Are the Mahāyāna "sutras" such as Shurangama Sutra real Buddha's teaching?

[starter]

I do not consider Shurangama Sutra as real shakyamuni Buddha's teaching, because in the entire sutra I did not find the mentioning of the Four Noble Truths, and the "full awakening" is not the awakening to the four noble truths. The author of this Sutra cannot be a noble disciple of the shakyamuni Buddha.

I also do not consider the author of Heart Sutra is a noble disciple of shakyamuni Buddha, because S/He didn't comprehend the first noble truth of suffering:

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering".

And S/He didn't comprehend the dependent arising:

""Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance (ignorance of the four noble truths) comes the cessation of volitions. From the cessation of volitions comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

In contrast, Heart Sutra says:

"... and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, and no Way, and no understanding and no attaining.

In the Mahāyāna "sutras" I've read, the Buddha, after parinibbana, was described as someone with the five aggregates. This is lack of understanding of nibbana. The Buddhas and arahants, after nibbana, are forever free from the five aggregates:

MN 72:

"“... any form [as well as feeling, perception, volitions, and consciousness) by which one classifying the Tathagata might classify him, that form has been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, done away with it, so that it is no longer subject to future arising. Freed from denotation by form is the Tathāgata, Vaccha, he is profound, immeasurable, hard to fathom [unfathomable], like the ocean. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply."

As far as reading suttas is concerned, I suggest that we read only the true suttas taught by the Buddha or his chief disciples -- the four nikayas and their Agama parallels: https://suttacentral.net/

I do not consider Abhidhamma as the real Buddha's teaching, for details please see viewtopic.p ... 36#p611936.

For the sequence of the gradual training outlined by the Buddha (as I understand), please see:

1. Read suttas (https://suttacentral.net/) & Obtain right view: first mundane right view (the law of kamma), then supramundane right view (the four noble truths), and obtain faith in the Buddha and his teaching: for details see https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... ning/17081
[Mundane right view: AN 3.112 (A i 263), AN 3.34, AN 3.76, AN 4.232, AN 4.235, AN 5.57, AN 6.63, MN 41, MN 43, MN 60, MN 130, MN 135, MN 136, SN 42.6, SN 12.51, SN 12.2,SN 15.13;
Supermundane right view: SN 56.11; MN 141, MN 114, MN 9, DN 15, DN 16, DN 22, SN 45.8; AN 9.1]

[*Need to understand the five aggregates (esp. Sankhara and vinnana) to truly comprehend the first noble truth, need to understand dependent origination to truly understand the second noble truth; need to understand nibbana to truly understand the third noble truth; need to understand the entire sequence of the path to truly understand the fourth noble truth.]

2. Cultivate right intention/thinking/resolve (non-sensual desire, non-ill will, non-cruelty); resolve/sustain our mind on non-sensual desire, non-ill will, and harmlessness, be mindful that these states are there, and make such thinking become the inclination of the mind to overcome underline tendencies: for details see https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... olve/18034
[MN 13, MN 45, MN 46, MN 54, MN 75, MN 129, 130, MN 149, SN 35.244, SN 35.101, SN 35.28, SN 35.115, SN 35.199, SN 35.203; MN 19, MN 20, MN 22, MN 62, MN 21, MN 55; AN 11.15]

3. Sila practice:
Repeated reflect/examine on Kamma and Its Fruits (MN 60, MN 135, AN 5.57); Establish conscience/prudence about bad bodily/verbal/mental conduct and unwholesome qualities as well as fear of their consequences; seeing danger in the slightest fault; understand the rewards of sila (MN 54, AN 3.65, AN 4.111, AN 4.54, AN 8.7, AN 8.39-40, AN 10.1-3, AN 10.76, AN 11.12, DN 16, T 211.31 https://suttacentral.net/t211.31/lzh/taisho; SN 3.25); purify the three fold conduct and livelihood by living restrained in precepts and by repeated reflection/examination (DN 1, MN 61, AN 5.57, AN 10.176, AN 11.12; AN 11.2; MN 97, SN 42.2, SN 42.3, AN 8.54, MN 117).

