- This topic has 17 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why is the Tipitaka so long and vast?
I did some research online and discovered that the Tipitaka is the largest sacred book of any of the major religions and has approximately about 20,000 pages. If we assume that one page has ~500 words, the Pali Canon contains 10 million words. For comparison, the Christian Bible has about 1300 pages which equals about 650,000 words.
Let’s say a lay reader wants to read the Tipitaka in its entirety and they can realistically commit 2 hours per day. Assuming they can read ~200 words per minute, they can read 24,000 words per day. If they read every day, it will take about 416 days to go through the entire Canon. Now we need to consider the fact that a lot of information are in condensed form (with many combined words). So it is generally stated that one needs to read the content about 3 times to understand it (even though for Abhidhamma Pitaka, it may be higher). With that being said, the reader needs to spend about 1250 days which is about 3.4 years!
If we make the same calculation for the Bible, it will take the reader about 28 days. Considering that it contains many stories repeated in different ways, they likely wouldn’t need to read the content 3 times. Despite it, if they were to read it 3 times, it will take them 84 days which is a little less than 3 months. Thus, the reader needs to spend about 15 times longer to read the Tipitaka compared to the Bible.
I want to read the Tipitaka in Pali language and be able to go through at least the majority of the content. But the sheer size of it feels a little overwhelming. Are there any suggestions as to how one could approach this (like where to start and what to avoid, etc.)? It seems like it will be quite a journey as it not only contains the scientific explanations of nature and the mind but also many historically significant events like Buddha’s interactions with people from various social status and intelligence levels, for example.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Good observations.
Main points to consider:
1. There is no need to read the whole Tipitaka. The three main main sections (Pitaka) serve different purposes.
- It is the Sutta Pitaka that needs laypeople’s attention the most.
- The Vinaya Pitaka is mainly for the bhikkhus. However, the background of the reason the Buddha established a given Vinaya rule can be informative. For example, the rule not to translate the Tipitaka into Sanskrit was based on a request by two Brahmins who were knowledgeable in the Vedas. See #13 of “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.” Furthermore, there are two books on Thergatha and Therigatha (verses by male and female Arahants) how they cultivated their paths and the concepts they struggled with, etc.
- The Abhidhamma Pitaka is for those who like to be thorough and want to “dig deeper.” Even then, it is not necessary (or even possible) to read all of it.
2. Tipitaka cannot be read like reading a set of novels or even textbooks on various mundane subjects. One must (at least until the Sotapanna stage) rely on a Noble Person (Ariya) to explain the basic concepts.
- First of all, most suttas are highly condensed. Even someone with a knowledge of Pali will not be able to grasp the concepts/ideas embedded in the suttas.
- It gets much worse if one tries to read the “word-by-word” English translations, as I have explained in many posts: “Elephant in the Room 1 – Direct Translation of the Tipiṭaka“
3. For example, I read comparatively little of the Pali Tipitaka in the first few years of this website’s existence. I mainly listened to the discourses by Waharaka Thero and a few others on the internet.
- Shortly after Waharaka Thero‘s passing, I started allocating significant time to reading relevant suttas in the Pali Tipitaka.
- Both the English and Sinhala translations of the Tipitaka were useless for me.
- Of course, before coming into contact with Waharaka Thero‘s desanas, I had read both English and Sinhala translations (in my school days in the early years) and had many issues to resolve. The incorrect translations caused many inconsistencies.
- While in Sri Lanka, I learned Buddhism as a subject until high school, and I studied Abhidhamma and Pali on my own. Luckily, it is easier for those good in the Sinhala language to learn Pali; there are many common words (for example, all the terms in Paticca Samuppada are the same in Pali and Sinhala.) But all that stopped after high school until I retired in 2009. Only after retiring did I start looking into Buddha Dhamma again and was fortunate to come across Waharaka Thero‘s discourses on the internet. Of course, I had been in the USA for most of that time.
I hope that will help clarify some questions. Please feel free to ask questions.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you for the elaborate response, Dr. Lal. I am fluent in Nepali and Hindi which have their roots in Sanskrit. Pali is obviously more different from these languages than Sinhala but I have seen many similarities too which makes me think it should not be too difficult for me to learn it.
What’s the best way of reading the suttas though? Should it be chanted, almost like you’re singing it, or read like a normal book?
Also, if someone is well versed in Pali and they use the help of the commentaries present in the Tipitaka, would they not be able to understand the deep meanings embedded in the suttas?
