Disenchanted by the Sutras

Talisman

As the titles suggests, I have recently become greatly disenchanted by the sutras I am reading. Specifically, I am continuing my studies of the Mahayana sutras.

I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not, but the tone of many of the later texts seems rather arrogant and over the top. It just doesnt ring as simple or modest in any regard. Particularly the Nirvana sutra, Lotus Sutra, Vimilikirti Nirdesa Sutra, and most recently Lankavatara sutra. I don't like the way that the Buddha is portrayed as a godhead figure, some paramount omniscient and mythological idol. He is portrayed as a distant and almost forboding icon.

Many of the teachings, although presented as a more profound understanding of the Dharma, seem "over-thought." There is a lot of discussion of the metaphysical realities and the types of beings traversing the multitude of realms of existence. There is discussion regarding the nature of the Boddhisattva and Buddha, and the majesty and virtue of these prominent figures. There is speculation at the types of rebirth and the sources of merit and the validity and virtue of the sutra itself.

However, there is very little if any discussion of how these concepts and philosophical inquiry may be incorperated into valid use in everyday practice. There is plenty of dialogue analyzing the nature of reality, but it becomes extremely convoluted when trying to use this information for practical application in ending one's suffering as well as the suffering of others.

I don't know if others have felt this way as well, but I'm feeling rather put off because I know that knowledge of the sutras is viewed as a very important part of practice. I guess I'm not really asking anything, just figured I would share.

Engyo

Hmmm. That's interesting - you have a very different interpretation of what you've read than I had reading some of the same Sutras. I never saw the Buddha as foreboding or distant.......

My tradition is based on the Lotus Sutra, and our practice is based on putting it into valid use everyday, so I've never had that particular issue. May be that's the difference......

I hope you find a Dharma gate you are comfortable with.

Jason

That's one of the reasons I've mainly stuck with the Pali Canon all these years. I find the teachings to be profoundly simple, more practical, and the idea of the Buddha being an omniscient superman less prominent. Some of the Mahayana Sutras are still quite good, though. The Heart Sutra immediately comes to mind.

Dazzle

Hi Talisman,

I recommend that you read the suttas in the Pali Canon before attempting to understand later Mahayana sutras.

Kind wishes,

D.

Ncryptx

You have a right to your views about later Mahayana texts. Personally I just put them in a historical context. Buddhist history is highly inconsistent and diverse - we can't get away from that fact. Although I would caution against the very real danger that we might try to 'purify' Buddhism of its later developments and end up with a protestantisation movement within Buddhism. The claims to historicity and authenticiy of the remaining Buddhist schools are not so clear-cut that it would be possible (even if it were desirable) for us to sift through what's left of Buddhism and try to come out with a puritanical, Anglo-oriented interpretation. Actually all of the suriving Buddhist traditions must be regarded as valid as they did not split the Sangha and they have a direct line of initiation going right back to the Buddha. Some of the texts you mentioned are extremely important doctrinally and had enormous influence. Such as the Lotus Sutra which says that Buddha didn't actually die, etc. We have to fact the facts that this is a very ancient religion and in its present form most practitioners must pick and choose the bits they like.

compassionate_warrior

I think you're doing the right thing, Talisman; questioning the texts, testing them for validity, as the Buddha said to do. If you decide they don't pass muster, you can shift to Theravadan Buddhism, you don't have to abandon the dharma entirely. I've learned a lot from everyone's posts on this site, and have come to question some of what I was taught as well, since it doesn't accord with the Pali Canon. Honestly, I don't know where some of those elements came from--the metaphysical part that you mention, different beings inhabiting different realms, etc. And this is the first I've heard that there is text saying that the Buddha didn't really die. It's starting to sound a bit like Christianity. But all of this doesn't mean that the basics aren't valid and helpful; the 4 Nobles, the Eightfold Path, and other teachings that are very practical in day-to-day life. Take what serves you well, leave the rest behind.

Talisman

I'm not trying to pick and choose, and I have found some profound insight and very deep messages in many of the sutras, pali and mahayana. The Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra, as well as the heart and diamond sutras are a few of my absolute favorites. I also have a strong devotion to Boddhisattva ideal and many of the concepts presented in the mahayana literature.

