other religionists quote their scriptures well,what about us?

[Osal]

I've found that quotes are often misused by those whose who use them to argue from a position of authority rather than to provide depth or insight into their position. A typical example is a person who quotes the Koran or Bible to back up their views because they believe that the religious texts are the word of God and therefore are automatically correct and supersede all other opinions.

I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't quote a particularly pertinent section of a sutta if it helps convey a concept or idea to another. There are times when someone has already explained something extremely well and it would be silly not to quote them when the opportunity arises.

Being able to quote suttra is one thing. It's the easy part. The other thing, understanding the suttra you quote is something else entirely. Understanding is the hard part. Understanding is what supports practice and practice is what leads to enlightenment.

That said, there are times when a relevaant quote is helpful, but I don't think those times are as common as someone needing to demonstrate understanding.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I don't see any reason why a person shouldn't quote a particularly pertinent section of a sutta if it helps convey a concept or idea to another. There are times when someone has already explained something extremely well and it would be silly not to quote them when the opportunity arises.

Yes, the purpose of scripture is to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel every generation. Sometimes the way a teaching has been phrased in scripture is particularly skillful for a given context. Other times it's not. Our teacher quotes or paraphrases verses that are particularly inspirational or relevant to a particular topic. I find myself doing that too sometimes. It's never used as a means of argumentation, as if it constituted proof of something.

Scripture also has the benefit of being formulaic, which makes it a good shorthand for shared concepts, without having to go into explanations each time. But that's for people who already share those concepts, as a reminder. It's not for communicating with those not familiar with the teachings. The Mahayana sutras can be impressive as poetry, but even then I'm not sure the average person without any knowledge of Buddhadharma would find it particularly meaningful to hear them quoted.

 

[Nicholas]

The Kalama Sutta has a context. Neglecting that context can lead a person into Wrong Views.

One of which is that the Kalamas were not followers of Buddha, i.e. not Buddhists. Nowadays this sutta is used by Buddhists to trumpet their personal views as best and bash the authority of others, especially gurus.

 

[Nicholas]

I'm not personally not certain scripture should ever be taken as central to teaching or pratice.

If I am not mistaken, both some of the very first disciples and Bodhidharma are believed to have emphasized the living transmission of Dharma over the scriptures. IMO everyone should.

The Triple Refuge has the Dharma as central, but it is defined as realizations of it and the scriptures of Buddha.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Triple Refuge has the Dharma as central, but it is defined as realizations of it and the scriptures of Buddha.

Sure.

And realizing scripture, by my account, means learning to fairly transcend them. Scripture is just a tool.

 

[Nicholas]

Sure.

And realizing scripture, by my account, means learning to fairly transcend them. Scripture is just a tool.

Scripture is the record of Buddha's teachings, where he used words and concepts. Without these essential 'tools' there is no one who has a living transmission. Those who 'transcend' sutras & shastras to the point of forgetting about or ignoring them, lose the transmission that was carried by the living words and have no Dharma to give. When Maitreya Buddha taught Asanga his five major works in a higher realm, words & concepts were his 'tools'. So whether learning or teaching scripture is key.

 

[LuisDantas]

Scripture is the record of Buddha's teachings, where he used words and concepts. Without these essential 'tools' there is no one who has a living transmission.

You are free to believe in that. I will not.

Those who 'transcend' sutras & shastras to the point of forgetting about or ignoring them, lose the transmission that was carried by the living words and have no Dharma to give. When Maitreya Buddha taught Asanga his five major works in a higher realm, words & concepts were his 'tools'. So whether learning or teaching scripture is key.

Interesting interpretation.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

One of which is that the Kalamas were not followers of Buddha, i.e. not Buddhists. Nowadays this sutta is used by Buddhists to trumpet their personal views as best and bash the authority of others, especially gurus.

Yes, people often miss the point of the Kalama Sutta.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Being able to quote suttra is one thing. It's the easy part.

It's not that easy to do it properly, ie quoting an appropriate passage from the thousands available to precisely illuminate a discussion or illustrate a point.

 

[Osal]

I've sat with a number of teachers who were able to illuminate a discussion or illustrate without quoteing a single scripture, but I know what you mean.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Scripture is the record of Buddha's teachings, where he used words and concepts. Without these essential 'tools' there is no one who has a living transmission. Those who 'transcend' sutras & shastras to the point of forgetting about or ignoring them, lose the transmission that was carried by the living words and have no Dharma to give. When Maitreya Buddha taught Asanga his five major works in a higher realm, words & concepts were his 'tools'. So whether learning or teaching scripture is key.

While I don't dismiss writings and scriptures attributed with the Buddha through various transmission, it's not what is considered as being essential in light that there is nothing exclusionary by which such cannot be approached without them. I agree with Luis by which scriptures and writings provide a useful basis to go by.

You could likely consider original face as it pertains to them, so as to discern it's revelance with present forms of Buddhism.

"Thus I have heard"

 

[Dorothy Dandridge]

Despite the lack of suttra quotation like other religions, I find the suttras contain a lot of beauty. The Fire Sermon is beautiful.