buddhist canonicity - like christian?

[nathanielfirst]

hello, I've heard of various buddhist canons, tibetan, chinese, japanese, pali, and of how some sects say nichirin use the lotus sutra almost exclusively. My question is have these sects, in the same way some christian denominations have, labeled each others canons as say a false canon, like do nichirin buddhists view the pali canon as unauthoritative, less authoritative, do they view their scripture as truly revealed by the 'divine' (not god, I know), and holy, and the pali as a supplement, or even as a false view?

my interest is truly in the worldview of the lotus sutra which is different from the pali canon as it is i hear not so anti material and also very tolerant of other views of religion as useful- this seems a decent religion, but I'm a stickler for exact speech so I want to find out if the older view is listed as unauthoritative, is cancelled. and if it is cancelled I want to know if the cancellation sounds reasonable. I've heard that the lotus sutra talks about skillful means, and about how people were not ready for the lotus sutra when the pali was collexcted, in the pali canon there are examples of skillful means, so this seems reasonable, YET, to me it seems strange that a religion which talks of extinction, emptiness, so that westerners even label it as nihilist by mistake, which seems like a REAL religion (i.e. difiicult to grasp, counterintuitive - the antimaterialism that is) - the theraveda, should be a stepping stone to a religion which states that material existence is more useful, a less extreme, more intuitive everyday religious view which does not negate material reality at your job quite so much - THAT seems UNREASONABLE to me - strange religion as stepping stone to more, everyday normal religion.

I've not yet read the lotus sutra but I have a copy I just checked out @ the library in my car. so I'm getting ready.

also since nichirin emphasises lotus sutra, even chanting parts, are there other sects that emphasise other mahayana works exclusively, or is the tendai/tantai/nichirin complex the only one that so emphasises one work?
anyone help me out w / these ?'s

 

[LuisDantas]

Some Nichiren lines (not all) see Nichiren as the current "original" Buddha, and therefore understand Gautama and Amida lines to be obsolete rather than "false".

Vajrayana tends to claim that its teachings are contemporaneous to the Pali Canon, albeit more secret in form.

Mahayana (and Vajrayana) tends to see Theravada as Hinayana, and therefore "egocentrical". Hinayana roughly translates as "Inferior path" and is a derisive term. It is not that they believe the Pali Canon to be false, they believe it to be incomplete and a bit misguided.

But really, the relationship with the scriptures varies a lot. For instance, Pure Land tends to use only about three Sutras (all Mahayana), although it technically recognizes the Pali Canon as well. Zen values the Diamont Sutra, the Heart Sutra and a few others. Often the practicioners don't directly study the Sutras, however.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Buddhism doesn't treat it's canons as inspired though. That's a difference. The canons are wisdom teachings. When I was Pure Land, I took only the Mahayana sutras as entirely relevant to me, but I felt sutras from other schools were valuable in that Lord Buddha may have said some of the things in them. I can't prove he didn't.

 

[Engyo]

Hi Nathaniel -

I'm a Nichiren Buddhist; my wife is an ordained Nichiren Shu minister. As Luis said above, some Nichiren schools believe in discarding the teachings prior to the Lotus. Others, Nichiren Shu included, see the Lotus Sutra as the culmination of the Buddha's teachings, rolling them all up together as it were. So rather than canceling or discarding those teachings, we feel that the Lotus Sutra encompasses them. The passages from the Sutra that talk about the One Vehicle can be interpreted either way, and have been (obviously).

A number of different Japanese Buddhist schools will focus on one sutra or a group of sutras as primary (per Senedjem's comment above). I believe the Chinese Mahayanists tend to be less exclusivist in their thinking, but I haven't really practiced with them to any degree, so I a only guessing.