Also, forboding was a bad word to describe the Buddha in some of those passages. I guess the real forboding tone comes from the way people who do not follow the Boddhisattva path are looked down upon and seen as "lesser" or "other" beings.

Also, in regards to the concept of "picking and choosing," that seems to be a frequently discussed habit of "western buddhists," I feel that there needs to be some tolerance on some people's part. If I feel that the message or theme of a sutra, whether or not it has helped others, does not ring true to my experience and does not, in my practice, lead to a more fulfilling and profound religious understanding of the nature of suffering, then I don't think that there is any problem with setting the sutra aside, possibly for future review after further practice and maturation. (sorry for the run-on sentence =P)

It may also be an issue of translation, as some of the western scholars introducing these peices seem rather arrogant themselves.

genkaku

Talis -- If you are sick of it, stop doing it. Consider: Before the sutras were ever penned, Gautama practiced. So ... practice. And come back to the sutras later, if you like.

compassionate_warrior

I'm not trying to pick and choose,

If I feel that the message or theme of a sutra, whether or not it has helped others, does not ring true to my experience and does not, in my practice, lead to a more fulfilling and profound religious understanding of the nature of suffering, then I don't think that there is any problem with setting the sutra aside, possibly for future review after further practice and maturation.
It may also be an issue of translation, as some of the western scholars introducing these peices seem rather arrogant themselves.

You say you're not trying to pick and choose, but when you mention favorites, and the fact that other texts don't do it for you (at the current time, at least), you are, in fact, picking and choosing. Which isn't a bad thing, in spite of what some Eastern teachers say. It's what the Buddha said to do. In the East, a given people will accept a tradition wholesale simply because it's tradition. They have complete faith in their teachers, and accept much on faith.(That's not very Buddhistic, when you think about it.) Some cultures traditionally aren't strong on analytical skills, and are more given to memorization and faith. So teachers come to the West, and aren't accustomed to being put to the test. I think this complaint that Westerners pick and choose needs to be taken with a grain of salt. One shouldn't feel guilty for questioning, or not feeling comfortable with, some teachings.

Arahahahant

all I can say is Theravada ftw.

karmadorje

I think that you have identified one of the problems: the preponderance of "Thee's and Thou's" in some translations of the sutras can make for heavy going.

I think that one of the less obvious issues is that our idea of textual engagement is pretty much foreign to the paradigm that produced these texts. In most traditional cultures you would study the sutras and other texts with a teacher that could contextualize and answer questions about hermeneutical elements.

If one tries to mesh all of the sutra teachings as a single philosophical viewpoint, it would be intensely frustrating as the tathagathagarbha sutras have different methods and premises than the prajnaparamita sutras. Importantly, they are pedagogical devices intended for distinct phases of meditational experience, to correct problems that arise for a serious meditator.

A strictly philosophical or intellectual enterprise based upon texts without help interpreting and contextualizing the texts will be fruitful to the extent that the reader can surmise the intention behind the different viewpoints presented, but will almost certainly be frustrating. In the (Tibetan) traditions that I practice, a considerable amount of time and teaching goes into the presentation of any text before it can really be understood on its own terms. I am quite certain I would not have penetrated the meaning of those texts that have been the focus of my practice without help.

Talisman

I agree that a teacher would be an invaluable asset in studying this literature. As my practice continues, I am sure that the forces of karma will eventually lead me to proper instruction. On my own for now though. thanks for the input guys.

karmadorje

You say you're not trying to pick and choose, but when you mention favorites, and the fact that other texts don't do it for you (at the current time, at least), you are, in fact, picking and choosing. Which isn't a bad thing, in spite of what some Eastern teachers say. It's what the Buddha said to do. In the East, a given people will accept a tradition wholesale simply because it's tradition. They have complete faith in their teachers, and accept much on faith.(That's not very Buddhistic, when you think about it.) Some cultures traditionally aren't strong on analytical skills, and are more given to memorization and faith. So teachers come to the West, and aren't accustomed to being put to the test. I think this complaint that Westerners pick and choose needs to be taken with a grain of salt. One shouldn't feel guilty for questioning, or not feeling comfortable with, some teachings.