For details see https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... tice/18184


4. Establish sense restraint and moderation in eating (AN 6.63, SN 35.115, SN 35.199, SN 46.6; MN 38, MN 45, MN 46, MN 54, MN 75, SN 35.244; SN 35.101, SN 35.28, SN 35.115, SN 35.199, SN 35.203; MN 27; MN 2; AN 4.2; MN 114; Iti16 https://suttacentral.net/iti16/en/ireland, AN 3.68, SN 9.11; SN 35.244, MN 14, MN 75; MN 26, SN 35.115);

For details see
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... aint/18332

5. Practice wakefulness/vigilance (MN 125, AN 4.13-14, MN 20; SN 45.8; AN 4.14); Overcome five hindrances (AN 1.2; AN 1.11-20; AN 10.51; AN 4.61; SN 46.51; SN 46.53; MN 62; SN 35.95; AN 7.58; SN 47.10; SN 46.53; Iti 85; MN 107, AN 4.13-14, AN 7.74, MN 20; SN 47.6);
Obtain noble contentment (MN 27, AN 4.28);

6. Establish mindfulness/awareness and clear comprehension (MN 107, AN 7.67 – door keeper simile; SN 47.3, AN 8.63; SN 48.9; SN 47.6);

7. Obtain right Samadhi – the four Jhanas [equipped with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, and right mindfulness] (MN 26; SN 4.6; AN 4.41; MN 111, MN 128, AN 7.67, DN22, MN 20, MN 122, MN 125, MN 44, MN 62, MN 64, MN 52, MN 66; AN 8.63, AN 3.73, AN 4.41, MA 168, AN 54.9, SN 36.11; AN 5.96, AN 5.98, AN 9.34, AN 9.35, DN 33; SN 48.1; AN 3.102 Nimittasutta);

8. Contemplate the four domains of mindfulness – body/feeling/mind/Dhammas (five aggregates, six sense fields), understand their impersonal nature, anicca/dukkha/anatta; contemplate the four noble truths and Nibbana (MN 64, AN 9.36, AN 11.16, MN 52, MA 217, MA 205, T 92; MN 125, MN 118, MN 62; AN 10.60; SN 47.4, SN 47.6).

9. Obtain right knowledge/deliverance: attain the realization of (as opposed to mere knowledge about) the four noble truths and cessation of defilements; experiencing the ending of cravings (craving for sensual pleasures, renewed existence, and extermination) which is Nibbana (MN 125).

May we all succeed in walking the noble 8-fold path and enter nibbana.

[Kim OHara]

They are indeed, according to tens of millions of Buddhists. What gies you any right to deny it?

Of course they are not, according to tens of millions of Buddhists. Why do you even ask?


Kim

[Coëmgenu]

In the Mahāyāna "sutras" I've read, the Buddha, after parinibbana, was described as someone with the five aggregates. This is lack of understanding of nibbana. The Buddhas and arahants, after nibbana, are forever free from the five aggregates:

Can you cite any of these that you've read that state that the Buddha, after parinirvana, is "described as someone with the five aggregates?"

[dharmacorps]

It is nice to know what you don't consider to be the real Buddha's teachings. You have an opinion. The rest of us do too typically. Probably not going to ultimately help you, as strongly held opinions are a problem in themselves in the Buddhadhamma.

[Ceisiwr]

I take them to be Abhidhamma like texts but with a different style.

[Ceisiwr]

They are indeed, according to tens of millions of Buddhists. What gies you any right to deny it?

It is a respectful position. It’s actually disrespectful to say the contrary, since that silences Theravada.

[auto]

Wisdom is not part of the 8 fold path. Surangama sutra is prajñā(paññā).. sutra. From sutta we can know or speculate that the 8 fold path is also the dependent origination. To repeat dependent origination is not area of paññā. Paññā is to be developed.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

They are indeed, according to tens of millions of Buddhists. What gies you any right to deny it?

It is a respectful position. It’s actually disrespectful to say the contrary, since that silences Theravada.

Indeed. And Wrong Speech too, because The Buddha did not compose any of the apocryphal Mahayana Sutras. It seems strange to me that anyone should want to justify the perpetuation of a lie, by saying that many people believe it.



Is there anything beneficial in the aforementioned Sutras? I don't know - I don't intend to read them. But lying about their authorship and succeeding in deceiving millions of people over thousands of years is hardly a promising or wholesome start. I guess those who are guided by control, rather than guided by truth, have different priorities.

