other religionists quote their scriptures well,what about us?

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree. My view is that any scripture can't possibly hold a candle to an actual living, skilled, reasonably competent Dharma teacher. By definition, even.

Scripture is by definition an accessory unsuitable as core teachings.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I think we also need to be careful about implying that anyone with a serious interest in the suttas is a "fundamentalist", that isn't helpful at all.

True, true. People who practice Buddhadharma ought to have an interest in scriptures. We should make use of all the tools available to us to achieve the liberation of all beings. And teachers of the past left us those teachings so that they could participate in that same endeavor.

By "fundamentalist" I mean the tendency to take one set of scriptures, often with a literalist interpretation thereof, as the sum total of the whole tradition. Ditto using it as a yardstick to judge whether others are "true" members of the group or not. When Buddhists do that to each other, it's very sad. It's also sad when people use the scriptures in ways that are contrary to the spirit in which they were written, in the manner of a Christian fundamentalist spouting Bible verses as an appeal to authority for their various positions, for example.

As for the Chan tradition (i.e. Zen etc.), people often get the wrong idea that it's disparaging of scriptures. In fact it has one of the largest canons of any religious tradition, and there's a strong tradition of reading, discussing, copying, and reciting sutras. What is meant by "direct transmission outside the scriptures" is that the words are merely tools and that the capacity for Buddhahood is not ultimately dependent on words, language, or conceptual thought of any kind. It was originally formulated as a reaction against overly scholastic approaches in early imperial China, but the basic idea is pretty well in line with Buddhist thought as a whole.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's also sad when people use the scriptures in ways that are contrary to the spirit in which they were written, in the manner of a Christian fundamentalist spouting Bible verses as an appeal to authority for their various positions, for example.

I agree, though I rarely see that in practice. What sometimes happens is that people with a serious interest in the suttas are accused of being "sutta thumpers", often by people who haven't bothered to actually read the suttas themselves. It's quite frustrating when that happens!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Note that the Kalama Sutta also advises against "considering pros and cons" as you put it, the basic message of the sutta is about seeing which qualities are skillful.

Pros and Cons also is not terribly wrong. Do not desire for riches beyond what come to you, because if you do so, you will always be unhappy. Desires will always exceed what one gets. This is weighing 'pros and cons', put in as an example.

 

[sampuna]

Probably because the Buddha's teachings all focus on the mind. "Since the mind itself is the Buddha, and the Buddha is none other than the mind, what Buddha could there be outside yourself?" WND V1 (104).

Buddha here could mean the experience of Nibbana, and yes, Nibbana is beyond words , within.

I sometimes find it hard to talk like Christians by backing up my beliefs through scriptures of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Diashin's Writings. Probably because in Buddhism it isn't about evangelizing, more about being aware for yourself the Buddha-nature within you. (To those who believe in Buddha-nature, of course.)

What ye think?

IMHO, evangelizing or not, scriptural knowledge and backing for every religious natured presentation is essential, as from there we can know for sure the points presented come from "the source".

 

[sampuna]

Why would I downgrade from wisdom to knowledge?

IMHO, before wisdom, there must be sound theoretical backing

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Buddha here could mean the experience of Nibbana, and yes, Nibbana is beyond words , within.

IMHO, evangelizing or not, scriptural knowledge and backing for every religious natured presentation is essential, as from there we can know for sure the points presented come from "the source".

I agree. I rather like to cite our sources when we talk about our faith. I just wish people would learn from each other. If we were open to hear each other's claim and source with it, we might actually read the scripture they post and hopefully they read the Suttra we post. I'm still back and forth with Buddhism... there are so many Sutra. I'm working my way through the Lotus Sutra.. but have to refresh myself with the older ones.

 

[sampuna]

I agree. I rather like to cite our sources when we talk about our faith. I just wish people would learn from each other. If we were open to hear each other's claim and source with it, we might actually read the scripture they post and hopefully they read the Suttra we post. I'm still back and forth with Buddhism... there are so many Sutra. I'm working my way through the Lotus Sutra.. but have to refresh myself with the older ones.

Being more inclined to Theravada form of Buddhism, this step by step study guide A Path to Freedom: A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings helps me a lot. I hope you too can find a site akin to this in your Lotus Sutra study

 

[sampuna]

It's a good practice to use sutta quotes in talks and discussions, but it's also important to reference them properly. Too often we see fake Buddha quotes because people are too lazy to check the source material. The other advantage of referencing is that it allows others to look for themselves if they wish.