This has not been my experience with the Tibetan tradition. Debate and intense analysis is the hallmark of most schools with tremendous respect given to those that completed the strenuous Geshe/Khenpo training in traditional buddhist philosophy. What I have found is quite the opposite, that the lamas are shocked at how intellectually lazy Westerners are, how they want the highest teaching without having developed a strong foundation of practice and scholarship and how little generosity they show. My experience in America has been that the average student will think nothing of spending tens of thousands of dollars for a university education while feeling really put out at giving anything to cover the substantial costs of bringing teachers from overseas to give them teachings that will put an end to their suffering in samsara.

Mostly, the lamas that I have studied with are shocked at how Westerners can practice passively for years without coming to them with questions about what the various ritual actions mean, why certain things are done in a certain order, what the specific symbolism means, etc. As a result, many students consider themselves to be advanced practitioners without ever having seriously engaged with their teacher about what they are doing in the way serious ethnic Tibetan practitioners would have.

As to what is buddhist and what is not, Vajrayana is very much founded on the epistemological premise of buddhavacana: that the words of the historical Buddha and the many lineage masters since his time are authoritative as far as spiritual practice is concerned. This is not accepting a catechism. It is accepting certain premises from an experienced and authoritative source so that you can engage the practice and see for yourself in the same way that if you are going to a foreign land you seek out an experienced guide that can take you to your destination.

There really can be no picking or choosing when you are considering Vajrayana. One can question purely cultural forms and innovations like the tulku system, but when it comes to the vows one takes or the underlying efficacy of the methods one is using they really aren't open for picking and choosing. Vajrayana is not intended for everyone. One should certainly examine all of the underlying premises and the qualifications and behaviour of the prospective teacher. Once you have made a commitment to uphold the vows of the tradition, it is too late to be having second thoughts or taking great pride in Western individualism.

The Kalama Sutra I believe you are referencing was not intended to promote radical skepticism. Instead it's intent was that one should not accept words *simply* because it is tradition. One must test these assumptions in the laboratory of one's own mind, not by rejecting those things out of hand because they don't fit your preconceptions.

Epicurus

Do what I did. Read no Suttas. Assimilate the general idea behind things and move on. Don't depend on any one man's every word.

compassionate_warrior

Well, so long as we're opening some of this up for examination, let's have at it. Firstly, I had the impression that "testing these assumptions in the laboratory of one's own mind" is what our OP is doing. But maybe he can clarify.

As for Vajrayana being grounded in the words of the Buddha, after reading a number of threads on this site, I've come to have some doubts. Perhaps you can clarify. According to many contributors here, the Vajrayana view that one's present-life conditions (including the conditions of one's birth) are based in past-life karma ripening is erroneous, and not founded in the canon. There's even much debate, as I'm sure you've noticed, as to whether the buddha taught rebirth, or reincarnation. I find all of this debate educational, but it's lead me to question some of the teachings I've received, to be honest.

I agree that the vows and methods aren't open to picking and choosing, but I don't think that's what the OP was talking about. (See his paragraph 3, about realms of existence, etc.)

If lamas are dismayed at the lack of foundational study on the part of their students, then that's what the lamas should teach. I haven't experienced that in my sangha participation, with the exception of the Lamrim. In order to study "The Bodhisattva Way of Life", I had to sign up for a special course (for a fee) offered through a special program not related to any sangha. I must admit, I haven't participated in any sanghas for some time, because there didn't seem to be any structure to the teachings (such as textual study).

Talisman

I am not seeking the Vajrayana path. In the future I hope to move closer to Ann Arbor to participate in a sangha affiliated with the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh and the order of interbeing. There is also a local zen temple in ann arbor as well. I have no access to a temple, sangha, or even contact with other practitioners at this time, except for this site.

From what I have read from H.H. the Dalai Lama, I agree with "most" of what he says. And any conflict that arises is typically born from my difficulty in understanding certain traditions and the symbolism and purpose behind some of the practices and beliefs.

It wasn't my intent when creating this thread to cause disharmony or contention between schools of thought. I'm uncomfortable with the tone of some of the authors of certain late-generation sutras and I wanted to know if any others had felt this way as well. Back to the books.

TheJourney

You just have to understand it in a certain way. They're there for a reason. You have to think of the implications, not just what it says.

compassionate_warrior

I'm uncomfortable with the tone of some of the authors of certain late-generation sutras and I wanted to know if any others had felt this way as well.

