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?
well i could rant and rave and probably write a 10,000 word assignment on thaat question lol but instead i think i will simplify things and just say some people take things far to seriously. If you hold the sutras to be the be all and end all then people are going to scrutinize them bu instead we should just take them as any other piece of literature. If someone can find inspiration in them and lead a happier life because of it great.
Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
I haven't heard of these people and these corrupt sutras. Anyhow, it is more important that our mind is not corrupt so as to be able to recognise a charlatan and a corrupt sutras. When Buddha say, to investigate- it includes investigating the sutras.
yes the buddha learned from Alara Kalama and Ramapuda ( spellings are probably off). They taught him only samatha, serenity, concentration meditation.. which of course was practiced in India long before the buddha. The Buddha had to find the rest of the path out on his own, he had no teacher then and explored ground visited only by the rare noble ones.
and in your response to my statement. I'm not saying that if there are teachers available we should not learn from them. I'm saying that technically we dont NEED them, as all we need is inside us already.
@poptart aeons before, yes, according to the suttas anyways.
yes the buddha learned from Alara Kalama and Ramapuda ( spellings are probably off). They taught him only samatha, serenity, concentration meditation.. which of course was practiced in India long before the buddha. The Buddha had to find the rest of the path out on his own, he had no teacher then and explored ground visited only by the rare noble ones.
The Buddha broke new ground, yes, but it was based on years of learning from contemporary teachers. And more generally, if one wants to learn about something ( anything ) then doesn't it make sense to seek out experienced teachers and learn from them?
But someone had to be first. If someone achieved enlightenment before Siddhartha, why do we follow him and not them?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
yes the buddha learned from Alara Kalama and Ramapuda ( spellings are probably off). They taught him only samatha, serenity, concentration meditation.. which of course was practiced in India long before the buddha. The Buddha had to find the rest of the path out on his own, he had no teacher then and explored ground visited only by the rare noble ones.
The Buddha broke new ground, yes, but it was based on years of learning from contemporary teachers. And more generally, if one wants to learn about something ( anything ) then doesn't it make sense to seek out experienced teachers and learn from them?
It was based on letting go of what these experienced teachers were saying.
yes the buddha learned from Alara Kalama and Ramapuda ( spellings are probably off). They taught him only samatha, serenity, concentration meditation.. which of course was practiced in India long before the buddha. The Buddha had to find the rest of the path out on his own, he had no teacher then and explored ground visited only by the rare noble ones.
The Buddha broke new ground, yes, but it was based on years of learning from contemporary teachers. And more generally, if one wants to learn about something ( anything ) then doesn't it make sense to seek out experienced teachers and learn from them?
It was based on letting go of what these experienced teachers were saying.
I would say "going beyond" rather than letting go.
My zen teacher says this of books. "We don't read books to get wisdom, we read books to get motivation to practice"
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
yes the buddha learned from Alara Kalama and Ramapuda ( spellings are probably off). They taught him only samatha, serenity, concentration meditation.. which of course was practiced in India long before the buddha. The Buddha had to find the rest of the path out on his own, he had no teacher then and explored ground visited only by the rare noble ones.
The Buddha broke new ground, yes, but it was based on years of learning from contemporary teachers. And more generally, if one wants to learn about something ( anything ) then doesn't it make sense to seek out experienced teachers and learn from them?
It was based on letting go of what these experienced teachers were saying.
I would say "going beyond" rather than letting go.
That's probably a better way of putting it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a guide isn't helpful but it's good to find a good one. One that can understand where we are coming from to properly aim us to where we're headed.
If there isn't one that understands, it's better to strike out on our own. Jmho
Of course some sutras may have become corrupted. If you can imagine that much of what is stated comes from an oral tradition. "We are playing chinese whispers".
However, oral/aural lineage traditions keep the original teachings alive… let's hope there was not a joker in the pack by the time it reached westerners :-)
Hello, it´s better to find a good translation of the Pali-Canon and read it. I know that this is not the original saying of Gotamo Buddho but it´s the most orginal that is available for us.
sakko
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Are there any certain authors you are criticizing here?
Not particularly, but I do think it's very helpful to look at the source material.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Personally I need my sutras interpreted, updated and explained in as little detail as possible. For many years I was on an academic Buddhist Internet forum that as is the way of academics, argued and interpreted each nuance, translation and possible meaning. Had they benefitted from such minute scrutiny? Well . . . maybe dharma combat had been upgraded to dharma warfare . . . :crazy:
If sutras enhance and improve our being and relationships all well and good . . . otherwise Noble Silence . . . if only I could learn that . . .