On the other hand there is a difference between knowing what a sutta says and understanding it's real meaning. Though of course if you don't even know what a sutta says because you haven't read it then how can you hope to understand it?

Agreed! To be extra careful, I'm currently hunting down Pali & English word for word translations - Bhikkhu Anandajoti's Ancient Buddhist Texts Home Page , though offering only selected texts, is useful start.

 

[sampuna]

Buddha himself said that accept things only after you have yourself considered the pros and cons - Kalama Sutta.

That's where the scriptures come in handy as a tool pointing to the path. Many Buddhist teachers share the idea that Buddhism is such : pariyati, patipati and pativedha.
(pariyati - the study of the scriptures)
(patipati - the practise)
(pativedha - the experience )

 

[sampuna]

Knowing your scriptures is a fine thing, but they are merely teaching tools. They do not encompass the teachings, much less the totality of practice. They are not any kind of final authority or arbiter. Fundamentalist attitudes towards scripture are particularly toxic.

The attitude towards scripture that the Abrahamic religions have is mostly alien to the Buddhist tradition, although it's common for converts to carry that baggage with them without realizing it.

Be careful, the non studying and repetition of scripture will spell the doom of religion. The Buddha too said such, as in the Ani Sutta :


"...in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Scriptures are certainly useful as my practice focuses on the Heart Sutra.

Yet noting our dynamic, fluid, and everchanging nature, and one of impermanence invalidates scripture eventually once it's revelance passes.

It's therefore difficult to quote and pass scripture along any engaged Buddhist practice with the hopes of preservation and stability in any fundamental protracted sense, yet there are reasons still for preservation of scripture as future generations can find revelence in them as I have.

I'm more for preservation and taking scripture for what it applies to on a personal basis and maintaining it as such. Reason being my experiences will not always be comparable, nor compatable with another person so quoting any aspect of what I've taken from reading or hearing scriptures can prove impractical in an overall or general sense with exception made in cases where a person understands and/or experiences in a similar manner.

Quoting scriptures generally by which a blanket understanding becomes the objective in quoting them, is a failure at penetrating meaning and practibility by which they are written in the first place imv, and is not advised with exceptions made in cases.

 

[von bek]

Agreed! To be extra careful, I'm currently hunting down Pali & English word for word translations - Bhikkhu Anandajoti's Ancient Buddhist Texts Home Page , though offering only selected texts, is useful start.

Thank you for that link. I have checked out two books on learning Pali from the library at the monastery I attend. I really do want to learn. I minored in Japanese in college and know that it takes a lot of work and practice to learn a new language. There will be special challenges in learning Pali as opposed to Japanese as I will not have an immersive classroom setting with the benefit of a teacher who is a native speaker. Therefore, I appreciate every additional resource that will help me along!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Learn Sanskrit and you have learnt half the words in Pali.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Be careful, the non studying and repetition of scripture will spell the doom of religion. The Buddha too said such, as in the Ani Sutta :


"...in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

I said it's a fine thing to study the scriptures. Part of that means not receiving them uncritically. This quoted bit, for example, isn't just something someone said out of the blue; there's a sectarian polemic there that doesn't take much effort at all to see. "We have the true words of the Buddha, whereas those people over there are following the words of errant disciples and imaginative fiction-writers" was a cute game various sects enjoyed playing back in the day. Unfortunately one still runs into people who hold that line, or who like to pretend that their sect's scriptures are the literal words of Shakyamuni Buddha, which is not true for any extant canon whatsoever. All Buddhist scriptures were written down a few centuries after he would have lived, in literary languages that he would not have spoken when giving oral teachings. They're all later interpretations, and they all include bits that have the Buddha anachronistically sniping at the doctrines of rival Buddhist sects.

