Howdy, Stranger!

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

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.

What can we gain from the sutras? Are they all corupt?

Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
«1

Comments

  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited December 2013
    Corrupt is a harsh and negative word. *I* would never use that word....

  • Debates rage among scholars as to what material in the sutras is the result of later Hindu influence after the Buddha's death. Maybe the thing to do would be to use one's own discretion. But even without the "iffy" elements, there's still a lot of good guidance and inspiration there.
    Dennis1MaryAnne
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited December 2013
    Jeffrey said:

    Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?

    I hope you're not referring to me, because if you are that's a corrupt restatement of anything I said.

    But to your question, is a sutra wise? If so, what's the problem?

    Dennis1
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Um, do we have a specific sutra in mind?

    I look at the sutras like this: If you lived in 400 AD India, and you wanted to write a book, you had to fit it into the form the audience expected. Or no one would read your book. So it had to be a jakata tale, a sutra (with the Buddha giving a big speech to lots of important people), or some other recognizable genre. That they didn't have a clear concept of fiction/non-fiction, nor the Dewey Decimal System for that matter, doesn't bother me too much. I read the later Sutras the same way I read any other book on Buddhism at the book store.

    After you published your book, you knew that relatively few copies would be make and it would be in constant danger of disappearing. So you filled it with stories about the wonderful things that would happen to people who made copies of the book.

    In modern times, we have authors like TNH writing books like "Living Buddha, Living Christ", in 500 AD India, when someone saw an idea from a competing religion, they wrote a new sutra and incorporated it into things they like and things they thought would please the audience. And so we have the Amitabha Sutras (in part from Indians encountering Zoroastrianism).

    Outside of things like Nichiren, the veneration of texts feels to me like an Abrahamic (Christian, Muslim, etc) approach to religion, left over from the time when literacy was rare and magic.
    HamsakaDennis1
  • ^ Very interesting post, @mathewmartin. :)
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited December 2013
    When I said corrupt I was thinking of data transmission. Not political corruption. In data transmission if the copy of the disc does not work then it is corrupt. Sorry for the word choice.
    DavidDennis1
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Even so, corrupt and corruption have very negative connotations. But even if some of the teachings have been modified over time, that doesn't make them corrupt. Maybe they've been refined. Stated better. Stated in a more modern way.
    riverflowDavidDennis1
  • Again. I was thinking of data transmission and the word corrupt was not meant to put anyone off. A corrupt disc means that the message was not transmitted.

    I pretty much agree with you, @vinlyn about there existing positive changes such as using an approach which westerners can sink their teeth into. My teacher doesn't teach about hell realms. She said that the first thing her teachers in the east taught here was about the hell realms. She asked him why he taught that and he said that he didn't want her to waste her time in the market place and wanted her to study and meditate. In my teachers own approach to her students she does not mention hell because her students were not brought up with FAITH in the dharma. If you have faith that the teaching is good then hell can be a reminder to study hard. But if you don't have any faith in the goodness of the dharma then you need to find that component first. For that reason my teacher starts out with meditation. In meditation you can easily be convinced of the transformative power of the dharma.
    vinlynMaryAnneDavid
  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran
    The secular Buddhist John Peacock (once a monk) believes there are a collection of 'early suttas' that have simpler lists and descriptions than the later more ornate and embellished suttas written as Buddhism crossed cultural boundaries and took root. He and other secular Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor prefer to get their Buddhism 'hits' from the early canons, trying to get at the unembellished 'essence'. I don't see what they are doing as trying to find uncorrupted words of Gotama the Buddha per se, but as close as is possible the original teachings before they were ornamented with the cultures Buddhism had spread to.
    JeffreyvinlynDavid
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    Hamsaka said:

    The secular Buddhist John Peacock (once a monk) believes there are a collection of 'early suttas' that have simpler lists and descriptions than the later more ornate and embellished suttas written as Buddhism crossed cultural boundaries and took root. He and other secular Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor prefer to get their Buddhism 'hits' from the early canons, trying to get at the unembellished 'essence'. I don't see what they are doing as trying to find uncorrupted words of Gotama the Buddha per se, but as close as is possible the original teachings before they were ornamented with the cultures Buddhism had spread to.

    And i fully support what John is doing. Ive recently become enamered with the man after just finding some of his teachings. He is the first lay teacher and first secular Buddhist ive found that i can listen to and feel he makes perfect sense. I too am big at trying to find that early essence and i love most of John's translations for the major buddhist words.