It's helpful to look at the source material for ourselves before blindly accepting anyones interpretation of it.
I've met people who rave about Stephen Batchelors writings but haven't read the suttas and don't realise how selective he is in his quoting of the suttas. In one book he actually removed a line from a sutta quote because it referred to rebirth - tut tut, Stephen!
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Really, eh?
I can't comment on Batchelor as I've only heard of him through you guys here but that doesn't sound like good practice.
It's interesting to see how different people's attitudes are to Eastern philosophical texts compared to Western ones. One factor is that the Buddhist scriptures are closer in style and content to religious texts, like the Jewish Torah or Christian Gospels. But I think approaching the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, or Tibetan suttas as one would approach, say, Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Ethics is an eye-opening exercise. This is basically how I look at the text now, and it has brought forward a few different questions:
1.) To what extent do I idealize or fetishize Buddhist practice? Do I bring to them expectations that go beyond what I would expect from more prosaic, secular teachings?
2.) Does the alleged source of the text (a rarefied enlightened being from India 2,500 years ago vs. a 20th century lawyer from Illinois vs. a contemporary psychologist) affect how I see these words? What would I think of these teachings if they were from a less remote culture and time period?
3.) Do I expect these teachings to be less fallible, time- and culture-bound, misguided, or disingenuous/self-serving that the Stoic philosophers, the Epicurians, the Existentialists, the postmodernists, et al.?
Asking myself these questions constantly forces me to pass a critical eye, not only on the suttas, but also on myself.
Siddhartha didn't have any books yet he achieved enlightenment.
Siddhartha had access to contemporary teachers, who in turn drew from an established oral tradition.
I thought he had access to non-Buddhist contemporary teachers whom he ultimately dismissed.
It was like he served an apprenticeship with contemporary teachers and went as far as he could with them, then went off on his own. At the Buddha's time there were all sorts of ideas and approaches being explored.
in response to are Sutra corrupt the Dharma is pure if it reveals the entire path that leads to enlightenment, presents each point un-mistakenly, and has been handed down in an unbroken lineage from Buddha Shakyamuni.
therefore if sutra have been handed down is such as way they are not corrupt if they have NOT been handed down in an unbroken lineage it is reasonable to conclude they may be corrupt
We shall understand that none of Buddha’s teachings are contradictory
By studying and practising the complete Lamrim we shall see that there are no contradictions between Hinayana and Mahayana scriptures, between sutra and tantra, or between root texts and their commentaries.
From a superficial reading of the scriptures, it may appear that there are contradictions. For instance, hinayana emphasize meditation on the uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body, and on the impurities of the environment, whereas tantric scriptures teach us to regard our body, as the body of a deity and our environment as pure. Hinayana scriptures teach us how to attain liberation for ourself alone, whereas Mahayana scriptures teach us how to attain full enlightenment, for the benefit of others.
Some scriptures advise against eating meat, whereas others encourage us to practice the yoga of eating, whereby even the action of eating meat is transformed into a pure action.
By studying the entire stages of the path we shall see how such differences are reconciled, because we will understand that each instruction is a method for solving a specific problem and is to be applied at a specific time.
For example meditation on the uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body reduces attachment, whereas meditation on our body, as the body of a deity eliminates ordinary appearance which is the cause of samsara.
If a sick man goes to the doctor to be cured of a fever his doctor may advise him not to eat meat. If he same man returns to his doctor later because he is suffering from anaemia his doctor may advise him to eat meat.
If the sick man ignores his doctor’s advice on the grounds that he has prescribed contradictory cures, he will not become well.
A doctor gives different cures for different diseases. In the same way Buddha gave different instructions for different afflictions.
regarding teahcing of Dharma and finding a spiritual guide
In five sets of spiritual grounds Arya Asanga advises us to practice five inattentivenesses, whenever we listen to Dharma.
1. If our teacher has broken his or her moral discipline we should not pay attention to the fault or judge that his moral discipline is weak. There is no benefit to be derived from paying attention to such a fault. On the contrary, it would be to our own disadvantage, for if we become preoccupied with our teachers apparent failures, we shall not be able to appreciate his or her instructions and advice. Instead of taking them to heart with shall spend whole time accumulating negative karma.
