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.
Study of suttras just leads to confusion--such is my impression after participating in this forum. It's fascinating, but confusing.
I would agree with this, at least in relation to the major questions that have been debated on these boards. I think the fact that debates can continue for pages at a time without any resolution, with two clearly delineated sides spewing text in support of directly opposing views attests to the fact that study of the suttras can lead one in circles. I've read MN 117, and it doesn't address this problem. Let's just face reality, and admit that the suttras don't provide a clear answer to some questions. If they did, there wouldn't be all this heated debate.
Just drink the tea in your cup. There is always more to put into it. If you become thirsty again.
But where does the tea I put in my cup come from? Is it Tibetan tea, or Japanese or Chinese tea, or Ceylon tea? Or some tea leaves I grew and dried myself?
HAHAHA!!! Buddhists are funny with their use of metaphors/analogies and then responding to other Buddhist's use of analogies with more analogies...priceless!!!
I've noticed over my several months here that there are members who base their practice on the 4 Noble Truths, the 8fold Path, the precepts, mindfulness, emptiness,meditation, without studying the suttras.
But all these teachings are derived from the suttas.
But all these teachings are derived from the suttas.
The OP question was, is studying the suttras necessary to being a Buddhist. The answer is "no", not the root texts. As was stated in the beginning, there are entire schools of Buddhism that base their study on texts derived from the suttras and later commentaries, and one can also base one's practice on contemporary books about Buddhism.
Well, in view of a recent question that's come up on a couple of threads here, I'd have to ammend my earlier statement. Sometimes studies of the suttras can be useful, because teachers and commentators can and do draw conclusions that aren't supported by the root text. So as a check against the all-too-human tendency to read into text what one wants, it can be helpful to check the suttras against the interpretation your teacher or earlier commentators has given. But I don't think that would help in the case of the Big Two: karma and rebirth. But on other matters, checking the suttras can help correct against misinterpretations.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I see this: I think we must also remember the oft-quoted comment "Ehi Passiko"
Come and see for yourself. It's surely like any historical and accurately-proposed literature. you read, mark, inwardly digest - then test it out. I would say that the scriptures are needed as a springboard, for those reading them to take a leap and see for themselves whether they are reliable and worthy or not.
In Buddhism, is studying/reading its scriptures (such as the sutras) truly important to the personal practice of Buddhism?
Will it bring you any closer to happiness, enlightenment, or mental calmness?
Does one really need sutras to decide what is good or bad, real or fake? Or should one look inside for the answer?
When debating a concept, does a quotation from a sutra automatically mean that that side of the argument wins because its a teaching from Buddha and all other opinions are just wrong views?
And so on and so forth. You get the gist of it. (And please don't assume what side I'm on.)
So as a check against the all-too-human tendency to read into text what one wants, it can be helpful to check the suttras against the interpretation your teacher or earlier commentators has given.
Good point. I am always surprised at how diffently commentators can interpret the same sutta or sutra.
I would say that the scriptures are needed as a springboard, for those reading them to take a leap and see for themselves whether they are reliable and worthy or not.
Good point. Practice and study are mutually supportive.
In Buddhism, is studying/reading its scriptures (such as the sutras) truly important to the personal practice of Buddhism?
Will it bring you any closer to happiness, enlightenment, or mental calmness?
Does one really need sutras to decide what is good or bad, real or fake? Or should one look inside for the answer?
When debating a concept, does a quotation from a sutra automatically mean that that side of the argument wins because its a teaching from Buddha and all other opinions are just wrong views?
And so on and so forth. You get the gist of it. (And please don't assume what side I'm on.)
Just wondering, thanks!
The answers to your questions are no, reading the sutras will not bring you closer to happiness, nor are they necessary to decide good or bad, nor does quoting a sutra win an argument. But by the way, the sutras are very important and Buddhists should become familiar with some of them.
Buddhists, formally or informally, take refuge in the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. They are also called the three legs of a stool, because it's impossible to have a stool with only two legs. The sutras are the written form of the Dharma as taught by the Buddha and all the great thinkers who carried the teaching on to another generation. It exists as a counterweight to the words of today's living teachers. And the words of today's teachers are added to the collection.
Much of those huge library of writings will be irrelevant to you, personally. And many sutras will probably never even be translated into English, for Western Buddhists. But, whatever form our Buddhism takes, it must still face the scrutiny of the sangha armed with the sutras. If your teaching is different, then all you have to do is demonstrate it's a valid understanding.
Let's drop over to metaphor land again. We take shelter in a house we call Buddhism. The Buddha is the foundation, and the sangha, the people inside a house might be what's most important, but we still need the walls composed of the sutras to give our house a shape and form.
In Buddhism, is studying/reading its scriptures (such as the sutras) truly important to the personal practice of Buddhism? Just wondering, thanks!
Yes and no. It depends on what is most beneficial to the individual involved. If someone is an experienced practitioner and wishes to teach others, then it will be most likely easier for them if they have a thorough knowledge of the dharma, if time permits. If someone wishes to pursue a scholarly career then scriptures are vital. There is so much beneficial information in the sutras and other scriptures and commentaries. The main rules, is to test the words and see if they work for you. Depending where you are in the journey, the poisons may get in the way of you understanding the true meaning of some scriptures, that doesn't matter, that's just the way things are. Keep looking and the seeker will find something that will help. If the seeker wants to progress without the written words of the dharma, then they should find a teacher. If the poisons or conditions prevent that from happening then they can try go it on their own, but in this case they should have some guidance, especially on meditation where the real possibilities of straying exist.
Why would somebody who was seriously interested in Buddhism NOT want to read the suttas and sutras? I honestly don't understand.