    I have yet to hear john say something that doesn't accord well with what i know of dhamma, other then the dismissing of rebirth as an in this moment thing rather then literal, but that has little impact on the teaching and my practice.
  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran
    Me too, @Jayantha, my first audio listen of Peacock hit home strongly, and I have a ton of trust in his translations. He and Stephen Batchelor get a lot of grief from the more traditional crowd, which seems ironic as the Buddha was the last thing from traditional in his time. If anything, Peacock and Batchelor are modern day Nagarjunas or Bodhidharmas, bringing further dimension to the Dharma for this saeculum (meaning, this modern audience).
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited December 2013
    Hamsaka said:

    Me too, @Jayantha, my first audio listen of Peacock hit home strongly, and I have a ton of trust in his translations. He and Stephen Batchelor get a lot of grief from the more traditional crowd, which seems ironic as the Buddha was the last thing from traditional in his time. If anything, Peacock and Batchelor are modern day Nagarjunas or Bodhidharmas, bringing further dimension to the Dharma for this saeculum (meaning, this modern audience).

    I'm not a huge fan of Batchelor, possibly because he seems to come across as a bit more brash and with an agenda to me more then Peacock, but I saw this video and enjoyed both of them, so now I figure I need to possible adjust my feelings on him:

    how the west misunderstands buddhism.

  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran
    Yeah, Batchelor has a chip on his shoulder over the karma/rebirth issue. He's a lot like a dog with a bone, and tries very hard to explain it all away. Obviously it's something that bothers him, but I feel what bothers him is not the metaphysics, per se, but how he believes focus upon the metaphysics has folks missing important points in the Teachings. I can see his point but don't feel the dilemma myself, at least yet.
    riverflow
  • sovasova delocalized fractyllic harmonizing Veteran
    @jeffrey check yourself before you wreck yourself with such a stupid question, holmes.

    if i ask you "are all bananas poisonous" what can you possibly reply with?

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited December 2013
    sova said:

    @jeffrey check yourself before you wreck yourself with such a stupid question, holmes.

    if i ask you "are all bananas poisonous" what can you possibly reply with?




    I would say not all bananas are poisonous because I have eaten many bananas. :wtf:

    I don't get it @sova?

    I like that song though by Ice Cube. I miss the 90s when I was in my salad years.


    ^^^ice cube ;) :cool:



    The reason I asked the question is because many were talking about the purity of teachings in a thread where I thought the focus should aline with the OP. The OP gave a teaching on Equanimity and my problem was that the subsequent discussion nobody mentioned Equinimity. :shrugs: so I made a thread where people could talk about the authenticity.

    In retrospect I apologize to all that I used the word 'corrupt'. I was thinking of data loss and information age corruption of data.
  • sovasova delocalized fractyllic harmonizing Veteran
    not to be mean. i say that with love.

    the sutras are an integral part in the path of study. they are the word of the buddha and sometimes great bodhisattvas who progressed far along, so one should regard them with respect.

    people doubt the authenticity of everything these days. who cares what other people think? if you want to study buddhism and benefit from the plethora of teachings available then do so. if you are forever skeptical then nothing will change in your heart. you try the path on. the whole path begins with refuge. refuge begins with faith.

    it is not a waste of time to study and reflect. to weigh and consider. it is a waste of time to endlessly ask if studying is beneficial.

    sutra just means thread. if you had a grocery list but in 15 different pieces then when you go to the store you'd have a hard time figuring out all what you needed. thread it all together.

    i want to say more on the subject but am still pretty shocked with questions like this. the teaching is organic and real, it's not meant to be written down and pinpointed in words. it is something to be brought to life. the sutras are a fundamental support in learning reflecting and meditating. a pure mirror. they are words of enlightened beings. regard them as what their ultimate potential affords and you can then reap the ultimate benefits. to think that the sutras are extraneous or unnecessary highlights a fundamental misunderstanding in the process - it is all support for ultimate fruit. not a shred less.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited December 2013
    MaryAnne said:

    Corrupt is a harsh and negative word. *I* would never use that word....

    Apologies, MaryAnne. I thank you for pointing that out. To me corruption means that it is not Buddhas word and is the invention of others and that is what I meant by corruption. So if Buddhism is taken over by Hindu views I would say it was corrupted by Hinduism.