2. If our teacher is from a lower class we should not pay attention to this or consider it an inferiority. Otherwise we shall be spend all our time cultivating pride and we shall not be able to listen properly. 3. If our teacher is ugly or physically unattractive we should not consider his or her physical appearance. There is no value in contemplating our teacher’s ugliness. If we do shall we shall only make it harder for us the develop faith. Our teacher’s physical appearance is unimportant what matter’s is the Dharma he or she teaches. 4. If our teacher’s manner of speech is displeasing, the language unrefined, or the way of presenting the instructions rough and clumsy, we should not pay attention to the style. What matters are the meanings our teacher conveys. 5. If our teacher says things which are unpleasant to hear, such as the words of blame or criticism, we should not think he or she is at fault. If we do we shall develop misunderstandings and non-virtuous states of mind.
Apologies, MaryAnne. I thank you for pointing that out. To me corruption means that it is not Buddhaid and is the invention of others and that is what I meant by corruption.
Ive been considering starting a thread on whether Buddhism and the sutras were actually originated by a group of people rather than one, and that they designed it with an 'icon' at the forefront in order to increase the longevity of the scripture containing the core of the practice. I have long sensed that many of the less instructional elements of sutras were designed to 'stick' to the local culture and to be carried down the stream of time. They are included in such a way that is careful and also often basically useful to the practitioner.
And as far as data corruption, the various copies and translations tend to agree in principles and message. Even seeming contradictions (which are rare and mild) can easily be understood as a variant of technique with the same end go for different psyches and states of being. As to where the message is coming from however, we do not know. As the line goes, "Do not seek me in terms of physical characteristics"... In truth it may not matter. Truly, they are in many ways not of this world.
therefore if sutra have been handed down is such as way they are not corrupt if they have NOT been handed down in an unbroken lineage it is reasonable to conclude they may be corrupt
Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
it is taught that by practising the Lamrim we shall see there are no contradictions between hinayana and Mahayana scriptures, between sutra and tantra or between roots texts and their commentaries. from a superficial reading of the scriptures it may appear they are contradictions for example some hinayana scriptures emphasize meditation on uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body and environment whereas Tantric scriptures teach to regard our body as the body of a deity and our environment as pure ???
some scriptures advise against eating meat wheras tantric scriptues encourage the practice of the yoga of eating whereby action of eating meat is transformed into a pure action. it is taught that each instruction be it hinayana mahayana or tantric is a method for resolving a specific problem which is to be applied at a specific time.
If a sick person goes to the Doctor for treatment for fever the doctor may advise the person not to eat meat. if the same person returns with anaemia the doctor may advise the person to eat meat. if person ignores the advice of the Doctor on the grounds that he has given contradictory advice the ill person will not become well.
In the same way Buddha gave different instructions for different afflictions.
A further point Ayra Asanga advises us the practice 5 inattentivenesses when studying or listening to Dharma one of these is (1) to ignore the faults of our teacher/spiritual guide, even if the teacher has broken his or her moral discipline(2) disregard the fact our teacher is not from same class or is less educated or academically gifted,(3) disregard our teachers ugliness(4) disregard the manner of our guide presentation of the Dharma instructions and take no notice when our teacher says things which are unpleasant and displeasing.
remember Buddha taught everything depends on the mind if we see scriptures as being corrupts it may signify that our mind is impure and corrupt. I also refer to the notions of Defence mechanisms as initially developed by Freud and particulary projection
Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.•
Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group
Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
it is taught that by practising the Lamrim we shall see there are no contradictions between hinayana and Mahayana scriptures, between sutra and tantra or between roots texts and their commentaries. from a superficial reading of the scriptures it may appear they are contradictions for example some hinayana scriptures emphasize meditation on uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body and environment whereas Tantric scriptures teach to regard our body as the body of a deity and our environment as pure ???
some scriptures advise against eating meat wheras tantric scriptues encourage the practice of the yoga of eating whereby action of eating meat is transformed into a pure action. it is taught that each instruction be it hinayana mahayana or tantric is a method for resolving a specific problem which is to be applied at a specific time.
If a sick person goes to the Doctor for treatment for fever the doctor may advise the person not to eat meat. if the same person returns with anaemia the doctor may advise the person to eat meat. if person ignores the advice of the Doctor on the grounds that he has given contradictory advice the ill person will not become well.
In the same way Buddha gave different instructions for different afflictions.
