing that I've only spent time compiling something when I could have used that time to read other sutras, or practice more.

    Continue on if you think what you are doing is correct and helpful, but think about it a little. I know several others who have tried similar subjects, only to find it pointless or not helpful.

    In either way, good luck! I hope you find what you are looking for!
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    specialkayme wrote: »
    While I can't blame you for trying, will receiving an answer actually help you? In particular, will answering number 2 help you out in any way?

    I want to know the truth, not what will "help me". I would much prefer the orthodox view to be true, I would rather a world with rebirth and realms and miracles than this nonmajical universe! Who wouldn't?:)

    But I am interested in the truth, not what is "nice":)
    I don't mean to criticize as actually about three years ago I was in a similar situation. I thought I could take the "best" and "most important" Buddhist works and combine them into one book, making it the "Buddhist Book" or the "Buddhist Bible." The more I thought and talked with others about it, the more I realized that it wouldn't help me or anyone else out. The works are organized in such a way that I can take this and leave that, whatever benefits me as an individual, along my path. So if I was able to get a "Buddhist Book" it would actually only be "My Buddhist Book" and in doing that I've only spent time compiling something when I could have used that time to read other sutras, or practice more.

    Sure, but if you believe in rebirth and scriptural accuracy then who have the whole corpus available to you. If someone doesn't believe in these majics and believes the scriptures have been changed, then there is a legitimate project of enquiry there:)


    >>>Continue on if you think what you are doing is correct and helpful, but think about it a little. I know several others who have tried similar subjects, only to find it pointless or not helpful.

    I find it very helpful to my questions when I see that, in the suttras we seem to be agreeing are at least the popular ones from the SP, these are far less clear on what they say about rebirth than, for example, the Lotus Suttra:)


    >>>In either way, good luck! I hope you find what you are looking for!

    Thanks!:)

    Mat
  • specialkaymespecialkayme Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    I want to know the truth, not what will "help me".

    I think that's where we differ. I don't want to know the truth, only what will help me. If it isn't true, but it still helps me, then I benefit. If it's true, and it doesn't help me, I gain nothing.

    Truth is relative and conditional. Help is not.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    specialkayme wrote: »
    I think that's where we differ. I don't want to know the truth, only what will help me. If it isn't true, but it still helps me, then I benefit. If it's true, and it doesn't help me, I gain nothing.

    Yes, that is where we differ:)
    specialkayme wrote: »
    Truth is relative and conditional. Help is not.

    That is a bit of a manouver though, it doest avoid the question when you follow it down:)

    Also I don't see where from the suttras you get that the Buddha thought truth was relative. I think he clearly believed in an objective underlayiong reality:)

    Mat
  • specialkaymespecialkayme Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    Also I don't see where from the suttras you get that the Buddha thought truth was relative.

    Relative Truth, Ultimate Truth: The Foundation of Buddhist Thought (Volume 2) (Paperback)

    ~ Geshe Tashi Tsering <input id="contributorASIN1" value="B001JSDREI" type="hidden">
    Geshe Tashi Tsering (Author)
    › Visit Amazon's Geshe Tashi Tsering Page
    Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
    See search results for this author
    Are you an author? Learn about Author Central


    (Author), Lama Zopa Rinpoche (Foreword) <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> jQuery(".contributorChevron").css("display", "inline"); var onShow = function (i){ var params = {}; params = jQuery('#contributorASIN'+ i).val(); amznJQ.onReady('JQuery', function() { jQuery.ajax({ url: '/gp/product/utility/by-line/book-contributor-details/ajax/author-image.html', data: params, dataType: 'html', timeout: 1000, success: function(html){ jQuery('#contributorImageContainer' + (i)).get(0).innerHTML = html; } }); }); }; amznJQ.available('popover', function(){ jQuery(".contributorNameTrigger > a ").each(function (i){ var contributorNameWidth = jQuery('#contributorNameTrigger' + (Math.floor(i/2) +1) ).text().length * 13 ; var popOverWidth = contributorNameWidth > 425 ? contributorNameWidth + 140 :465; jQuery(this).amazonPopoverTrigger({ showOnHover: true, draggable: false, showCloseButton: false, hoverShowDelay: 400, hoverHideDelay: 0, width: popOverWidth , localContent: '#contributorContainer' + (Math.floor(i/2) +1), locationMargin: 0, skin: "default", location: "bottom", paddingLeft: 20, paddingRight: 0, followLink : true, onShow: function(){ onShow(Math.floor(i/2)+1);} }); }); }); </script>

    http://www.amazon.com/Relative-Truth-Ultimate-Foundation-Buddhist/dp/0861712714/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265815538&sr=8-1