Metta,
Paul.

[DNS]

I do not consider Shurangama Sutra as real shakyamuni Buddha's teaching, because in the entire sutra I did not find the mentioning of the Four Noble Truths

Does every sutra have to mention the Four Noble Truths? There are Suttas in the Pali Canon that don't mention the Four Noble Truths. It could be true or could be false, but mention of Four Noble Truths is not necessary in every sutra.

[Kim OHara]

Greetings,

They are indeed, according to tens of millions of Buddhists. What gies you any right to deny it?

It is a respectful position. It’s actually disrespectful to say the contrary, since that silences Theravada.

Indeed. And Wrong Speech too, because The Buddha did not compose any of the apocryphal Mahayana Sutras. It seems strange to me that anyone should want to justify the perpetuation of a lie, by saying that many people believe it.



Is there anything beneficial in the aforementioned Sutras? I don't know - I don't intend to read them. But lying about their authorship and succeeding in deceiving millions of people over thousands of years is hardly a promising or wholesome start. I guess those who are guided by control, rather than guided by truth, have different priorities.

Metta,
Paul.

As to "lying about their authorship", that's very much a matter of interpretation and yours is very narrow, very modern and very Western interpretation of authorship claims. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to require that the words were spoken or written by a particular identifiable historical person at a particular time and place, before you will grant authorship. That's normal in our culture but way out of line with the norms of Asia (and most of the West) over most of history, and the claims that the Mahayana sutras were the word of the Buddha were not meant to deceive but to inspire and to grant authority.
As to "I don't intend to read them" ... that's your right, of course, but it limits your right to say anything about them.

And as to your snarky (and erroneous), "I guess those who are guided by control, rather than guided by truth, have different priorities," I think you need to take a serious look at yourself rather than projecting those attributes on to me all the time. This is a Theravada forum and it's therefore perfectly correct to accept Theravada teachings as the standard on it, but you appear to have closed your own mind against anything else and that is, IMO, always a poor choice.


Kim

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

And as to your snarky (and erroneous), "I guess those who are guided by control, rather than guided by truth, have different priorities," I think you need to take a serious look at yourself rather than projecting those attributes on to me all the time.

Who says I was talking about you? Remarkably, not everything is about you. Or perhaps, unless... in a previous life were you the one who wrote the Mahayana Sutras so that you could supplant the Blessed One's teachings with your own apocryphal words, deceptively stuffed down his throat? I didn't think you were so egregious, to be honest, so unless it was you and you're now ready to confess your transgressions against the Blessed One, you really don't need to make it about you.

Ironically, in the real Suttas there was really only one thing that annoyed the Buddha... and that was when he and his Dhamma were being misrepresented. Therefore, it must be a pretty bad thing to do if it got the Buddha fired up.

This is a Theravada forum and it's therefore perfectly correct to accept Theravada teachings as the standard on it, but you appear to have closed your own mind against anything else and that is, IMO, always a poor choice.

There's more than enough to go on with in the Sutta Pitaka without resorting to a complex web of deceptions and lies. Consult the Ani Sutta for more details on the folly that you're arrogantly insinuating I ought to pursue.

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, 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.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

Which is to say, you're welcome to take refuge wherever you like, but I'll remain thankful that your choices are not my choices, and that my path is that of the Blessed One of the Sutta Pitaka, not whatever yours is. No offence, but I'll take the Buddha's word over yours on what's a "poor choice" because, using the Ani Sutta as a benchmark, it's not me making the poor choice.

Metta,
Paul.

[SteRo]

Are the Mahāyāna "sutras" such as Shurangama Sutra real Buddha's teaching?

It is considered to be one of the many buddhist teachings. That all or some buddhist teachings may be "real Buddha's teaching" is part of the many buddhist teachings. It's merely a narrative that buddhist teachings are the teachings of a buddha. But buddhist's take that narrative to be reality because buddhism is a religion. Taking that narrative as reality may have advantages for a buddhist ... but it may also have disadvantages.

[Aloka]

.

Here are some comments Bhikkhu Sujato wrote about Mahayana sutras on his blog several years ago:

Is the Lotus Sutra authentic?

One of our commenters asked about whether the Lotus Sutra was considered authentic according to the Theravadin view.