It's a good point, as is your question about translations, which can be tricky. Hopefully someone can address these points.

Talisman

@ TheJourney

Yes, this is how I had to approach the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita sutra. It was more than just what was being said, which can be very repetitive and miraculous, but also HOW it was being said. The very act of reading the sutra places me in a concentrated meditative state as my mind is transformed by the teachings.

Umm

At that time the World-Honored One said to Shariputra, "Three times you have stated
your earnest request. How can I do other than preach? Now you
must listen attentively and carefully ponder. For your sake I will now analyze and explain
the matter."

When he had spoken these words, there were some five thousand monks, nuns, laymen
and laywomen in the assembly who immediately rose from their
seats, bowed to the Buddha, and withdrew. What was the reason for this? These persons
had roots of guilt that were deep and manifold, and in addition
they were overbearingly arrogant. What they had not attained they supposed they had
attained, what they had not understood they supposed they had
understood. And because they had this failing, they did not remain where they were.

The World-Honored One was silent and did not try to detain them.

At this time the Buddha said to Shariputra, "Now this assembly of mine is free of
branches and leaves, made up solely of the steadfast and truthful.
Shariputra, it is well that these persons of overbearing arrogance have withdrawn. Now
listen carefully and I will preach for you."

Shariputra said, "So be it, World-Honored One. We are eager to listen!"

The Buddha said to Shariputra, "A wonderful Law such as this is preached by the
Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, at certain times. But like the blooming of
the udumbara, such times come very seldom. Shariputra, you and the others must believe
me. The words that the Buddhas preach are not empty or false.

"Shariputra, the Buddhas preach the Law in accordance with what is appropriate, but the
meaning is difficult to understand.
Why is this?

Because we employ countless expedient means, discussing causes and conditions and using words of simile and parable to expound the teachings.

This Law is not something that can be understood through pondering or analysis.

Only those who are Buddhas can understand it. Why is this? Because the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, appear in the world for one great reason alone. Shariputra, what does it mean to say that the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, appear in the
world for one great reason alone?

"The Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones , wish to open the door of Buddha wisdom to all
living beings, to allow them to attain purity. That is why they
appear in the world.

They wish to show the Buddha wisdom to living beings, and therefore they appear in the world. They wish to cause living beings to awaken to the Buddha wisdom, and therefore they appear in the world. They wish to induce living beings to enter the path of Buddha wisdom, and therefore they appear in the world. Shariputra, this is the one great reason for which the Buddhas appear in the world."

The Buddha said to Shariputra, "The Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, simply teach and
convert the Bodhisattvas. All the things they do are at all times done
for this one purpose. They simply wish to show the Buddha wisdom to living beings and
enlighten them to it.

"Shariputra, the Thus Come Ones have only a single Buddha vehicle which they employ
in order to preach the Law to living beings. They do not have any
other vehicle a second one or a third one 1. Shariputra, the Law preached by all the
Buddhas of the ten directions is the same as this.

PietroPumokin

try reading dogen's work instead... he was well-read in much of scripture but wrote and taught to 13th century japan fairly extensively and is one of the most prominent figures in zen. the sutras are shit deep in the history of buddhism... nagarjuna would probably be better to read than sutras if you're having trouble with them maybe. they are funny!!!

Talisman

^ source please?

upalabhava

Lotus Sutra Copypasta.

Talisman

thx

karmadorje

As for Vajrayana being grounded in the words of the Buddha, after reading a number of threads on this site, I've come to have some doubts. Perhaps you can clarify. According to many contributors here, the Vajrayana view that one's present-life conditions (including the conditions of one's birth) are based in past-life karma ripening is erroneous, and not founded in the canon. There's even much debate, as I'm sure you've noticed, as to whether the buddha taught rebirth, or reincarnation. I find all of this debate educational, but it's lead me to question some of the teachings I've received, to be honest.

That's not true on the face of it. The Cūlakammavibhanga Sutta and Mahākammavibhanga Sutta both detail how one's actions in this life result in rebirth in particular realms in future lives. The Abhidharma literature is replete with similar examples. Rather than look to contributors here, please provide me any source from the tripitaka that support a reading that present-life conditions are not caused by past actions. There is no debate about whether the Buddha teaches this by anyone who reads the early literature themselves rather than through the filter of someone who has preconceived notions on the subject.