    That's where I got the information from. Not from a suttra. I find suttras difficult to understand, and I find reading commentary on them much more comprehensive. I usually walk away with a better understanding of the material than I would if I just read the suttra. If I lived in a monistary and could spend three weeks reading over and over a suttra to reverse engineer it I would. Unfortunately I don't live in a monistary, and I don't have the time. That's me though, criticize if you want, but then again:
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    I hope you wouldn't want to create a canon of 'true' sutras and then criticize others for benefiting from 'untrue' sutras. Well its ok if you do it in Matopia but just don't impose it on the rest of us :D.

    Likewise, I hope you arn't trying to create a canon of 'true' knowledge and then criticize others for benefiting from 'other' knowledge. Lots of wars were fought that way. Lots of people died. In reality, we're all the same in the end.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    specialkayme wrote: »
    Likewise, I hope you arn't trying to create a canon of 'true' knowledge and then criticize others for benefiting from 'other' knowledge. Lots of wars were fought that way. Lots of people died. In reality, we're all the same in the end.

    Um.. err... Frankly, I think there is no true cannon however you look at it, we must each one of us doubt everything and be out own lights:)

    That is a far more peaceful way than the way of Dogma:)

    Salome:)

    Mat
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    I want to know the truth, not what will "help me". I would much prefer the orthodox view to be true, I would rather a world with rebirth and realms and miracles than this nonmajical universe! Who wouldn't?:)

    But I am interested in the truth, not what is "nice":)
    If you want truth for truth's sake, there is physics, mathematics, chemisty, biology and humanistic philosophy for you. Buddhism is not about truth for its own sake. It's about suffering and the end of suffering. If you are not interesting in ending your suffering (in getting help in finding a way out of dukkha), then you might as well call yourself a secular humanist.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Glow wrote: »
    If you want truth for truth's sake, there is physics, mathematics, chemisty, biology and humanistic philosophy for you. Buddhism is not about truth for its own sake. It's about suffering and the end of suffering. If you are not interesting in ending your suffering (in getting help in finding a way out of dukkha), then you might as well call yourself a secular humanist.


    How patronising!

    How innacurate!

    Howdy Doody lets not fall out!!:)

    Have you read the Buddha's first sermon:

    ""This is the Noble Truth of Suffering": such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose in me concerning things not heard before...."

    Now, you may be able to get some distorted and diluted reading of the KS that suits you, or the mirror of dharma or what have you, but please tell me how you can say otherwise on this?

    Why would you say that?

    It befuddles me... as to the not bing a Buddhist and all that, whatever, if being a Buddhist mean being a mystic then sure, Im not, if it meana following and knowing dharma , then I am at least trying.

    You shouldn't go trying to "top trump" other peoples beliefs you know, it just makes you look daft and aggressive!

    Be nice, be cool:)

    Mat







    I am actually pretty fine with the Dukka in my life:) Sure, its never always goe, and I never really expect it to be. I'm sure the Dailai Lammas isnt either, or anyone else alive today, and Im sure
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    edited February 2010
    MatSalted, I'm going to be honest. I don't understand a word of what you just posted. Maybe you're correct. I do misunderstand you. To me, your posts come across quite garbled and hard to follow. I continually tried to make sense of your reactions to my posts, but they confound me. I think it's a sign that we have rather different communication styles and that I need to step out.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited February 2010
    Glow wrote: »
    MatSalted, I'm going to be honest. I don't understand a word of what you just posted. Maybe you're correct. I do misunderstand you. To me, your posts come across quite garbled and hard to follow. I continually tried to make sense of your reactions to my posts, but they confound me. I think it's a sign that we have rather different communication styles and that I need to step out.

    Sure, If you dont understand someone, its best not to tell them they are one thing they think they are not, for a start it will be fruitless, secondly, its a bit fruity;)

    Be well

    mat
Sign In or Register to comment.