    I thank you for (calmly) pointing out the problem with my word choice rather than 'flaming' each other.
  • bravo and well said @sova
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited December 2013
    Hamsaka said:

    but how he believes focus upon the metaphysics has folks missing important points in the Teachings.

    this is the essence of any advice I give to others and try to follow myself. I agree 100% with this statement.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited December 2013
    MaryAnne said:

    @Jeffrey,

    Just because I don't believe any written word is going to be EXACTLY the literal words from the mouths of people -who may or may not have even existed! - 2000+ years ago... doesn't not mean I view those writings as "Corrupt" or corrupted.

    To me, corrupted means damaged, broken, made illogical or useless... I don't view the sutras/suttas as any of those negative things.

    They are just not 'exact'. We can never EVER know what exact words were spoken at any time prior to written records, audio recordings, video or any other method of recording. This is why many people believe there is always room for interpretation and discussion... the basics are there, (and all just wonderful), but there's always fine tuning for any number of reasons.

    It's all a finger pointing at the moon anyhow. To look at the finger is to miss the moon.
    Davidrobot
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited December 2013
    I always think of the first teaching about the 4 Noble Truths. If a sutta, sutra or discourse does nothing to expound on or expand my understanding on this, then I take it with a mighty big grain of salt.

    It isn't that I think Buddha was wrong but that after 300 years the message may not be preserved in any one interpretation. And even if it was, sometimes translation can obscure meaning.
    vinlyn
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Batchelor said that the few Pali Suttas that were translated into Chinese and Tibetan as well as being preserved in SE Asia (Sri Lanka) more or less agree with each other. If I remember correctly, these would have been written down at different times, so this implies that the people memorizing the texts did a pretty good job of repeat them through the ages.

    Also, feats of bulk memorizing were a characteristic for most (all?) societies that descended from the Indoeuropeans, stretching from Iceland to India (both places had long, long traditions of teaching kids to memorize huge stories-- think Sagas and Vedas) And the stories that got handed down were preserved well enough that modern scholars can recognize the parallel stories.

    In my humble opinion, this is all as important as gnat fart (no matter how fascinating) as it relates to suttas because they need to be valuable & useful on their own, regardless to age or accuracy or if they were written as fiction. The vegetarianism of Mahayana Brama Net Sutra-- work of later Chinese. The marrying monks (vinaya reform)? The work of the Meiji government in Japan. The strangely modern message of the Kalama Sutta, probably among the oldest. All three are good Buddhist ideas, despite the 1st being from a sympathetic fiction writing author, the 2nd from a hostile government and the 3rd probably from the historical Buddha himself.

    If a time traveling Buddha came here today and said, "No, no, you got it all wrong. I said desire is the path to nirvana and nirvana is a nice ski resort in Nepal and you all should just be good Hindus" I'd say, I don't care, la-la-la, not listening!
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    sutra just means thread
    image

    So . . . perhaps the word organic rather than 'corrupt'?

    Some require no threads, just the spirit of the thread. Some like to wave it. Add knots. Place it in a gold casket, chant it, translate it, interpret it, tease it, study it. Supersede it. Clean their nose with it.

    . . . and now back to the preferred thread . . .
    sovaanataman
  • Sutras never claim to be the words of Buddha, unlike the pali canon.

    They claim to be trasmitted by nagas or other supernatural beings after the Buddha's death.

    The whole idea revovles around the argument that while BUddha's teachings were good, ordinary people cannot achieve nibbana by following it.
    Therefore further, easier teachings to help the ordinary folks were required.

    Are they corrupted?
    Well, they can be changed anytime a naga decides to descend and proclaim more teachings.
    Jeffrey said:

    Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?

  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    Do nagas make good pets or are they naughty?
    vinlyn
  • i think you can challenge the sutra or any additional sutras whether it logical and buddha's word and according to it or not by core concepts of buddhism. it is possible because buddhism you know, it is not about the words that come from ultimate and mysterious being as a god,without any logic, it is come from a awakened one who investigate and study the dhamma by himself without any own thoughts. in that case you can dare it with yourself and four noble truth, and Noble Eightfold Path, main concepts such as sunyata etc. i heard the story that mongolian monk who lived about 17 century went to tibet for searching for a child who is a great buddhist teacher in mongolia, and additionally ask his seven doubts about the sutra "The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment" of tsongkhapa because he checked it with his knowledge of buddhism and found 7 mistakes . after he went to tibet, he asked about this mistakes from tibetan lamas, then tibetan lamas took the original sutra of tsongkhapa from the stupa that contains tsongkhapa's relics and sutras, to compare copies to the original sutra. after checking it carefully, they also found 7 mistakes from copies.
  • Jeffrey said:


    MaryAnne said:

    Corrupt is a harsh and negative word. *I* would never use that word....

