If its just a story...

[Queequeg]

If Mahayana sutras are just stories and are not the historical records of the Buddha's words, where does that leave us?

It is controversial to describe Buddhist sutras as just stories. This offends some people and shakes the faith of others. I appreciate these sensibilities.

When the Buddhist map of the world is confronted with a picture of the Earth taken from the moon, what are we to do?




Should we reject the photo? Assert its a CGI prank by the Illuminati to keep us from the Truth?

When we read an account of an Assembly on Grdhrakuta numbering in the thousands including demons and fairies and God and gods, and angels and etc. in addition to bhikkus and bikkhunis, upasakas and upasikas, bodhisattvas with august bodies...



what should we think?

One option is to say, ah, phooey, and throw all of it out.

Another would be to consider, perhaps the authors weren't crazy. Maybe they didn't think we were all just gullible and stupid. Maybe there is something else going on here...

[Minobu]

help me ....

[Minobu]

using illuminati as a good reason to believe isn't helping...

[Minobu]

and you have no idea what i am going through ...i am about to chant and recite gongyo...

cya afters...

oh and i'm not complaining...i have prayed for this moment..

I recall one year before the big Gakki divorce and all the horrible actions on both parties part, now brushed under the rug...I faced east..towards the Dai Gohonzon and demanded to know what this practice is all about...

that New Years at the Culture centre it was announced ....i turned to the person next to me and said ..."It's the beginning of the end "


and much later on recalled that prayer made that very year....


this stuff is nuclear...but it cannot be brushed under rug...

laterzzzzz

[Queequeg]

"Śāriputra, in order to teach that meaning extensively I shall teach you parables. Why is that? Some wise individuals will understand through parables the meaning of what has been said."

[Minobu]

"Śāriputra, in order to teach that meaning extensively I shall teach you parables. Why is that? Some wise individuals will understand through parables the meaning of what has been said."

thank you...this helps...
i need to go and chant...

[GrapeLover]

Generally I wouldn’t assume that the relevant scriptures were written from the perspective of ordinary human karmic perception.

When it comes to Mt Meru, for instance, when you read even the descriptions of the humans and their experiences on the other continents (Vasubandhu goes into wild detail throughout the Abhidhadmakośabhasyam), it’s clear that they aren’t just “the humans that live literally to the north on this planet”. It appears to be a model of the realms which may or may not appear literally to those beings who have attained, for instance, the divine eye.

Even for those who do believe that certain pure lands are located physically on this earth, as some feel regarding Potala or Manjushri’s pure land, it’s not held that you can just go there and see it with ordinary human perception, in the same way that we can’t see pretas’ rivers of pus. Canonically (even in nikayas) we are even surrounded by mundane spirits that few can meaningfully perceive.

So, I don’t really want to debate with anyone to change their mind about these things, but I feel like there is more room than “they describe physical phenomena visible to ordinary humans” vs “they are fictional and aren’t/weren’t truly perceptible to anybody”.

At the same time I’m also not arguing that the historical Buddha taught the Mahayana sutras bodily in the same way as the nikayas; I am open to them being visionary etc

[Malcolm]

Generally I wouldn’t assume that the relevant scriptures were written from the perspective of ordinary human karmic perception.

When it comes to Mt Meru, for instance, when you read even the descriptions of the humans and their experiences on the other continents (Vasubandhu goes into wild detail throughout the Abhidhadmakośabhasyam), it’s clear that they aren’t just “the humans that live literally to the north on this planet”. It appears to be a model of the realms which may or may not appear literally to those beings who have attained, for instance, the divine eye.

How do you explain Ptolemy referring to the people of the Central Asian plains as the Kurus?

The Kośa cosmology cannot be taken literally. It is an old map of this world, with the Tibetan plateau at the center. The Mahabharata describes people having picnics on the slopes of Meru, etc.