A further point Ayra Asanga advises us the practice 5 inattentivenesses when studying or listening to Dharma one of these is (1) to ignore the faults of our teacher/spiritual guide, even if the teacher has broken his or her moral discipline(2) disregard the fact our teacher is not from same class or is less educated or academically gifted,(3) disregard our teachers ugliness(4) disregard the manner of our guide presentation of the Dharma instructions and take no notice when our teacher says things which are unpleasant and displeasing.
remember Buddha taught everything depends on the mind if we see scriptures as being corrupts it may signify that our mind is impure and corrupt. I also refer to the notions of Defence mechanisms as initially developed by Freud and particulary projection
Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.•
Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group
Comments
@spinyNorman
yes the buddha learned from Alara Kalama and Ramapuda ( spellings are probably off). They taught him only samatha, serenity, concentration meditation.. which of course was practiced in India long before the buddha. The Buddha had to find the rest of the path out on his own, he had no teacher then and explored ground visited only by the rare noble ones.
and in your response to my statement. I'm not saying that if there are teachers available we should not learn from them. I'm saying that technically we dont NEED them, as all we need is inside us already.
@poptart aeons before, yes, according to the suttas anyways.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a guide isn't helpful but it's good to find a good one. One that can understand where we are coming from to properly aim us to where we're headed.
If there isn't one that understands, it's better to strike out on our own. Jmho
However, oral/aural lineage traditions keep the original teachings alive… let's hope there was not a joker in the pack by the time it reached westerners :-)
The next stage is to practice a practice
it´s better to find a good translation of the Pali-Canon and read it. I know that this is
not the original saying of Gotamo Buddho but it´s the most orginal that is available
for us.
sakko
Are there any certain authors you are criticizing here?
If sutras enhance and improve our being and relationships all well and good . . . otherwise Noble Silence . . . if only I could learn that . . .
:wave:
I can't comment on Batchelor as I've only heard of him through you guys here but that doesn't sound like good practice.
1.) To what extent do I idealize or fetishize Buddhist practice? Do I bring to them expectations that go beyond what I would expect from more prosaic, secular teachings?
2.) Does the alleged source of the text (a rarefied enlightened being from India 2,500 years ago vs. a 20th century lawyer from Illinois vs. a contemporary psychologist) affect how I see these words? What would I think of these teachings if they were from a less remote culture and time period?
3.) Do I expect these teachings to be less fallible, time- and culture-bound, misguided, or disingenuous/self-serving that the Stoic philosophers, the Epicurians, the Existentialists, the postmodernists, et al.?
Asking myself these questions constantly forces me to pass a critical eye, not only on the suttas, but also on myself.
therefore if sutra have been handed down is such as way they are not corrupt if they have NOT been handed down in an unbroken lineage it is reasonable to conclude they may be corrupt
By studying and practising the complete Lamrim we shall see that there are no contradictions between Hinayana and Mahayana scriptures, between sutra and tantra, or between root texts and their commentaries.
From a superficial reading of the scriptures, it may appear that there are contradictions. For instance, hinayana emphasize meditation on the uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body, and on the impurities of the environment, whereas tantric scriptures teach us to regard our body, as the body of a deity and our environment as pure.
Hinayana scriptures teach us how to attain liberation for ourself alone, whereas Mahayana scriptures teach us how to attain full enlightenment, for the benefit of others.
Some scriptures advise against eating meat, whereas others encourage us to practice the yoga of eating, whereby even the action of eating meat is transformed into a pure action.
By studying the entire stages of the path we shall see how such differences are reconciled, because we will understand that each instruction is a method for solving a specific problem and is to be applied at a specific time.
For example meditation on the uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body reduces attachment, whereas meditation on our body, as the body of a deity eliminates ordinary appearance which is the cause of samsara.
If a sick man goes to the doctor to be cured of a fever his doctor may advise him not to eat meat. If he same man returns to his doctor later because he is suffering from anaemia his doctor may advise him to eat meat.
If the sick man ignores his doctor’s advice on the grounds that he has prescribed contradictory cures, he will not become well.
A doctor gives different cures for different diseases. In the same way Buddha gave different instructions for different afflictions.
No one remedy is superfluous or redundant.
In five sets of spiritual grounds Arya Asanga advises us to practice five inattentivenesses, whenever we listen to Dharma.
1. If our teacher has broken his or her moral discipline we should not pay attention to the fault or judge that his moral discipline is weak.
There is no benefit to be derived from paying attention to such a fault. On the contrary, it would be to our own disadvantage, for if we become preoccupied with our teachers apparent failures, we shall not be able to appreciate his or her instructions and advice. Instead of taking them to heart with shall spend whole time accumulating negative karma.
2. If our teacher is from a lower class we should not pay attention to this or consider it an inferiority. Otherwise we shall be spend all our time cultivating pride and we shall not be able to listen properly.
