What is the most credible reference of the Teaching

Is the Suttas the most credible reference(or actual source) of the Buddha's Teaching ?
If it is not, any idea what else?

I have three more: an awakened teacher, reality and your own practice experience.

"
I have three more: an awakened teacher, reality and your own practice experience.

"

Very good, Chris.

It's also wise to keep in mind that the Buddha himself said that the best teacher is your best judgment. You should not under any circumstance believe any authority just because it, or they, say this or that is true. You should find out for yourself, so the ultimate reference in Buddhism is.... you.

"Is the Suttas the most credible reference(or actual source) of the Buddha's Teaching ?
If it is not, any idea what else?"

I'm always tempted to joke: grilled cheese sandwich.

But who/what seems to be resonating with you ignobleone?

Ignoble one, can you share what your goals and/or intentions are in participating here, in general? It might help people here address your questions if we have a better sense of what you are looking for here.

What, if anything, do you want to get out of practice?

What practices, if any, are you implementing now?

If you are practicing, what is your practice like?

---Jake

"I'm always tempted to joke: grilled cheese sandwich.

But who/what seems to be resonating with you ignobleone?"

I also like joking, but now I'm in serious mode.

AFAIK so far the only thing I'm resonating with is the main suttas (suttas minus commentaries,) there's no one/nothing else.

"
It's also wise to keep in mind that the Buddha himself said that the best teacher is your best judgment. You should not under any circumstance believe any authority just because it, or they, say this or that is true. You should find out for yourself, so the ultimate reference in Buddhism is.... you.

"

@cmarti
Relying solely on your own judgement is just another extreme. He said more in addition to that point: "but after observation and analysis, when you find anything agrees with reason and it's conducive to the glad and benefit of everyone, then accept it and live up to it".
I don't know what you meant by 'best judgement', do you observe, analyze and use reasoning?
From newcomer's perspective I use common sense for reasoning, nothing special. Without analysis and rational reasoning, I think one will be easily become deluded.

I don't think relying on one's judgement is extreme, but you can refer to my very first reply to you, too, which said, "... an awakened teacher, reality and your own practice experience."

Now I have a question for you, ignoble one: do you plan to contribute here in any kind of positive way? For example, what's your practice like? Why did you come here to post other than to then argue with those of us who've replied to your questions? What do YOU think is the best reference to trust in your practice?

"I don't think relying on one's judgement is extreme, but you can refer to my very first reply to you, too, which said, "... an awakened teacher, reality and your own practice experience."

Now I have a question for you, ignoble one: do you plan to contribute here in any kind of positive way? For example, what's your practice like? Why did you come here to post other than to then argue with those of us who've replied to your questions? What do YOU think is the best reference to trust in your practice?"

Sorry, I didn't mean to argue with those who reply to my question.

There is a misunderstanding here. I'm fully aware you mentioned three things in your first reply, but that's not what I meant. I shouldn't have said extreme before asking for clarification. I thought what you called 'best judgement' is something else which doesn't include observation, analysis, and reasoning. That's why I also ask for your more detail since 'best judgement' is kinda vague to me. It's judgement based on what, what kind of judgement is it?

4 out of 6 found your last reply valuable. I guess the other 2 people also want to know more detail about what you called 'best judgement'. If you can provide the passage from which sutta which says the best teacher is our best judgement, it'll be very helpful.

Now I'm gonna answer each of your questions.
1. do you plan to contribute here in any kind of positive way?
Answer: yes, I do plan to contribute here in any kind of positive way. You can see I have contributed something regarding judgement.
2. Why did you come here to post other than to then argue with those of us who've replied to your questions?
Answer: see my explanation above.
3. (to be continued, posting character limit exceeds)

3. What do YOU think is the best reference to trust in your practice?
Answer: (I hope this also answers jhsaintonge's questions)
I told betawave the only thing I'm resonating with is the main suttas, that's my best reference.
About the practice, I'm sorry at this time I haven't come to practice yet because I'm still in the learning phase. I'm still gathering information. I want to know what this website has to offer. So I ask you guys to guide me.
When you take an academic class, let's say for example, a physics class, you have to learn physics for the class. If there's no teacher, you'll use at least a book for reference. The same way, I use the main suttas for my reference. It's a common sense.
That's my answer for those who argue we don't need the suttas.

Hi ignoble one,

There are some sites and discussion boards that rely upon and debate the scriptures of buddhism, but this isn't one of them. Here is a link to Kenneth's "Concept and Mission Statement" :http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/Concept+and+Mission+Statement . If the practice journals and doing the practices isn't resonating with you then you are wasting your time as this is the focus of discussion at KFD. A basic google search should direct you to discussion boards/websites concerned with sutta study.

