We know about the Dhamma because of the suttas.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

The suttas are cool.



Metta,
Retro.

[alan]

Damn straight they are Retro!

[porpoise]

So we all agree that reading the suttas is important? Great. And we all agree that the suttas are the basis of all teachings. And I won't hear any disagreements, right?

Yes, the suttas are the best thing since sliced bread.

[daverupa]

[D][M][_S_][_A_][__K__]

[cbonanno]

I'm astonished to see any argument otherwise. Where would we be without them?
You don't have to revere them, but if you are a Buddhist, everything you know, or think you know, comes from the original teachings. We can argue about points, we can disagree about how best to practice. But we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Buddha for teaching. Where best to find that? In the suttas, of course. They are the best representation of his teachings, and you should read them.

While we know the Dhamma because of the suttas, we do not need the suttas to know the Dhamma.

The Suttas are like a raft, yes? Just know that you are using them to cross the stream rather than be pulled by its currents.

[santa100]

[D][M][..S..][1..11][K]

[tiltbillings]

:candle: [D][M][..S..][1..11][K]

?

[santa100]

Oh sorry, guess my decoding of Dave's message makes it worse... They're the 5 Great Books: Digha, Majjhima, etc..

[danieLion]

And we all agree that the suttas are the basis of all teachings. And I won't hear any disagreements, right?

No. The Buddha is the basis of his teachings. He's on record (in the Vinaya) saying he didn't want his teachings written down. Add this to the message of the Kalama Sutta and you have a powerful reason not to invest absolute faith in the suttas, but rather to read them critically.

[polarbuddha101]

And we all agree that the suttas are the basis of all teachings. And I won't hear any disagreements, right?

No. The Buddha is the basis of his teachings. He's on record (in the Vinaya) saying he didn't want his teachings written down. Add this to the message of the Kalama Sutta and you have a powerful reason not to invest absolute faith in the suttas, but rather to read them critically.

Well, the Buddha's dead, so if you would kindly show me the writing where the Buddha says he doesn't want his teachings written down I would appreciate it.

[danieLion]

And we all agree that the suttas are the basis of all teachings. And I won't hear any disagreements, right?

No. The Buddha is the basis of his teachings. He's on record (in the Vinaya) saying he didn't want his teachings written down. Add this to the message of the Kalama Sutta and you have a powerful reason not to invest absolute faith in the suttas, but rather to read them critically.

Well, the Buddha's dead, so if you would kindly show me the writing where the Buddha says he doesn't want his teachings written down I would appreciate it.

Vinayapitaka Cullavagga V, 33

[cbonanno]

Vinayapitaka Cullavagga V, 33

I will read that sutta verse critically.

Do you have the text for that, or a link?

[daverupa]

Vinayapitaka Cullavagga V, 33

You must be referring to the idea those monks had of having the teachings formally put into Sanskrit, rather than local dialects. The Buddha ruled as follows:

You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect.

[alan]

Perhaps this is just my prejudice, but I'm of the opinion that a basic understanding of the suttas is a necessity for anyone who is serious about the path.
Ignoring them, or, even worse, assuming you know better, is just a sign of ignorance.

[danieLion]

Perhaps this is just my prejudice, but I'm of the opinion that a basic understanding of the suttas is a necessity for anyone who is serious about the path.
Ignoring them, or, even worse, assuming you know better, is just a sign of ignorance.

Did you have someone specific in mind, and/or something particular he/she/they did, said or believe?

I agree that a basic understanding of the suttas is necessary for anyone serious about the path. But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.

[tiltbillings]

But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.

That is a dense thicket to traverse.

[Ñāṇa]

I agree that a basic understanding of the suttas is necessary for anyone serious about the path. But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.

The four main Nikāyas and the sutta sections of the fifth Nikāya display a remarkable degree of internal consistency. I've yet to see an argument regarding inauthenticity that amounts to anything significant. Most such claims are rooted in the biases of the author's own worldview or doctrinal assumptions.

The general advice offered in the suttas is to (i) maintain appropriate ethical conduct, (ii) go to a secluded place to reflect of the teachings and calm the mind, (iii) develop discernment into impermanence, etc., in order to further induce dispassion and letting go of attachments.

The teachings and meditation methods are all means to an end -- liberation from passion, aggression, and delusion. The apparent diversity of methods and inclusiveness of practices illustrated in the Pāli Nikāyas is oriented towards this goal, either directly or indirectly. Methods and practices are provisional, and as long as the application of the practice supports the lessening and eventual elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion, it accords with the Buddha's dhamma.

[tiltbillings]

I agree that a basic understanding of the suttas is necessary for anyone serious about the path. But such and understanding is impossible without a basic agreement as to which parts are authentic and which parts are not.

The four main Nikāyas and the sutta sections of the fifth Nikāya display a remarkable degree of internal consistency. I've yet to see an argument regarding inauthenticity that amounts to anything significant. Most such claims are rooted in the biases of the author's own worldview.

I can agree with that. I wonder, however, if there is a more important question of what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic. And here I use "mythic" or mythological as referring to a way of relating truths via stories and cosmologies that need not be seen as being literally true to make a valid point.

[Mr Man]

what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic.

I think that is something that we work with over time. There does not have to be a fixed collective starting position.

[tiltbillings]

what do we need to take as being literally true and what do we take as mythic.

I think that is something that we work with over time. There does not have to be a fixed collective starting position.

Yes.