3. If our teacher is ugly or physically unattractive we should not consider his or her physical appearance. There is no value in contemplating our teacher’s ugliness. If we do shall we shall only make it harder for us the develop faith. Our teacher’s physical appearance is unimportant what matter’s is the Dharma he or she teaches.
4. If our teacher’s manner of speech is displeasing, the language unrefined, or the way of presenting the instructions rough and clumsy, we should not pay attention to the style. What matters are the meanings our teacher conveys.
5. If our teacher says things which are unpleasant to hear, such as the words of blame or criticism, we should not think he or she is at fault. If we do we shall develop misunderstandings and non-virtuous states of mind.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE DHARMA WHICH IS BEING TAUGHT
I'm only concerned with what is being pointed at
I have long sensed that many of the less instructional elements of sutras were designed to 'stick' to the local culture and to be carried down the stream of time. They are included in such a way that is careful and also often basically useful to the practitioner.
And as far as data corruption, the various copies and translations tend to agree in principles and message. Even seeming contradictions (which are rare and mild) can easily be understood as a variant of technique with the same end go for different psyches and states of being.
As to where the message is coming from however, we do not know. As the line goes, "Do not seek me in terms of physical characteristics"... In truth it may not matter. Truly, they are in many ways not of this world.
Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
it is taught that by practising the Lamrim we shall see there are no contradictions between hinayana and Mahayana scriptures, between sutra and tantra or between roots texts and their commentaries. from a superficial reading of the scriptures it may appear they are contradictions for example some hinayana scriptures emphasize meditation on uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body and environment whereas Tantric scriptures teach to regard our body as the body of a deity and our environment as pure ???
some scriptures advise against eating meat wheras tantric scriptues encourage the practice of the yoga of eating whereby action of eating meat is transformed into a pure action. it is taught that each instruction be it hinayana mahayana or tantric is a method for resolving a specific problem which is to be applied at a specific time.
If a sick person goes to the Doctor for treatment for fever the doctor may advise the person not to eat meat. if the same person returns with anaemia the doctor may advise the person to eat meat. if person ignores the advice of the Doctor on the grounds that he has given contradictory advice the ill person will not become well.
In the same way Buddha gave different instructions for different afflictions.
A further point Ayra Asanga advises us the practice 5 inattentivenesses when studying or listening to Dharma one of these is (1) to ignore the faults of our teacher/spiritual guide, even if the teacher has broken his or her moral discipline(2) disregard the fact our teacher is not from same class or is less educated or academically gifted,(3) disregard our teachers ugliness(4) disregard the manner of our guide presentation of the Dharma instructions and take no notice when our teacher says things which are unpleasant and displeasing.
remember Buddha taught everything depends on the mind if we see scriptures as being corrupts it may signify that our mind is impure and corrupt. I also refer to the notions of Defence mechanisms as initially developed by Freud and particulary projection
Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.•
Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group
Several people find the teachings of the sutras corrupt because there is no proof. What do you think of this?
it is taught that by practising the Lamrim we shall see there are no contradictions between hinayana and Mahayana scriptures, between sutra and tantra or between roots texts and their commentaries. from a superficial reading of the scriptures it may appear they are contradictions for example some hinayana scriptures emphasize meditation on uncleanliness and repulsiveness of the body and environment whereas Tantric scriptures teach to regard our body as the body of a deity and our environment as pure ???
some scriptures advise against eating meat wheras tantric scriptues encourage the practice of the yoga of eating whereby action of eating meat is transformed into a pure action. it is taught that each instruction be it hinayana mahayana or tantric is a method for resolving a specific problem which is to be applied at a specific time.
If a sick person goes to the Doctor for treatment for fever the doctor may advise the person not to eat meat. if the same person returns with anaemia the doctor may advise the person to eat meat. if person ignores the advice of the Doctor on the grounds that he has given contradictory advice the ill person will not become well.
In the same way Buddha gave different instructions for different afflictions.
A further point Ayra Asanga advises us the practice 5 inattentivenesses when studying or listening to Dharma one of these is (1) to ignore the faults of our teacher/spiritual guide, even if the teacher has broken his or her moral discipline(2) disregard the fact our teacher is not from same class or is less educated or academically gifted,(3) disregard our teachers ugliness(4) disregard the manner of our guide presentation of the Dharma instructions and take no notice when our teacher says things which are unpleasant and displeasing.
remember Buddha taught everything depends on the mind if we see scriptures as being corrupts it may signify that our mind is impure and corrupt. I also refer to the notions of Defence mechanisms as initially developed by Freud and particulary projection
Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.•
Extreme projection: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group