So Many Mahayana Sutras - Do They All Agree - Why So Many?

[Nalanda]

So Many Mahayana Sutras

I learned that there are over 6,000 Mahaya Sutras. Can this be boiled down to 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, 1. For the purpose of managing / prioritizing what to study? I'm guessing Prajnaparamita at the top. But what would be the top 5 or 10 to study in sequence ideally?

Given the many sutras, Do they all agree? Do they contradict the other sometimes? Do they reference a previous sutra? Do they sound like the authors are aware of many other Mahayana Sutras? Are there common themes they have? or do each sutra act as it's own, complete and sufficient for most Mahayana teachings?

Why So Many? When reading about the development of these sutras, I'm wondering where these teachings are all coming from because there is quite a lot of liberal wholesale development of new ideas. Are these coming from highly enlightened yogis and writing down what they learned from the Buddhas/Boddhisattvas in a meditative state? or are these a product of council/debate/scholar arguments to form systematized teachings?

[Zhen Li]

I think your questions should rightly all be topics for separate posts. But I will give a quick reply to the best of my ability.

I learned that there are over 6,000 Mahaya Sutras. Can this be boiled down to 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, 1. For the purpose of managing / prioritizing what to study? I'm guessing Prajnaparamita at the top. But what would be the top 5 or 10 to study in sequence ideally?

In Nepal, there is a set of nine that make up the Dharma Maṇḍala, they are called the Navasūtra (nine sūtras) or Navagrantha (nine scriptures) or Navadharma (Nine Dharmas). They are quintessential Mahāyāna sūtras, and all contribute a good portion of doctrine that should be understood if you wish to study the Mahāyāna. I will put them in the order I suggest for reading (easy to hard), rather than the order they are arranged in the maṇḍala, but as you suggest, the Prajñāpāramitā is always #1, which means the central position in a maṇḍala:
1. Lalitavistara (The Play in Full)
2. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka (The Lotus Sūtra)
3. Suvarṇaprabhāsa (The Golden Light Sūtra)
4. Daśabhūmika (The Ten Stages Sūtra)
5. Gaṇḍavyūha (Stem Array)
6. Tathāgataguhya (Secrets of the Tathāgata)
7. Samādhirāja (King of Samādhis)
8. Laṅkāvatāra (Descent into Laṅka)
9. Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom)

I think to supplement this, the following are also worth suggesting:
1. Vimalakīrtinirdeśa
2. Diamond Sūtra
3. Śrīmāladevi Sūtra
4. Three Pure Land Sūtras
5. Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
6. Brahmā's Net Sūtra

For a gentle introduction to Vajrayāna, which is part of Mahāyāna, I could suggest at least:
1. Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi
2. Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa

Given the many sutras, Do they all agree? Do they contradict the other sometimes? Do they reference a previous sutra? Do they sound like the authors are aware of many other Mahayana Sutras? Are there common themes they have? or do each sutra act as it's own, complete and sufficient for most Mahayana teachings?

I think most of the ones that I can recall have cross-references. Actually, this is something kind of unique to Mahāyāna. The Āgama/Nikāya texts only have a few cross-references (Soṇasutta is the only one that comes to mind).

There is little contradiction. Some people argue that the Laṅkāvatāra is taking a stab at the Nirvāṇa sūtra. We debated this on the forum a few times and I don't think that's 100% clear.

They have common themes. Yes. I think the best way to come to terms with these is to go ahead and start reading extensively, and you will start to connect the dots in your subconscious—listening to the Dharma has the power of "naturalness." It unfolds by its nature in your mind and you will notice new things each time. Just give it a go.

You can focus on specific sūtras for your practice, but if you don't read widely, your view will be narrow and you won't get the bigger picture. I suggest just reading broadly before focusing down. My personal practice, for instance, is based only on the Pure Land sūtras, but reading the rest of the canon was crucial to come to that point. No sūtra is 100% sufficient for conveying, the entire Mahāyāna, they are all focusing on different aspects which need to be considered together—they are developed out of skilful means to address particular practitioners at particular times.

Why So Many? When reading about the development of these sutras, I'm wondering where these teachings are all coming from because there is quite a lot of liberal wholesale development of new ideas. Are these coming from highly enlightened yogis and writing down what they learned from the Buddhas/Boddhisattvas in a meditative state? or are these a product of council/debate/scholar arguments to form systematized teachings?

There are some assumptions about what is "new" and what is not which sounds like it's based on scholarship that assumes the Mahāyāna developed after the āgama literature. We now know that they developed at the same time, and that much of the Mahāyāna predates the āgamas. On this topic, a lot has been written. I don't think you will get a clear answer here. The scholarship is continually developing, but a representative sample might be found in the book "Setting Out on the Great Way" edited by Paul Harrison. There's an essay in there by Douglas Osto "Altered States" (the same title as his book, but different topic) which addresses the topic of meditative states giving rise to textual composition.