[Matt J]

I think to a large extent focusing on the historical Buddha has it backward. The important thing is one's own living teacher(s), and the culmination of the tradition that they represent. If it were proved tomorrow that the historical Buddha never existed, Buddhism would not be effected at all in my estimation.

In addition, all explanations are stories. Physics is a story. Politics is a story. History is a story. Once we stop clinging to the notion of an objective, unchanging, material world, the dreamlike nature of reality expresses itself.

[Malcolm]

If Mahayana sutras are just stories and are not the historical records of the Buddha's words, where does that leave us?

Evaluating the words of Mahāyāna sūtras on their own merits, rather than on the merits of authority.

It is controversial to describe Buddhist sutras as just stories. This offends some people and shakes the faith of others. I appreciate these sensibilities.

It is controversial to describe them as the physically enunciated words of the Buddha.

Even if we take my general attitude, which is just to call them buddhavacana and leave it at that, they still must be understood in context, audience, and so on. For example, there are many anachronisms in Mahāyāna sūtras which cannot be explained by asserting this or that text was actually enunciated by the Buddha. For example, why is the setting of the Lanka in Śṛī Lanka, and why is Ravana, the rakṣasa king, part of the main audience?

One movement we see in Mahāyāna is moving sūtras, and later tantras, away from events in Jambudvipa and placing them in increasingly more abstract settings, such as on the peak of Meru (lower tantras) and so on. This is no where more pronounced than in Dzogchen tantras, which are not even set in this specific eon, for the most part.

Buddhist sūtras are just stories. Even the Pali Canon and the Agamas barely resemble anything that can be construed as "historical." At the same time, western text critical narratives of them are just stories too, given how often scholars change their opinions about this thing and that.

That people are offended, and lose "faith" is irrelevant. If the meaning of the teachings do not stand on their own without the Buddha, they still do not stand on their own with the Buddha.

[GrapeLover]

Generally I wouldn’t assume that the relevant scriptures were written from the perspective of ordinary human karmic perception.

When it comes to Mt Meru, for instance, when you read even the descriptions of the humans and their experiences on the other continents (Vasubandhu goes into wild detail throughout the Abhidhadmakośabhasyam), it’s clear that they aren’t just “the humans that live literally to the north on this planet”. It appears to be a model of the realms which may or may not appear literally to those beings who have attained, for instance, the divine eye.

How do you explain Ptolemy referring to the people of the Central Asian plains as the Kurus?

The Kośa cosmology cannot be taken literally. It is an old map of this world, with the Tibetan plateau at the center. The Mahabharata describes people having picnics on the slopes of Meru, etc.

I kind of state directly that it isn’t to be taken literally on a mundane level. If you’re saying it’s nonsense and doesn’t correspond to anything then that is a different story

Don’t you think that the Copper Coloured Mountain is in Madagascar? What relation do you see that having with Guru Rinpoche’s pure realm filled with dakinis and vidyadharas, such that some tertons have seen? If it’s an “otherworldly” place that we call after somewhere in our world, or if it’s located there but imperceptible to us, then I explain it the same way.

[Genjo Conan]

I have to confess that I really don't care whether the sutras are literally true or not. I think a lot a Theravadan Buddhists fall into a trap of assuming that the EBTs are the only material that is buddhavacana, ignoring that (1) there's widespread disagreement about what the EBTs comprise and (2) there's no historical proof that any extant Buddhist text was spoken verbatim--or even at all--by Sakyamuni. And I think a lot of Mahayana Buddhists fall into the same trap but from the opposite direction, making extravagant claims about the historicity of our canonical texts, out of ... I don't know, I think it's a inferiority complex or something.

It's all a matter of faith. We have faith that certain teachings are conducive to liberation. Some of us put more or less faith in different teachings, depending on our karma. As a Zen Buddhist, I hold the Lankavatara Sutra in high esteem, and believe that it expresses something precious. If Sakyamuni was not, in fact, attended by countless disciples, bodhisattvas, nagas, devas, rakshasas, yakshas, etc., it doesn't shake my faith a bit, or diminish from the preciousness of the teaching.