P
Hi @Porpoise, The general belief here, I think, is that Buddhism has degenerated since Buddha's time or some specified point of time afterwards. With this foundation, logically, the most valid texts are the earliest texts. On a side note, interestingly some of the earliest recorded texts were Mahayana, but I'm not going there . However, I truly and honestly believe that Buddhism has increased in strength over the millenia. In my lineage there is a quote from Naropa to Marpa that said that the student will surpass the student in realisation, this was only around 1000 years ago, so we have a couple of generations since that time , maybe a few more than a couple. So anyway I believe that the writings of recent commentaries are of great value; equal to the actual words of the Buddha. The Tibetans have a word that is translated to english as "Pith". Which basically means the "condensation" or "essence" or "distillation" of the dharma being communicated, in effect it is the result of 2500 years of Buddhist evolution for want of a better term. Anyway that's my view. Having said that I have recently started looking at some perfection of wisdom sutras, on my desk in front of me I have the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra. I think my favourite is the Ratnaguna Samcayagatha Sutra. I talk too much.
Why would somebody who was seriously interested in Buddhism NOT want to read the suttas and sutras? I honestly don't understand.
The thing is, my cetaceous friend, some schools base their study and practice on their own texts that are derived from the suttras and later commentaries. Look at Caz Namyaw's posts, for example. He's perfectly happy accepting teachings from later Tibetan sources. I was too, until I discovered this forum, and all its debates. Now I wonder. But lots of Buddhists go through life happily relying on much later sources for guidance. It doesn't even occur to most of them to dig up those old scriptures and study them. They trust their teachers. Or the books they read, and their own insights from meditation.
Remember 'the sutras' are a canon. Buddha didn't write down everything he said. The notion that Ananda remembered everything exactly is as mythological (far fetched) as teachings being revealed from the Naga King at a later time (or whatever).
Look for Buddha outside your own mind, and Buddha becomes the devil. Dogen
But lots of Buddhists go through life happily relying on much later sources for guidance. It doesn't even occur to most of them to dig up those old scriptures and study them. They trust their teachers. Or the books they read, and their own insights from meditation.
If you don't accept the suttas as a reliable guide, then what DO you accept?
Personal experience based on experimentation. (Experimentation ultimately derived from the sutras, to a large extent, but also from other sources.)
Personal experience is just that - personal.
For some reason we are not born into Buddhahood therefore our experience is limited to certain times and places. We are conditioned by those experience. We need the texts to challenge our own conceited and exaggerated sense of self.
I think it matters on how you wish to practice. I am usually not a big fan of studying faith scriptures (they tend to be repetitive and a bit long winded) and right now, I am stuyding Mindfullness...and the Roshi at the Zendo is using The Sutra of the Four Foundations of Mindfullness as the base of the teachings.
Putting the Sutra's statement in context of the practice has helped me understand the concept at a deeper level than just "attention!". It has also led me to want to learn more from Sutras..I now want to read the Sutra on the Mindfullness of Breath.
If you don't feel it is the way to go..don't put the time into it. At some point, you may feel drawn to do so.
Comments
P
P
I think we must also remember the oft-quoted comment "Ehi Passiko"
Come and see for yourself.
It's surely like any historical and accurately-proposed literature.
you read, mark, inwardly digest - then test it out.
I would say that the scriptures are needed as a springboard, for those reading them to take a leap and see for themselves whether they are reliable and worthy or not.
In my opinion....
we can see mindfully
cup in the hand
cup (external sense base) + hand (internal sense base) + body consciousness = tactile feeling
tea in the cup (external sense base) + eye (internal sense base) + eye consciousness = seeing
tea in mouth (external sense base) + tongue (internal sense base) + consciousness = feeling of taste
(this is vipasana (insight) meditation which leads us to insight)
yes.
P
P
P
P
Buddhists, formally or informally, take refuge in the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. They are also called the three legs of a stool, because it's impossible to have a stool with only two legs. The sutras are the written form of the Dharma as taught by the Buddha and all the great thinkers who carried the teaching on to another generation. It exists as a counterweight to the words of today's living teachers. And the words of today's teachers are added to the collection.
Much of those huge library of writings will be irrelevant to you, personally. And many sutras will probably never even be translated into English, for Western Buddhists. But, whatever form our Buddhism takes, it must still face the scrutiny of the sangha armed with the sutras. If your teaching is different, then all you have to do is demonstrate it's a valid understanding.
Let's drop over to metaphor land again. We take shelter in a house we call Buddhism. The Buddha is the foundation, and the sangha, the people inside a house might be what's most important, but we still need the walls composed of the sutras to give our house a shape and form.
The general belief here, I think, is that Buddhism has degenerated since Buddha's time or some specified point of time afterwards. With this foundation, logically, the most valid texts are the earliest texts. On a side note, interestingly some of the earliest recorded texts were Mahayana, but I'm not going there
Look for Buddha outside your own mind,
and Buddha becomes the devil.
Dogen
Experience > conceptual knowledge. Wisdom is experience then that experience becomes a basis for the knowledge.
You learn much more if you teach yourself from experience. You learn less if you read about other people's experiences.
You are not everyone else. You are an individual. Though other people's maps may help. Just don't take it too seriously.
Keep meditating. You cannot read your way to enlightenment.
P
For some reason we are not born into Buddhahood therefore our experience is limited to certain times and places. We are conditioned by those experience. We need the texts to challenge our own conceited and exaggerated sense of self.
Putting the Sutra's statement in context of the practice has helped me understand the concept at a deeper level than just "attention!". It has also led me to want to learn more from Sutras..I now want to read the Sutra on the Mindfullness of Breath.
If you don't feel it is the way to go..don't put the time into it. At some point, you may feel drawn to do so.