    Apologies, MaryAnne. I thank you for pointing that out. To me corruption means that it is not Buddhas word and is the invention of others and that is what I meant by corruption. So if Buddhism is taken over by Hindu views I would say it was corrupted by Hinduism.

    I thank you for (calmly) pointing out the problem with my word choice rather than 'flaming' each other.
    I got that you meant corrupted and not corrupt. I think it is the best word to describe what may have happened to the original words of the Buddha over time.
  • Naughty creatures can be fun pets. :-)
    lobster
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    Now you will ask: But what is Nirvāṇa? Volumes have been written in reply to this quite natural and simple question; they have, more and more, only confused the issue rather than clarified it. The only reasonable reply to give to the question is that it can never be answered completely and satisfactorily in words, because human language is too poor to express the real nature of the Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality which is Nirvāṇa. ~Walpola Rahula
    Yes, all the sutras are corrupt! :lol:
    lobstersova
  • Hey Jefferey: Thanks for the question-even if it was a little corrupt and corrupted or full of corruption. I enjoyed the stinking corrupted thread. Best, Dennis
    Jeffrey
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Jeffrey said:

    Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?

    lol
    sova
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jeffrey said:


    It's all a finger pointing at the moon anyhow. To look at the finger is to miss the moon.

    That's true, but if one hasn't looked closely at the finger then one won't know which moon it's really pointing to. ;)
    Jeffrey
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Hamsaka said:

    Yeah, Batchelor has a chip on his shoulder over the karma/rebirth issue. He's a lot like a dog with a bone, and tries very hard to explain it all away.

    I think this reflects a modern aversion to anything regarded as "supernatural".
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    When I said corrupt I was thinking of data transmission.

    I don't think there's a definitive way to know, since even the scholars disagree.
  • Does it really matter if we have word "straight from the horse's mouth"? Even if I had absolute positive proof that Shakyamuni himself actually didn't say _____, that does not negate the value I discover it has in my own practice. The gist of the teachings are there, and that is sufficient.

    Verification comes by practice in your own experience, not just ready-made in a text. Pali and Sanskrit scriptures have spiritual value only insofar as they relate to practice and are tested. And if you test it once and it doesn't seem to work, set it aside and return to it later and try again. Look within your own practice to discover truth, not in a book.
    seeker242JeffreyHamsaka
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited December 2013

    Jeffrey said:

    When I said corrupt I was thinking of data transmission.

    I don't think there's a definitive way to know, since even the scholars disagree.
    And who can blame them? Not one of the suttas were even written in Buddhas native tongue.
    Although the Buddhist scripture was originally written in ancient Pali, Sanskrit, and Prakrit, the Buddha didn’t speak any of these.

    Shakyamuni Buddha (the historical Buddha), spoke a local dialect called Magadhi or Ardhamagadhi. There is no record of the Buddha’s words in his own language. This makes knowing exactly what the Buddha said very difficult.

    However, as Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh explains, we can still find a way to ensure a teaching is correct:

    By comparing the two extant sutra recensions, we can see which teachings must have preceded Buddhism’s dividing into schools. When the sutras of both transmissions are the same, we can conclude that what they say must have been there before the division. When the recensions are different, we can surmise that one or both might be incorrect.

    The Northern transmission preserved some discourses better, and the Southern transmission preserved others better. That is the advantage of having two transmissions to compare.


    (Note: Southern Transmission refers to Theravada, and Northern Transmission refers to Mahayana)

    -- http://www.buddhabrainiac.com/language-of-buddha/
    They didn't give the source of Thich Nhat Hanhs quote but I recognize it from his book "The Heart of the Buddhas teachings" which is one of my all time favorites.



    Jeffrey
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    If only we had never split the Sangha.
    Chaz
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    riverflow said:

    Look within your own practice to discover truth, not in a book.

    But where does your Buddhist practice come from - where are the methods described? Yes, the suttas
  • sova said:

    not to be mean. i say that with love.

    the sutras are an integral part in the path of study. they are the word of the buddha and sometimes great bodhisattvas who progressed far along, so one should regard them with respect.