 

[sampuna]

"We have the true words of the Buddha, whereas those people over there are following the words of errant disciples and imaginative fiction-writers" was a cute game various sects enjoyed playing back in the day. Unfortunately one still runs into people who hold that line, or who like to pretend that their sect's scriptures are the literal words of Shakyamuni Buddha, which is not true for any extant canon whatsoever. All Buddhist scriptures were written down a few centuries after he would have lived, in literary languages that he would not have spoken when giving oral teachings. They're all later interpretations, and they all include bits that have the Buddha anachronistically sniping at the doctrines of rival Buddhist sects.

that's an interesting note the gamble here is faith in the disciples of the Buddha who painstakingly memorized his teachings systematically, as per Ananda Mahathera's first recitation of the Suttas infront of the Arahants during the First Buddhist Council. Based on the belief that No sane disciple would add nor subtract anything from the teaching - we can belief the authenticity of the suttas.

So here we have a set of teachings, the core 4 noble truths and eightfold paths, the discipline, leading to non attachment, and above all, consistent.

Hence, I'm always very careful when it comes to Abhidhamma, Bodhisatvas, Pureland, & other rites.

 

[crossfire]

I love the suttas.

 

[Vishvavajra]

that's an interesting note the gamble here is faith in the disciples of the Buddha who painstakingly memorized his teachings systematically, as per Ananda Mahathera's first recitation of the Suttas infront of the Arahants during the First Buddhist Council. Based on the belief that No sane disciple would add nor subtract anything from the teaching - we can belief the authenticity of the suttas.

That is the legend, yes. But as I said, no canon of sutras that is extant today represents the verbatim teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha as memorized by Ananda. Even the earliest ones represent two or three centuries of doctrinal development. The core teachings are almost certainly based on the original teachings of the founder, but the idea that he himself spoke all of them personally is a literary conceit that was very common in ancient times. And Ananda is the traditional pseudoepigraphic scribe that all scriptures get attributed to, even if they were composed 500 years later.

The fact is that at the earliest point at which we have evidence of Buddhist sutras there are already significant differences between the canons of different schools, with each claiming that theirs is the valid one. If no sane disciple would add or subtract anything, then there were no sane disciples—nor would we have them written in poetic verse form in Pali and Sanskrit, which are literary languages and not vernaculars, which would disqualify all of the sutras. The only solution is to mind how we define the term "authentic." Outside of blind faith, which is hardly a virtue, we have no basis for believing that Shakyamuni Buddha literally spoke this or that. The only test of authenticity we can actually apply is whether a sutra is written from the standpoint of Awakened mind, and whether it is efficacious in leading others to that point in turn.

Just as Christians err when the read the Gospels as if they were first-hand accounts of Jesus's life and words instead of what they really are—literary biographies written in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries by people with an already well developed theological tradition, who are constructing the character of Jesus as they go and in the process write their own contemporary concerns and rivalries back into a text that ostensibly takes place a couple of generations earlier—Buddhists who take a naive, literalist view of scripture will miss a lot of what is being communicated and why. In addition, anyone who cleaves to certain scriptures as "what the Buddha said" while dismissing other branches of the tradition on the grounds that they're later developments is laboring under a misapprehension regarding the nature of the canon. That's also edging into the fundamentalism I mentioned earlier (i.e. this is the real, "pure" Buddhadharma, as opposed to all that other stuff).

 

[von bek]

Learn Sanskrit and you have learnt half the words in Pali.

Learning vocabulary is not an issue. I have already picked up a number of Pali words in my study and practice of Buddhism. It is the grammar that will require time to learn.

 

[sampuna]

The fact is that at the earliest point at which we have evidence of Buddhist sutras there are already significant differences between the canons of different schools, with each claiming that theirs is the valid one. If no sane disciple would add or subtract anything, then there were no sane disciples—nor would we have them written in poetic verse form in Pali and Sanskrit, which are literary languages and not vernaculars, which would disqualify all of the sutras.

Based on my readings, the earliest Buddhist Canon was said to be the Pali Canon - in the eyes of academicians this canon is the closest to what they believe as the earliest scribed collection of Buddhist scripture.

As I've said earlier, I put my faith in the belief that no sane disciples would add nor subtract the teaching. That's a clause of course for believing in the authenticity of the scripture.

The Pali Suttas present the Buddha's teaching a matter of factly, without much miracles and mystical Buddhas & Bodhisatvas to speak of.

How can we, the present day Buddhists, of myriad schools, decide to be the core of the Buddha's teaching? Whatever teaching that is found in the scripture across each school can be a good start.

- The Four Noble Truth
- Eightfold Path
-Nibbana

How to decide which school holds the authentic teaching? Based on how these truths are said to lead to Nibbana.