I think it is unlikely that councils or debates produced Mahāyāna sūtras. Cores to these sūtras were probably developed as a result of meditative experiences ("revelation" by the Buddha from the religious perspective) and then they were added to over time—adding to sūtras, by all accounts, was not considered forgery, but meritorious. Those additions, moreover, probably resulted from later visionary experiences, in my opinion. At a certain point, this practice began to transplant sūtra revelation for tantra revelation—which continues in Tibetan terma practices and would have continued in India if not for Buddhism's destruction. Also, it is arguable that some sūtras are developed purely from continual oral lineages. Joseph Walser shows how the early Prajñāpāramitā is closely linked to āgamas. Moreover, Theravāda reformed in Sri Lanka in the 12th-13th century, and they largely purged Mahāyāna from the island, so the lack of Mahāyāna in Theravāda countries probably contributes to giving a poor impression of how it is very likely also part of a continual oral tradition going back to the Buddha. So, yes, Ānanda memorised the Mahāyāna but also some people received it in revelation from Vajrapāṇi.

[Nalanda]

Thank you Zhen Li

[Malcolm]

So, yes, Ānanda memorised the Mahāyāna but also some people received it in revelation from Vajrapāṇi.

This is disputed. Vasubandhu in the Vyākhyāyukti criticizes Ānanda because he did not know all the sūtras, meaning the Mahāyāna sūtras.

See Skilling, https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/i ... /9178/3036

Also the Tibetan tradition clearly maintains that the compilers of the general Mahāyāna was not Ānanda, but rather Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, and Samantabhadra on Mt. Potala in South India.

[KeithA]

So Many Mahayana Sutras

I learned that there are over 6,000 Mahaya Sutras. Can this be boiled down to 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, 1. For the purpose of managing / prioritizing what to study? I'm guessing Prajnaparamita at the top. But what would be the top 5 or 10 to study in sequence ideally?

Given the many sutras, Do they all agree? Do they contradict the other sometimes? Do they reference a previous sutra? Do they sound like the authors are aware of many other Mahayana Sutras? Are there common themes they have? or do each sutra act as it's own, complete and sufficient for most Mahayana teachings?

Why So Many? When reading about the development of these sutras, I'm wondering where these teachings are all coming from because there is quite a lot of liberal wholesale development of new ideas. Are these coming from highly enlightened yogis and writing down what they learned from the Buddhas/Boddhisattvas in a meditative state? or are these a product of council/debate/scholar arguments to form systematized teachings?

84,000 Dharma doors, and all.

[Zhen Li]

So, yes, Ānanda memorised the Mahāyāna but also some people received it in revelation from Vajrapāṇi.

This is disputed. Vasubandhu in the Vyākhyāyukti criticizes Ānanda because he did not know all the sūtras, meaning the Mahāyāna sūtras.

Haribhadra suggests it was Ānanda who memorised the Prajñāpāramitā though others suggest it is Vajrapāṇi, but I think that Vajrapāṇi and other bodhisattvas memorised others.

Also the Tibetan tradition clearly maintains that the compilers of the general Mahāyāna was not Ānanda, but rather Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, and Samantabhadra on Mt. Potala in South India.

Bhāviveka says:

the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's teaching because it was collected by the original compilers, such as Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Guhyakādhipati (Vajrapāṇi), and Maitreya. Śrāvakas did not compile our root collection, because the teachings of the Mahāyāna were beyond them.

He goes on to show how Ānanda could not have possibly memorised all the sūtras. With regard to variant readings, he writes:

We hear that up to a hundred [texts] can come from hearing a single [text] passed on by a lineage of transmission.

Ratnākaraśānti writes:

the reactor of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā [was] "the Great Bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi who dwells in Aḍakavatī, who follows the Tathāgatas of the Bhadrakalpa to protect their physical bodies and Dharma bodies."

Tāranātha writes:

In Saurāṣṭra in the south-west, there lived a brāhmaṇa called Kulika. There lived then a mahā-sthavira arhat called Nanda, who was born in Anga and was well-versed in Mahayana. On hearing about him, he (Kulika) invited him to learn from him the Mahayana.
At that time there appeared all at once innumerable kalyāṇamitras in different places capable of preaching the Mahāyāna. All of them attained the dharma-srota-anugata-nāma-samādhi (samādhi of understanding the hearing of the Dharma) as a result of listening to the Doctrine separately from ārya Avalokiteśvara, Guhyapati, Vajrapāṇi, Mañjuśrī, Maitreya and others.