To answer this from the traditional Theravadin point of view, all the Mahayana Sutras are inauthentic in the sense that they were not spoken by the Buddha. Historically, Theravada has tended to take a dim view of Mahayana, regarding it as a mere degeneration of the pure teachings.

That the Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana Sutras were not spoken by the Buddha is unanimously supported by modern scholarship. I don’t know of a single academic in the last 150 years who has argued otherwise. The basic historical background is given in Wikipedia. The upshot is that the Lotus Sutra was composed over a period of time, or in a number of stages. The oldest sources probably stem from a little before the common era, and it was finalized around 200 CE. This makes it one of the earliest Mahayana Sutras (and it is even argued that the earliest form of the sutra may not have even been Mahayana).

So there is no doubt that the Lotus Suta and other Mahayana sutras are historically late, dating from many centuries after the Buddha. When reading them as historical documents, rather than seeing them as spoken by the Buddha, we should see them as the response and articulation by Buddhists of the past to the conditions that they were in. They were addressing matters of concern for them, asking how the Dhamma is to be applied in these situations. Of course the same is true of many Theravdin texts, although in the case of the early Suttas and Vinaya there is still a core that probably stems from the Buddha himself.

Why were the Mahayana Sutras phrased as if spoken literally by the Buddha? This is a difficult question, and there is unlikely to be one answer. Partly it was just how the literary form evolved. But I suspect, given the visionary nature of many Mahayanist texts, that they often stemmed from meditation experiences; visions of the Buddha, memories of ‘teachings’ received while in samadhi. Perhaps the authors of these texts believed that the Buddha was really present to them in some sense – and this is indeed the theme of many Mahayana sutras. Or perhaps they more humbly believed that they had gained insight into the Dhamma in some direct way.

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/10/18 ... authentic/

[Nicholas Weeks]

Do not know which translation starter read or if starter read sloppily. But the Four Noble Truths are mentioned at least 5 or 6 times. From page 206 of the new BTTS translation:

 Ājñātakauṇḍinya and the other four monks then stood up and
bowed at the Buddha’s feet.  Ājñātakauṇḍinya said respectfully to the
Buddha: “When we were in the Deer Park and the Pheasant Garden, we
saw the Thus-Come One soon after he had become a Buddha, and upon
hearing him speak, we understood the Four Noble Truths.

It seems a simpler (and shorter) opinion to stay with your tradition and repeat "Mahayana is not true."

[Coëmgenu]

When we look at the corpora of sages of the past, the amount of material they produce is over-large. King David supposedly personally wrote all the Psalms. King Alfonso X supposedly personally wrote all of the Cantigas de Santa Maria. Abraham supposedly wrote the Sēpher Yəṣîrâh. Venerable Nāgārjuna supposedly wrote the Dharmasaṅgraha. Maitreya supposedly wrote/spoke the Mahāyānasūtrālaṁkāra. The Buddha supposedly taught Abhidharma to the gods in the heavens and it was relayed to Venerable Śāriputra, the theoretical originator of the ur-Abhidharma tradition.

There is more than one "Nāgārjuna," I've heard some say up to five, there is more than one "Maitreya," there is more than one "Abraham," etc. King Alfonso could have written those songs, but many of them have independent existences as folk tales and ballads already. King David writing the Psalms is IMO a clear example of an esteemed body of literature, sacred songs in this case, becoming conflated with a famous religious figure, King David. Confucius supposedly composed all of the Classics by some reckonings, and that is the same. In "the Mahāyāna," there are multiple figures conflated as "Gautama Buddha." Many Mahāyāna sūtras are given by foreign/alien Buddhas or bodhisattvas with the Buddha there as a spectator to give his seal of approval. I say "alien" in the sense that they are unknown to the earlier literature. There is no "Amitāyur" in the śrāvaka corpus. He is "alien" to it. In other Mahāyāna sūtras, the divulger of gnosis is depicted as "Gautama Buddha." This is a conflation, like the conflation between Ba'al and Yahweh in sections of the Old Testament.

Unfortunately, Mahāyāna tradition is to double-down on this conflation and insist that the same Gautama Buddha who taught the Āryaśrāvakas taught also the Lotus Sūtra etc. Mahāyānikas who embrace textual criticism are "modernists," maybe even with a dreaded "post" in front of that.