    ...

    it is not a waste of time to study and reflect. to weigh and consider. it is a waste of time to endlessly ask if studying is beneficial.

    ...

    i want to say more on the subject but am still pretty shocked with questions like this. the teaching is organic and real, it's not meant to be written down and pinpointed in words. it is something to be brought to life. the sutras are a fundamental support in learning reflecting and meditating. a pure mirror. they are words of enlightened beings. regard them as what their ultimate potential affords and you can then reap the ultimate benefits. to think that the sutras are extraneous or unnecessary highlights a fundamental misunderstanding in the process - it is all support for ultimate fruit. not a shred less.

    I have to say that your point of view has shed some light on the matter to me!

    I still have questions, but I really need clarify: i know nothing - i'm probably the most ignorant person in the discussion right now - in the sense of formal knowledge, and when i ask it is not to challenge but to learn.

    Isn't the function of the "student" to question? If we don't ask such a question wouldn't the simple acceptance figure as a negative aspect: an attachment to the "written word" a delusion of knowing because it has been said?

    Also (kinda offtopic) i've seen some videos where people claim they practice true buddhism with passion, I'm not saying that i know what is true about buddhism or not (as i stated i know very little) , but isn't the need to go around saying "I do it right" that
    "what i do is true" and "I know the truth" against the basic teachings of buddhism itself? don't the 4 noble truths for a self evident concept?
    riverflow
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited December 2013
    ourself said:

    If only we had never split the Sangha.

    The buddha talked about the sangha and the dhamma dieing out, all things are impermanent ;-). Knowledge of Human nature is all you need to predict a split, and buddha basically said you can abolish the lesser rules after my death.

    All is as it should be friend, with the sangha and the world in general. :-)
  • riverflow said:

    Look within your own practice to discover truth, not in a book.

    But where does your Buddhist practice come from - where are the methods described? Yes, the suttas
    That's why I also said: "Pali and Sanskrit scriptures have spiritual value only insofar as they relate to practice and are tested." The "proof" is found in practice, not in any book.

    That's why it is irrelevant whether Buddhist scriptures were literally said word for word by the Buddha or not. If I test it and something "works" then that method is a keeper. If another one doesn't, well, it's either (1) BS or (2) perhaps I'm not ready for it or (3) I haven't understood the method properly.
    poptartBhikkhuJayasaraChaz
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Jayantha said:

    ourself said:

    If only we had never split the Sangha.

    The buddha talked about the sangha and the dhamma dieing out, all things are impermanent ;-). Knowledge of Human nature is all you need to predict a split, and buddha basically said you can abolish the lesser rules after my death.

    All is as it should be friend, with the sangha and the world in general. :-)
    Thanks and I know... The world is my sangha.

    I just always thought it strange that the dharma of impermanence and non-separation would inspire a splitting of ways. Of course, in my mind, the Sangha couldn't be split if it tried.

    It reminds me of people feeling different and wanting to belong so they form little groups with like minded individuals. The bigger the group gets, the more diverse the mindsets become (every person being unique) and a division in thought is inevitable.

    It's funny because in reality, there is only one group and none of us can help but belong.

    I'm just rambling now so I'm going to hit the hay.

    BhikkhuJayasara
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited December 2013
    riverflow said:

    riverflow said:

    Look within your own practice to discover truth, not in a book.

    But where does your Buddhist practice come from - where are the methods described? Yes, the suttas
    That's why I also said: "Pali and Sanskrit scriptures have spiritual value only insofar as they relate to practice and are tested." The "proof" is found in practice, not in any book.
    But without the book we wouldn't know about the practice in the first place.

  • But without the book we wouldn't know about the practice in the first place.

    Wouldn't we? I'm not so sure.

    Siddhartha didn't have any books yet he achieved enlightenment.
    riverflowMaryAnne
  • That's an intesesting question ie finding what the guru is good for. I don't think it's too complicated, rather it is just like having a human being teach you a craft rather than out of a book. The guru can also dispel kleshas (ignorance, craving, anger) and dismiss wrong views. They can help you when you have trouble in your life and they can help you understand things at your own level. I am grateful for the course of materials and live feedback from my guru and I am a long distance internet student.
    riverflow
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jayantha said:


    We don't REALLY need teachers and books.

    But without a teacher or a book where do we find out how to practice in the Buddhist tradition? Teachers like Ajahn Chah taught extensively on how to read the human heart. These methods of practice can be traced back to the suttas.
Sign In or Register to comment.