-
In the first post in “Elephant in the Room 1 – Direct Translation of the Tipiṭaka,“ I have explained this issue by giving an example.
- I see that I forgot to add that post to that section. I just now added it.
- Here is that post: “Distortion of Pāli Keywords in Paṭicca Samuppāda.”
- Please read that post and ask questions on unclear bullet numbers.
No. Chanting suttas is not the way to learn. After learning the meanings embedded in those verses, one could chant them with understanding.
No, the Commentaries will not help either. First, one needs to sort out which Commentaries are reliable. For example, Visuddhimagga is not. I mentioned the reliable Commentaries included in the Tipitaka in those posts. However, even those cannot be understood without some basics.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I just went through that post. Calling it legendary would be an understatement. Thank you, Dr. Lal!
P.S. I also went through the new default page on the website about Abhidhamma Piṭaka and I can see that you provided another evidence from Vinaya Piṭaka where it is explicitly stated that Buddha himself taught Abhidhamma. I’m sure Bhikkhu Bodhi would be appreciative of your work. Thanks for that!
-
Yes. Even though Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote that book on Abhidhamma (a translation, as I pointed out), he may not fully believe that Abhidhamma is the “word of the Buddha.”
- It would be good if he gets to read that post and learn about that Tipitaka reference in the Vinaya Pitaka.
- Again, thanks to TripleGemStudent for emailing me that reference.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Size of Buddha’s Tipitaka is 20,000 pages. (It can be stretched to nearly 3 times the original size like I mentioned above)
I want to include more religious texts to make a quick comparison:
- Bible: 1281 pages
- Quran: 604 pages
- Bhagavad Gita: 1106 pages
- The Vedas: 1988 pages
Now we need to consider the fact that most religious texts are full of mythical stories that don’t have much significance in the scientific and historical context. In contrast, Buddha’s teachings are direct explanations of nature that are not only inter-consistent, but can be shown to be fully consistent with the observed facts of nature.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate the fact that Buddha dhamma is light years ahead of other religions?
In religious discussions, I regularly hear people say that Buddha was like any other religious teacher. They compare him to Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, etc. acting like he belongs in the same category or in most cases, they act like he is inferior because “he was just a human”. I can’t help but cringe and feel sorry for those people who are completely oblivious of Buddha’s unique message.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Many religious people say that “what the Buddha said makes sense, but he still is a human.”
I mean what type of critical thinking is that? To be very honest I never knew that people can be this dumb ( no offence by the way, I only feel pity for these people)
When I first encountered this Dhamma, I wanted to spread it to everyone.
I thought that this is so easy to understand. But I had to endure some really lethal bullets of ignorance and ego.
I sent some dhamma videos to my friend, she didn’t even open the link and said that “I am too busy right now, but I will definitely watch this later”. That day has never come.
So even though it’s possible that people may understand the Dhamma, they aren’t able to come across it!
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you for sharing your experience, Yash. I find it utterly relatable as I too was enthusiastic about sharing the Dhamma with other people. Sadly, I have been unsuccessful in convincing even one person.
Few of my dear friends said they will look into it but later when I ask them basic questions like “What is kamma vipaka?”, I get silence. One of them even said this world is too mysterious which is why they don’t want to cling to any views. I tried to make him understand that it is not about clinging to any view but working on discovering the truth for yourself. It didn’t work.
I agree with your comment: “So even though it’s possible that people may understand the Dhamma, they aren’t able to come across it!” In my view, it seems like many people’s unwillingness to consider a worldview different from their preconceived beliefs is the biggest barrier for them. When I tell people I study Buddha’s teachings, many instantly start assuming things about me and Dhamma that are totally false. I don’t bring up Buddha Dhamma that often in casual conversations anymore, unless I’m convinced they are receptive and open to deep inquiry.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
To be fair the pali canon has a lot of repetition.
Regards.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
1. Yes. Repetition is there, but it seems to serve different purposes. Sometimes, similar suttas can be found in different Nikayas, for example, in Samyutta Nikaya and Anguttara Nikaya. Before the Tipitaka was written down, it was transmitted orally over roughly 500 years. Groups of bhikkhus memorized different Nikayas. When a Buddhist Council (Sangayana) was held, they all recited the whole Tipitaka to ensure the overlapping parts were consistent. From another angle, repetition makes it easier to memorize, and repeated recitals with understanding make it easier to absorb the concepts.