Bill

Hi ignobleone,

If you are so interested in the suttas to the exclusion of all else, the DhO ( www.dharmaoverground.org ), which is another part of the pragmatic dharma community, is one place you might find it worthwhile to looki into...as some practitioners there are interested in the suttas specifically as a guide to spiritual practice.

Ignobleone, I'm glad to see you say you want to contribute here in a positive way. I'll be watching closely for that

As Bill has already said, this is a very practical place and we don't typically follow the suttas by rote, by the letter, to a "T" or anything like that. We go with what works, whether it's from the old texts or from someone who has a more modern angle on practice, like Kenneth Folk.

Be well!

"I also like joking, but now I'm in serious mode.

AFAIK so far the only thing I'm resonating with is the main suttas (suttas minus commentaries,) there's no one/nothing else."

Sounds good. Just go with that.

The reason I ask is that meditation is a universal human practice and there are maps, practices, and people who have attained it in every culture. Asking what is the most credible reference is a bit like asking what is the most credible flavor of ice cream. But I understand your concern, no one wants to waste time, get taken advantage of, join a cult, or do a practice that hurts oneself.

Speaking for myself, it was hard to know what to look for and I wandered in a very crooked path. In a way, I'm still looking but I have a solid practice, regardless.

If I had to do it again, I would try to find a very established school/teacher in my own area, one that emphasized sitting over study, and I would just do the practice for a year or two and then decide what to do next. These kinds of internet sites are good for those who don't have any opportunities nearby (although it is surprising what can be around if you look).

Hope that helps. Take advantage of whatever opportunities you have to get started.

p.s. I was just re-listening to Shinzen Young's "The Science of Enlightenment" today and was struck again by how clear his explanations are.

"These kinds of internet sites are good for those who don't have any opportunities nearby"

In my opinion, teachers such as Kenneth tend to be much better at explaining their practices and much clearer at explaining how various attainments are to be obtained, compared to teachers outside of the pragmatic dharma community (but still within the mainstream Western Buddhist community)...and, in my opinion, that makes KFD a valuable resource that may be superior to any established schools or teachers nearby.

@Bill
I think you and most of the members here seem to emphasize practice and practice to me as if I don't care about practice at all. FYI, I do care about practice, because what is the point of study without putting it into practice.
I tried to address a fundamental thing. (@cmarti please count it as my second positive contribution, will you? .) To give a better explanation, I use the same metaphor, a class. Let me say chemistry class for an example. You must study chemistry first before going to the practicum in a lab. Because you need to know some important things first, e.g. the characteristic of substances, what to expect when substances are mixed, what to gauge in a chemical process, what is the end result or the goal should look like, etc. If you don't study first, it's possible for you to mix substances and accidentally the mixture explodes, harming you and your surrounding, or you end up with the result which doesn't meet the lab's expectation.
In the same way, in Buddhism you need to know the things you need to know, e.g. what's the goal, how to gauge progress, what's the expectation, are you in the right track, etc. So that you won't be easily deluded, think you have arrived at something, or worse and dangerous - teaching wrong view to others.
It's not without reason I choose the main suttas as my best reference. The source of the teaching is the Buddha himself. To explain it better, I write it in sequence:
1. Gotama Buddha
2. The Buddha's direct disciples.
3. Disciples of [disciples...] of the Buddha's direct disciples
4. The Suttas
5. The Suttas Commentaries
It's clear #1 and #2 are not accessible for us.
#5 is people's interpretations of the Suttas. This equation is true for some subjects: Suttas + (possible) bias = Commentaries. I've found at least one evidence of bias.
(to be continued)

So now you guys know why I don't trust commentaries.
For #3, I think it's almost impossible to trace the lineages from the Buddha's direct disciples to today's monks. And I found most Theravada monks' teaching these days are inseparable from the Suttas Commentaries.
So, what left for me to choose is #4 only. That's the best closest to the source. The only possible defect is, like some members here have mentioned before, due to it's been transferred from generation to generation. But I think we need to respect the ariya Sangha since it's not an easy effort to preserve the Teaching. And considering there are more than one thousand suttas, it must have been a very serious task, so I can expect minor defect, where the main subjects are still pure.
Another way to judge the content of the Suttas is by finding consistency in more than one Sutta. So far I didn't find any inconsistency. Please let me know if you find any.

@cmarti I hope when I mean to ask for more explanation or detail, you won't interpret it as contributing in a negative way .