Also, I did not say that Vajrayana is grounded in the words of the Buddha. I said it *is* the words of the Buddha. I don't go back to look at the sutras as foundational texts, but rather as enhancements of my meditation practice (particularly the prajnaparamita and tathagathagarbha sutras of Maitreya).

If lamas are dismayed at the lack of foundational study on the part of their students, then that's what the lamas should teach. I haven't experienced that in my sangha participation, with the exception of the Lamrim. In order to study "The Bodhisattva Way of Life", I had to sign up for a special course (for a fee) offered through a special program not related to any sangha. I must admit, I haven't participated in any sanghas for some time, because there didn't seem to be any structure to the teachings (such as textual study).

I obviously can only speak for the teachers I have personally been instructed by, though they are from all four schools so I think they are broadly representative. Students are expected to find their own level of understanding. For those that have strong curiousity and analytical skills, it is expected that they will engage the philosophical teachings. For those that are best suited to the practice of a simple meditator, they are expected to so focus and request appropriate teaching. What is necessary is a close relationship with a lama, not simply showing up at a dharma center whenever there is an empowerment that strikes one's fancy. One has to ask the lama for advice on how to proceed, on what one's shortcomings are and on what it all means. Without such engagement, one will not have a complete picture.

TheJourney

All of it is the words of the buddha. That's what you don't understand. Even if Gautama isn't credited with having said it.

compassionate_warrior

All of it is the words of the buddha. That's what you don't understand. Even if Gautama isn't credited with having said it.

Please explain, Journey.

KD: it's not about "showing up at a dharma center whenever there is an empowerment that strikes one's fancy". (Please don't fall back on cliches, they're not helpful, they don't always apply.) It's about attending regularly, but not finding a structured program. I haven't been anywhere, where a close relationship with a lama is an option, nor where the lama knows any members well enough to be able to make recommendations. Let's just take for an example, Sakya Monastery. I don't want to criticize it, because I actually enjoyed the teachings, brief as they were, and have a lot of respect for the place, so don't get me wrong. But there was no textual study, no contact with the lama. Other (smaller) sanghas have had a rotation of visiting lamas. Possibly I happened into the wrong sanghas.

It would have been helpful to have your suttric references on some of the karma/rebirth threads.

TheJourney

All of it is the words of the buddha. That's what you don't understand. Even if Gautama isn't credited with having said it.

Please explain.

"The buddha" isn't a person. He is an idea. An idea of an awakened person. An awakened person is not just some guy that when he dies he's done with. The buddha said that he will lead all beings to nirvana, and combine that with not-self and emptiness and it's pretty clear. It's all the buddha just trying to wake us up. Of course, I don't view him as some external being, but as a buddhist i'm guessing that's how you'd view it. So that's kind of a way to hold on to your view of him being separate while still understanding the plan.

compassionate_warrior

He was a person. I'm not following you. "...while still understanding the plan"? What plan? You mean the path, the dharma?

TheJourney

do you think that if gautama was a made up person it would have any impact on buddhism?

compassionate_warrior

what does that have to do with anything? Still not following your logic. (Sorry, not trying to be difficult...)

TheJourney

The point is that "the buddha" is his teachings. Perhaps the man we think of as the buddha existed. Perhaps he existed as presented in the sutras. But who knows. It really doesn't matter. Cuz perhaps he was a person made up to help other people awaken. That's the plan. To wake everyone up. Everything that is in place is there for this reason. Waking up is important. I don't really care about gautama, anymore than anyone else. Unless I read something attributed to him that I like. But he may not have even said it. nowutimean?

karmadorje

Sorry CW, I didn't make it clear that I wasn't referring to you in my comments at all, but rather to what the lamas I mentioned in my above post are referring to with regards to Western students. A lot of Western students collect empowerments the way other hobbyists collect stamps.

It really depends on what area you are in whether you have the opportunity to develop a relationship with a lama and/or your willingness to move to somewhere with a teacher that you can develop that relationship with. Most of my tsawai lama's students were driving 3 or more hours each way every second weekend for years to receive teachings. I am sure there are many parts of North America that don't even have a lama within a three hour drive.