[LastLegend]

The Buddha had to unveil pure lands and different realms with beings that are mind as well. We are not yet endowed with mind that can see different pure lands and realms besides the earth.

[LastLegend]

There was a passage in the Lotus Sutra that the Buddha spoke...’listen attentively I will speak’ something along that line which basically was about transmitting unspoken Wisdom.

[Malcolm]

Generally I wouldn’t assume that the relevant scriptures were written from the perspective of ordinary human karmic perception.

When it comes to Mt Meru, for instance, when you read even the descriptions of the humans and their experiences on the other continents (Vasubandhu goes into wild detail throughout the Abhidhadmakośabhasyam), it’s clear that they aren’t just “the humans that live literally to the north on this planet”. It appears to be a model of the realms which may or may not appear literally to those beings who have attained, for instance, the divine eye.

How do you explain Ptolemy referring to the people of the Central Asian plains as the Kurus?

The Kośa cosmology cannot be taken literally. It is an old map of this world, with the Tibetan plateau at the center. The Mahabharata describes people having picnics on the slopes of Meru, etc.

I kind of state directly that it isn’t to be taken literally on a mundane level. If you’re saying it’s nonsense and doesn’t correspond to anything then that is a different story

It corresponds to a map of the world people framed in their minds, who often never travelled more than a 100 miles from their birthplaces.

Don’t you think that the Copper Coloured Mountain is in Madagascar? What relation do you see that having with Guru Rinpoche’s pure realm filled with dakinis and vidyadharas, such that some tertons have seen? If it’s an “otherworldly” place that we call after somewhere in our world then I explain it the same way.

Most of these terton experiences of Zangdok Palri occur in dreams. I could make a rather long list.

I think that basis for Zangdok Palri is the Island of Madagascar for various reasons, yes. I also think the basis for the Shambhala myth is Afghanistan. But apart from being the pure visions of this one and that, I certainly do not think these places physically exist on our planet anymore, and for that matter, neither did my guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. YMMV

[Malcolm]

I have to confess that I really don't care whether the sutras are literally true or not. I think a lot a Theravadan Buddhists fall into a trap of assuming that the EBTs are the only material that is buddhavacana, ignoring that (1) there's widespread disagreement about what the EBTs comprise and (2) there's no historical proof that any extant Buddhist text was spoken verbatim--or even at all--by Sakyamuni. And I think a lot of Mahayana Buddhists fall into the same trap but from the opposite direction, making extravagant claims about the historicity of our canonical texts, out of ... I don't know, I think it's a inferiority complex or something.

It's all a matter of faith. We have faith that certain teachings are conducive to liberation. Some of us put more or less faith in different teachings, depending on our karma. As a Zen Buddhist, I hold the Lankavatara Sutra in high esteem, and believe that it expresses something precious. If Sakyamuni was not, in fact, attended by countless disciples, bodhisattvas, nagas, devas, rakshasas, yakshas, etc., it doesn't shake my faith a bit, or diminish from the preciousness of the teaching.

For me it is a matter of content. The teachings in the Pali canon are profound; certainly, the teachings in Mahāyāna sūtras are more profound. The teachings in Dzogchen tantras are the most profound, AFAIC. But I base this on content alone, and not authority of a historical figure.

I think the myths and legends around these texts are important and must be preserved, but I don't think we have to take them as history, in the way some do.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If Mahayana sutras are just stories and are not the historical records of the Buddha's words, where does that leave us?

It doesn’t make any difference for two very simple reasons:

1. If there was a fabricated story about the first caveman to make fire by rubbing sticks together, that would not diminish the fact that if you also rub two sticks together, you can produce fire. Likewise, if you practice what the Buddha “supposedly” said, you will get the same results.