So, this is suggesting, that typically the Mahāyāna doctrine would be heard from these bodhisattvas, but because those dharmabhāṇakas had attained the dharma-srota-anugata-nāma-samādhi, they could hear the teaching directly from the Buddha through samādhi.
Bu-ston says:

Tradition says that on the mountain called Vimalasvabhāva, to the south of Rājagṛha, in the assembly of a million of Bodhisattvas, — Mañjuśrī rehearsed the Abhidharma, Maitreya — the Vinaya, and Vajrapāṇi — the Sūtras. It is said moreover in the Tarkajvālā: — The Mahayanistic Scripture is the Word of Buddha. The chief Compilers of it were Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, the Lord of the secret charms (Vajrapāṇi), Maitreya, and others. The śrāvakas were not the chief compilers of our (Mahayanistic) canon, since the latter is not accessible to them. — In the Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā-sutras (by Haribhadra) it is said that according to the Tathāgata-acintya-guhya-nirdeṣa (Secrets of the Tathāgata) Vajrapāṇi is to be the compiler of the Teachings of the 1000 Buddhas (that are to arise in the fortunate aeon). In the Vajrapāṇy-abhiṣeka-tantra likewise Vajrapani is spoken of as the compiler (of Mahāyāinistic Scripture). Accordingly, it is admitted that it was he who rehearsed (this Scriptures), reciting it to Maitreya and the rest in the form: — This I have heard, — and so on.

The Tathāgataguhya (Secrets of the Tathāgata) says:

Now, you should understand that in this Bhadra Kalpa, Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, the Great Lord of Mysteries, always follows all bodhisattva assemblies. Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva’s form can manifest everywhere by his prior vows and supernormal powers. Further, Śāriputra, this Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, the Great Lord of Mysteries, manifests his original form and follows all kinds of sentient beings in the trichiliocosm. He manifests to empower those whose wisdom and power are not yet complete.
Moreover, Śāriputra, this Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva always follows Maitreya Bodhisattva. ...
All the bodhisattvas from worlds in other quarters, the king of the Brahmā Heaven, Indra, the World Protectors and so forth, always come to see this Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, wielding his adamantine Vajra mallet, who follows Maitreya Bodhisattva. Moreover, Śāriputra, sometimes in this Bhadra Kalpa all bodhisattvas, as well as Maitreya Bodhisattva, manifest hundreds of thousands of koṭis of niyutas of types of manifestations rather than Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, the Great Lord of Mysteries, and follow all bodhisattvas to empower them. Even when the Tathāgata creates a manifestation, this Vajrapāṇi Bodhisattva, the Great Lord of Mysteries, also follows the Buddha and by the power of his vows helps to propagate with sacred manifestations.

Since he is always accompanying all buddhas, he is perfect suited to memorising and teaching the Mahāyāna sūtra piṭaka. Thus we know that, as Bu-ston says, Vajrapāṇi was responsible for the Mahāyāna sūtra piṭaka at the Mahāyāna recitation. However, as with Ānanda not necessarily reciting every śrāvaka sūtra, Vajrapāṇi does not necessarily need to be the only one to recite all Mahāyāna sūtras.

[Malcolm]

So, yes, Ānanda memorised the Mahāyāna but also some people received it in revelation from Vajrapāṇi.

This is disputed. Vasubandhu in the Vyākhyāyukti criticizes Ānanda because he did not know all the sūtras, meaning the Mahāyāna sūtras.

Haribhadra suggests…

Yes, there are various accounts, but the main point I was making is that in general the idea is that Mahayana sutras were not compiled by Ananda, but rather by high bodhisattvas. As far as I know, the first person to point this out was Vasubandhu.

[Astus]

I learned that there are over 6,000 Mahaya Sutras. Can this be boiled down to 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, 1. For the purpose of managing / prioritizing what to study? I'm guessing Prajnaparamita at the top. But what would be the top 5 or 10 to study in sequence ideally?

If it's one sutra, make it the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, it's a nice summary. For two, you can add the Vajrasamadhi Sutra. To make it five, add the Heart, the Diamond, and the Vimalakirti Sutra.

Also, it's good to keep in mind the following case:

Zhaozhou asked a monk, “How many sutras do you read in one day?”
The monk said, “Sometimes seven or eight. Sometimes ten.”
Zhaozhou said, “Oh, then you can’t read scriptures.”
The monk said, “Master, how many do you read in a day?”
Zhaozhou said, “In one day I read one word.”
(Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 159)

[Nalanda]

If it's one sutra, make it the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, it's a nice summary. For two, you can add the Vajrasamadhi Sutra.