I wouldn't give up on Sakya Monastery if you like it, however. Compile a list of questions for the lama and ask for an interview. Or you could take a month off and receive the Lamdre with Sakya Trizin this year in Walden NY, which is a complete path in and of itself. There would be significant structure to this program (as it has similarity to the Lamrim approach) and much contact with some very wonderful lamas.

compassionate_warrior

I relocated away from Seattle years ago, and have no more access to Sakya Monastery, unfortunately. But thanks for the suggestions.

nanadhaja

I agree that a teacher would be an invaluable asset in studying this literature. As my practice continues, I am sure that the forces of karma will eventually lead me to proper instruction. On my own for now though. thanks for the input guys.

I hope that you will find a good teacher who may help you with some of your doubts.Lord Buddha taught us to question and test things for ourselves and not just to blindly believe because of who told us or what they told us.
Good luck on your journey.
With metta,
Phra Greg

buddhajunkie

My experience in America has been that the average student will think nothing of spending tens of thousands of dollars for a university education while feeling really put out at giving anything to cover the substantial costs of bringing teachers from overseas to give them teachings that will put an end to their suffering in samsara.

- parent's money
- student loans
- doubt about the ending of suffering
- the teachings themselves will not end the suffering

Mostly, the lamas that I have studied with are shocked at how Westerners can practice passively for years without coming to them with questions about what the various ritual actions mean, why certain things are done in a certain order, what the specific symbolism means, etc.

I would think that the different Buddhist traditions attract different types of people, looking for different things.

do you think that if gautama was a made up person it would have any impact on buddhism?

Of course it would. Whether it should is a different question.

DhammaDhatu

Many of the teachings, although presented as a more profound understanding of the Dharma, seem "over-thought." There is a lot of discussion of the metaphysical realities and the types of beings traversing the multitude of realms of existence.

Some folks say these kind of long pompous sutras started with the Theravada Digha Nikaya and then progressed (got worse) with the Mahayana sutras. These folks claim they were composed after the Buddha passed away. These folks regard such suttas/sutras as religious propaganda. Much of the Theravada Digha Nikaya served such a purpose, which was for missionary work, to convert Hindus into Buddhists. They are primarily propaganda. Mahayana sutras got worse, to steer people away from the Theravada. Worse are the sutras that disparage Sariputta.

For me, the suttas are inspiring. But only those about practical matters.

Short is best. Practice focused is best (imo). 'Hinayana' is best. Best to save oneself first.

Dazzle

.

Best to save oneself first.

Exactly. What's the point in thinking we're on a mission to 'save all sentient beings' when we're still laboring under desire, attachment and delusion ourselves. When we have the fruits of our own practice we will know how best to be of benefit to others.

DharmaField

We are all indebted to the person who started this, who we can only know through the misty lens of what has been written and much of that was long after his death. We can also know something by awakening to our own view of what he was pointing at and thankfully with the help of others who are also awakened. I think that there is a growing body of excellent western scholarship on Buddhism that is setting the record straight and while many texts have been found apocryphal or re-inscribed and so on, the revised story is just as good. Much needs to be read with a critical eye. As many Mahayana traditions have incorporated bits of other religions they are significantly hybrid and are clearly strongly influenced by their home culture. But having practiced in three traditions, I can see that all three have strengths and weaknesses and similarly, we need to be open minded about both sides of the coin. Over the long haul, be prepared to challenge every aspect of the entire Buddhist pantheon, but also be prepared to give things a fair trial. Be open to being taught by a child and not afraid to challenge the Dalai Lama, although try to do this with due respect.

filosophia

i think everyone wants to find the perfect sutra which is the one and only sutra they will ever have to reference. As we know, science can not work in that manner. As for the idea of a perfect sutra, we should remember that Dharma is wisdom which transcends suffering. Dharma here refers to the Buddha's dharma, but with so many sutras it becomes almost a generic word, esp. since the Buddha did not write anything down, it is hard to verify what is Buddhism from opinions about Buddhism. I think the thing to keep in mind, as you mentioned, is the ending of suffering. That seems to be the agreed upon goal of Buddhism. If it can not reach that for you then it is not sincere enough to call it your own philosophy.

Vincenzi

any sutra that mentions Rahula as a Buddha is... of dubious origin in my opinion.