@betawave I haven't heard about Shinzen Young. Maybe I'll look at it later. Currently I'm interested in people who talk about enlightenment, especially the ones who claimed himself enlightened. Maybe I could learn something special from them. This is also why I join this forum. From reading some of your contributions, I found another name, Daniel Ingram, I think I'm gonna look it later too.

I love that scene in that Simpsons Episode where dawn is breaking in Springfield and the camera zooms in on Homer passed out in his front yard. Homer then opens his eyes, breaths a sigh of relief, and says: "Ahhhh the blissful three seconds before I realize why I'm sleeping on the lawn..."

I dare say that those three seconds exists before anything else on any of our personal Top 5 lists. I don't claim to know what "it" is; I'll leave the claims to those more accomplished, but it seems to me that whatever it is, it's already front row center three full seconds before Gotama Buddha, his disciples, or the Suttas even arrive.

Practice is different from chemistry class in some ways, though. At the beginning levels of practice in pretty much any tradition one simply needs to learn how to sit at all - to remain focused on the present moment using whatever technique works. That can be watching the breath, noting, repeating a mantra, listening to a guided meditation or whatever other technique helps you sit there and focus. It takes months, typically, just to get to a point where one can sit and pay attention without daydreaming or thinking about stuff. One might compare it to needing to learn basic math and reading and writing before deciding to pursue chemistry or biology or physics. So while you are doing your research into which particular tradition you like most, you can already begin a preliminary practice of sitting for 30 minutes a day, and will be building a generic foundation for further development in whichever path resonates most with you.

Here's a link to an excerpt from a talk by a teacher who speaks authoritatively from personal experience of enlightenment:

dharmatreasure.com/question-answer/how-d...-meditation-systems/

He speaks about beginning with an intellectual, reflective understanding of emptiness and impermanence, what he calls purification of view, and moving into direct insight via practice. There is a lot of good information on his site in the form of pdfs and mp3s (check out the meditation manual.. it's based on the anapanasati sutta, I think, but obviously from this teacher's own direct experience, so it's kind of like a contemporary commentary).

Oh, and giragirasol made a useful point. There's no time like the present to start a humble sitting practice-- and I'm pretty sure it's safer than doing random chemistry experiments in your kitchen The basic capacity to be present in experience-as-it-actually-happens is helpful in all areas of life, including more "advanced" meditation techniques (if there are any).

Shinzen Young also speaks from experience (of enlightenment).

I sort of like the chemistry analogy to Buddhism. Here's why -- they both rely on evidence and replicable experimentation. Here's where it breaks down, however -- you can spend your life reading about chemistry, never actually do an experiment yourself and be reasonably assured that what others tell you is correct. In Buddhism, this is just not the case. Without any personal and real practice experience all you have is a bunch of nice stories from other people and a philosophy **that you will not have followed.**

Make sense?

Sorry for late reply. It took me some time to get an internet connection since I moved to a new apartment.

@Mark_VanWhy
I appreciate your comment, but I think your point from the Simpsons Episode is a bit out of topic because this thread's topic is about the reference of the Buddha's Teaching, not about how Siddharta realized the Buddhahood. I think we need to be critical in these kinds of thing. Besides, you don't know what "it" really is and thus for me it's just a kinda speculation. I have no further comment regarding this, unless you or anyone else have something more to say in this matter.

"Practice is different from chemistry class in some ways, though. At the beginning levels of practice in pretty much any tradition one simply needs to learn how to sit at all - to remain focused on the present moment using whatever technique works."

@giragirasol To make sure you and anyone else in this thread don't miss the point I wanted to address in this thread, I'll explain it one more time. The class analogy doesn't compare "practice only" and a class, but "study + practice" and a (chemistry, for example) class. The point from the analogy is that study is required before practice. This is what I wanted to address, and it doesn't mean practice is not important for me. You need the basis for your practice.

"I sort of like the chemistry analogy to Buddhism. Here's why -- they both rely on evidence and replicable experimentation. Here's where it breaks down, however -- you can spend your life reading about chemistry, never actually do an experiment yourself and be reasonably assured that what others tell you is correct. In Buddhism, this is just not the case. Without any personal and real practice experience all you have is a bunch of nice stories from other people and a philosophy **that you will not have followed.**

Make sense?

"

Yes, it does make sense. But again cmarti, please don't get me wrong. I never said nor suggested to spend one's life studying and never actually do an experiment him/herself. I wanted to emphasize the basis of practice. After we have the basis, we know it and understand it, then we can talk about the correctness of the practice. Isn't it good to be systematic like this eh?