These are Chinese and Korean sutras? 6th and 8th century CE? Do these have Indian origin? Which translation is best?

[Astus]

These are Chinese and Korean sutras? 6th and 8th century CE?

According to scholars, yes, quite clearly they are. Otherwise, no.

Do these have Indian origin?

If you mean whether there is a known Sanskrit version, then no. There are many sutras like that.

Which translation is best?

Pick whichever you like, especially at first reading it's all OK. If you want to get deeper, there are commentaries in English.

The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, translated by Charles Muller
Mahāvaipulya Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment translated by Rulu
The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment translated by Ven. Guo-go Bhikshu
The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment translated by Peter N. Gregory in Apocryphal Scriptues, p 43ff.

Sūtra of the Vajra Samādhi translated by Rulu
The Vajrasamadhi Sutra (mostly Buswell's translation)

[Nalanda]

Are these two Sutras universally accepted valid within Mahayana?

[Astus]

Are these two Sutras universally accepted valid within Mahayana?

The Vajrasamadhi Sutra also exists in Tibetan and is quoted sometimes, like in Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation. As for the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, I don't know.

[Nalanda]

Are these two Sutras universally accepted valid within Mahayana?

The Vajrasamadhi Sutra also exists in Tibetan and is quoted sometimes, like in Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation. As for the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, I don't know.

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co
But I did see this post of yours about Vajrasamadhi
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 22#p442322

[Malcolm]

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

[Nalanda]

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

I like that. Thanks. And I might actually do just that, put all my eggs in Prajanaparamita.

Could you please tell me though why people like Alex Duncan would study all Mahayana sutras like this?
https://palisuttas.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... -buddhism/

If this is not necessary, then why do it? Personal accomplishments? Job?

[Malcolm]

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

I like that. Thanks. And I might actually do just that, put all my eggs in Prajanaparamita.

Could you please tell me though why people like Alex Duncan would study all Mahayana sutras like this?
https://palisuttas.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... -buddhism/

If this is not necessary, then why do it? Personal accomplishments? Job?

You will have to ask him.

[Nalanda]

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

Also I love that you called out before that some Chinese Sutras are not Sutras. lol
Platform Sutra for example. Can we rely on some notable sutras of East Asian Tradition / Pureland Tradition as sutras?

[Malcolm]

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

Also I love that you called out before that some Chinese Sutras are not Sutras. lol
Platform Sutra for example. Can we rely on some notable sutras of East Asian Tradition / Pureland Tradition as sutras?

It has been the case from the time sutras were being set down in writing that different schools did not accept some or all of sutras of some other school. For example, outside of a very few tantras that were basically too important to exclude, virtually all of the tantras of the Nyingma school were excluded from the official Tibetan canon in the 14th century, including all the most important Dzogchen tantras. But we don't care. Likewise there are many sutras likely composed in China that are important to Chinese Buddhists, and they don't care that we do not accept them. We Mahāyānis in general don't care that the Theravadins do not accept our sūtras, etc.

[Nalanda]

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

Also I love that you called out before that some Chinese Sutras are not Sutras. lol
Platform Sutra for example. Can we rely on some notable sutras of East Asian Tradition / Pureland Tradition as sutras?

It has been the case from the time sutras were being set down in writing that different schools did not accept some or all of sutras of some other school. For example, outside of a very few tantras that were basically too important to exclude, virtually all of the tantras of the Nyingma school were excluded from the official Tibetan canon in the 14th century, including all the most important Dzogchen tantras. But we don't care.

Hahaha imagine that. Newer Tibetan Buddhist groups excluding the texts of the original school. Hahahaha oh, ............hi there Sravakayana............

[Norwegian]

Yeah it looks like it hasn't been translated yet by 84000.co

Everything you really need to know about Mahāyāna is in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and their commentaries. This is the class of sutras, according to Sakya Paṇḍita, the Buddha spent the most time teaching (ten years), out of his 45 year long career. These are the most important sūtras of Mahāyāna, the most extensive class of sūtras (20 volumes in their Tibetan translation), and the sūtras most commented upon in surviving Indian sources.

I like that. Thanks. And I might actually do just that, put all my eggs in Prajanaparamita.

Could you please tell me though why people like Alex Duncan would study all Mahayana sutras like this?
https://palisuttas.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... -buddhism/

If this is not necessary, then why do it? Personal accomplishments? Job?

I have no idea who this guy is, so I clicked on his "About" section. Holy bloat. Talk about wanting to write as much as possible about oneself as you can. Anyways, I sifted through a couple of his articles, and given what he says, who he regards as important scholars today anno 2022 (Herbert Guenther), and so on, how he writes about Buddhadharma and so on, has led me to close the tab. I'll leave it at that.