2. You yourself are a totally made up fabrication of your own mind, as am I. So the issue comes down to, again, that we make the mistake of establishing ourselves as having some intrinsic reality that we measure other things by. In other words, the Buddha is said to have flown up to the 33 Heaven. Can you or I do that? No. Therefore we question that because “we are real, and we can’t do that”. But on what basis is this ‘reality’ we supposedly possess based?

There is nothing in Buddhist teachings that you need to accept on blind faith. Many people do opt for blind faith, but that’s their thing. The Buddha taught to test out the teachings as a buyer of gold tests gold, burning it, pounding it, cutting it. One may argue that with concepts such as rebirth and pure lands testing is not possible. Others would say that depends on how you define your experience.

[SilenceMonkey]

Well, obviously we can't see other realms and their inhabitants. But some people can. It's just a matter of how clouded our perception is, and whether or not we've opened our divine eye.

Sometimes you'll meet people who can see these things. It's rare, though... It can be unlocked through deep states of samadhi. Some people are even born with it. I've met at least two people like this, who can see the energetic reality as well as spirits. I think most buddhist practitioners who can see these things will never tell you. Then again, some do.

[Minobu]

If Mahayana sutras are just stories and are not the historical records of the Buddha's words, where does that leave us?

It doesn’t make any difference for two very simple reasons:

1. If there was a fabricated story about the first caveman to make fire by rubbing sticks together, that would not diminish the fact that if you also rub two sticks together, you can produce fire. Likewise, if you practice what the Buddha “supposedly” said, you will get the same results.

2. You yourself are a totally made up fabrication of your own mind, as am I. So the issue comes down to, again, that we make the mistake of establishing ourselves as having some intrinsic reality that we measure other things by. In other words, the Buddha is said to have flown up to the 33 Heaven. Can you or I do that? No. Therefore we question that because “we are real, and we can’t do that”. But on what basis is this ‘reality’ we supposedly possess based?

There is nothing in Buddhist teachings that you need to accept on blind faith. Many people do opt for blind faith, but that’s their thing. The Buddha taught to test out the teachings as a buyer of gold tests gold, burning it, pounding it, cutting it. One may argue that with concepts such as rebirth and pure lands testing is not possible. Others would say that depends on how you define your experience.

all that is fine but once you say as you just did .....

The Buddha taught to test out the teachings

don't you see a problem in saying that in the context you are trying to form.

if there was no buddha that said this stuff...??

it's all left to like...dred this thought..

people that made up the Jesus Myth to control the Roman Empire.


The original concept of God the creator in order to put crowns on people's heads and get them out of the fields...you need priests to place the crown on a family blood line for ever...the crown is placed by God actually...why do you think there is a ceremony for Queen elizabeth to get the crown on her head...a priest places the crown in the name of God...or some high priest of the Church of england..it's all a control con game..

it was created during our agriculture period...there was nothing like this when we were hunter gatherers for longer since agriculture changed the whole thing...hunter gatherers did not even have a chief...or the predecessor a boss man...all did what was necessary for the tribe to survive...everyone used their abilities to contribute to a long standing system of survival...no boss...

boss then chief then king came after agriculture time...then the Sumerians invented money...and so we have it then...

anyway...how did Buddhism actually start then...

i believe in the Arya Vedas...the systems ...i believe there are awakened individuals...

[Malcolm]

Well, obviously we can't see other realms and their inhabitants. But some people can. It's just a matter of how clouded our perception is, and whether or not we've opened our divine eye.

Sometimes you'll meet people who can see these things. It's rare, though... It can be unlocked through deep states of samadhi. Some people are even born with it. I've met at least two people like this, who can see the energetic reality as well as spirits.

That does not render Meru Cosmology anything more than a medieval map. Here is another one, by Agrippa (63 BCE--12 BCE):



It distinctly lacks Meru. the four main and eight subcontinents, etc.