2. It is true that Buddha Dhamma is not a religion in the traditional sense. It is a worldview that shows the world’s working in great detail, showing how suffering arises and how one can be free of that suffering. The Buddha described that worldview in great detail in Abhidhamma. It is the Grand Unified Theory that Einstein pursued until his death, and scientists today are still pursuing it. But they will never get there by focusing on material phenomena. The fundamental unit of matter is not an atom or a quark but a suddhatthaka (a billion times smaller than an atom) created by the mind! See “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.” While scientists will still make more progress (in mundane ways, coming up with new gadgets, etc.), they will never be able to discover anything about the mind.
- I hope to live long enough to explain the Abhidhamma theory in English. Hopefully, that will pique the interest of more scientists and philosophers and eventually show the world how precious Buddha Dhamma is. I feel bad for all those bright minds wasting their time pursuing material phenomena. Human birth is rare. To be born human within a Buddha Sasana is even more rare. Most people do not know they are wasting an opportunity they may never again get for billions (may be trillions) of years.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
In Anidassana Viññāṇa – What It Really Means
The question is not whether there is a “self” or not. Is it wise to think that it is worthwhile to have the perception of a “self” and do things only for the pleasure of the “self”?
So, having the perception of self means clinging to the 5 aggregates or thinking that it is worthwhile to take them as one’s own. “Own” or “mine” refers to something that can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (icca). Of course there is nothing in this world that can be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run. So losing the perception of self simply means no longer thinking the aggregates are worth taking as one’s own i.e. anicca and anatta. This explains why an arahant doesn’t become a zombie after losing the perception of self. They experience the 5 aggregates but know that they are anicca, anatta and dukkha which is why an arahant’s mind doesn’t attach to anything in this world.
Does this summarize it well?
-
Yes. It does.
- The usage of the word “self” must be understood.
The quoted sentence is in #13 of that post and is as follows:
“The question is not whether there is a “self” or not. Is it wise to think that it is worthwhile to have the perception of a “self” and do things only for the pleasure of the “self”? If born a dog, would it be the same self? But if one does lowly deeds that a dog does (say defecating in public, having sex with children, etc.), one could be born a dog. The wrong perception of a “self” can lead to immoral actions and suffering in future lives. “
- I made that comment referring to an “unchanging self” (like a soul) in that sentence.
- If there is an “unchanging self” (like a soul), one cannot attain Nibbana, i.e., stop the rebirth process.
- Instead, a given “lifestream” gets a rebirth based on the type of (abhi)sankhara cultivated with avijja. When avijja is removed from a mind (with the comprehension of the Buddha’s worldview or the Four Noble Truths), that Paticca Samuppada process stops, i.e., no more “upadana paccaya bhava” and “bhava paccaya jati.”
P.S. I revised the above-quoted paragraph as follows to make it more clear:
“The question is not whether there is a “self” or not. Is it wise to think that it is worthwhile to have the perception of a “self” and do things only for the pleasure of the “self”? If born a dog, would that dog have the same “self”? But if one does lowly deeds that a dog does (say defecating in public, having sex with children, etc.), one could be born a dog. The wrong perception of an “unchanging self” can lead to immoral actions and suffering in future lives.”
-
-
No, the Commentaries will not help either. First, one needs to sort out which Commentaries are reliable. For example, Visuddhimagga is not. I mentioned the reliable Commentaries included in the Tipitaka in those posts. However, even those cannot be understood without some basics.
Why didn’t they make it easier to understand though? For example, things are really simplified with elaborate meanings and translations in this website. Shouldn’t the commentaries in Tipitaka serve a similar purpose?
-
Taryal asked: “Why didn’t they make it easier to understand though?”
- To explain things in one’s own words, one must understand the underlying concepts well.
- Instead, most current translators resort to translating Pali words to English (probably using dictionaries written by “scholars” who did not understand Buddha Dhamma.)
The Commentaries in the Tipitaka are helpful if one has such a good understanding.
- There are English translations of the Tipitaka Commentaries. However, they are still not useful because the translator does not know the true meaning of a Pali word, per the context.
- For example, in some instances, “phassa” does not mean simple “contact” but “samphassa,” which means “defiled contact.” Yet, the translator does not know that. See, for example, “6. Analysis of Dependent Origination,” an English translation of the Commentary on Paticca Samuppada in Vibhanga Pakarana, a Tipitaka Commentary.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.