Devaluing the canon

A modern Buddha would not have required an attendant like Ananda to set his teachings to memory.  Modern technology would have provided a modern day Buddha with plenty of ways to preserve his teachings, from books, digital recordings, to DVDs.  

 

Let us imagine for a moment that this modern Buddha left all of his discourses on a set of DVDs and also in a set of books before he died.

 

Wouldn’t it be extremely odd if his followers, after is death, did not avail themselves to the bulk of his discourses but, instead, preferred their own teachings, or turned to psychology, or tried to blend Buddhism with skepticism and the physical sciences?  Of course it would!  But this is exactly what is going on presently.  Given all that Gautama left us twenty-five hundred years ago, little of it is being utilized.  Most of it, I dare say, is ignored by the modern Buddhist public.

 

Given the enormous bulk of the Buddhist canon we possess, I find it troubling that what seems to be the two most popular Sutras consist mainly of the Heart Sutra, which is not an actual Sutra, and the Kalama Sutta, a discourse given to non-Buddhists.  Of course, one may only guess as to why these two Sutras are popular.  My own guess is they reveal the disposition of the modern psyche.  It is nihilistic and has a strong aversion towards the idea of karma and rebirth.  Thus, the modern psyche likes its Sutras to be about emptiness and skepticism.

 

In light of the above, to understand the sense in which Buddhism is currently being presented to the public, it is not farfetched to consider that it is being revised on almost a daily basis to make it chime with modernity’s own view of reality which is hardly Buddhist.  There is also little question that the average modern Buddhist shows little or no great interest in diving into the canon, in a fair minded way, to study what the Buddha may have actually said.  

 

Where this may all lead us if we are not careful, is to full-blown nihilism when, to use  Nietzsche’s words, “The highest values devaluate themselves” which boils down to a belief in valuelessness which when it enters into the halls of Buddhism attempts to de-transcendentalize it.

 

 

Comments

[Ian]

Why are you sure the 'Heart Sutra' is not a Sutra?

Reply:

The original Heart Sutra lacks “Thus have I heard” and a proper location. Second, it lacks a conclusion and third, being most important, the Buddha makes no appearance in this Sutra. It should also be pointed out that Avalokiteshvara, who is he main speaker, is not mentioned in the original canon of Buddhism (Source: Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Vol. 15 No. 2, 15).

[Ian]

Could you explain why say, "the Heart Sutra, which is not an actual Sutra"?

[Mat]

Do you not find it strange that in 40 years as a living Buddha none of his teachings were written down?

That to me is peculiar, especially when there are huge works like the Veda's being studied/transcribed at the time.