Hi Ben,
I'd have to agree with the take that Florian provides here.
Florian Weps:
A significant part of my practice during the past four years was reading the Sutta Pitaka. I read, cover-to-cover, the Majjhima, Digha, Samyutta and Anguttara Nikayas, and major bits of the Khuddhaka Nikaya (Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata, parts of Thera/Therigatha, Udana, Itivuttaka) - anything I could get in translation. These old texts have been an integral part of my practice.
I also skimmed bits of the Vinaya (the Mahavagga) - mainly for the stories of Sariputta and Moggalana and other great figures of the early sangha. . . .
Although I haven't been able to find a good, thorough translation of the Anguttara Nikaya yet. I used what was available at the time, which was Nyanaponika Thera's "Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya," which amounts to only about 10% of the extant suttas available in that volume. Have been waiting for Bhikkhu Bodhi's Wisdom Publications edition to finally make it to print. Last I heard, he is working on writing the section introductions and footnotes which means that the translation itself is done, thank goodness.
My approach to reading the suttas has been to tie it to the
human being (and not the larger-than-life mythical figure) who was Siddhattha Gotama, and to use my own life's experience (not speculating on any supernormal or metaphysical data, but using down-to-earth physical data that is available to anyone who is observant of their own life's experiences) in an endeavor to figure out exactly who this person was and what it was that he taught. With regard to learning a little more about "who this person was" I am indebted to Hans Wolfgang Schumann's book
The Historical Buddha, The Times, Life and Teachings of the Founder of Buddhism, which filled in much biographical detail that is not found by reading the discourses themselves.
For instance, in this book we learn about the geographic, social, and political environment into which Siddhattha was born and lived. These are all important details to know about if one is to construct some kind of realistic picture of this person in order to learn about the context of events and ideas that shaped and influenced him, that played a role in creating the personality that we see portrayed in the discourses themselves. Of course, much of the personality that we see in the translated discourses is a caricature of sorts, created out of a tradition's veneration for this mythic figure "the Buddha." I wanted to go beyond the myth that has been created around this personality and to see more clearly into the mind and motivations of the actual historical man himself, in all his humanness. There is much to be gained by using this process, as it provides one with some cutting insight that might otherwise be glossed over and lost. Also, it gives one a more accurate and true picture of the man who taught these incredibly intelligent and life-changing concepts.
That Siddhattha was a thinker is unquestioned. And as Schumann writes: "That he, like the majority of his contemporaries, believed in the existence of gods (
who, too, were mortal and subject to the law of rebirth), is undoubted. But that he really saw Brahma so vividly with his own eyes, as the texts declare,
is probably the interpretation of later monks." Passages like this add some much needed realism and balance to some of the stories told about this man.
According to one story, that even a god such as Brahma Sahampati would implore Gotama to teach his Dhamma despite those who might not understand it, tells us something about the gods themselves. That despite their being gods, they too might benefit from hearing and understanding this teaching that Gotama had learned. He argued that: "The world will perish if the Fully Enlightened One does not decide to teach his doctrine. May the Exalted One therefore teach it! There are some beings with little dust in their eyes. If they do not hear the Dhamma they will be lost. But if they hear the Dhamma they will attain [to liberation]." Once Gotama acquiesces to Brahma's entreaty, Schumann writes: "Satisfied, Brahma bowed to the Buddha, circled around him to the right according to Indian etiquette, and vanished.
The gods, too, know how to behave towards an enlightened one."
Of course, there is also the struggle to figure out the meaning of nuanced passages within the suttas, wherein it becomes advantageous to have the person himself there in front of you to be able to clarify and explain these questions that come up. Thankfully, due mainly to the fine translation and explication abilities of translators like Maurice Walshe, Bhikkhu Nanamoli, Nyanaponika Thera, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu, many of these questions can be answered by reading the footnoted passages and introductions (where appropriate) to the sutta in question.
I also agree with the comments Florian has made here:
Florian Weps:
A few words on how I found reading these ancient texts to be a practice in their own right: they provided a sense of inspiration to me, similar to reading about the adventures of the strong practitioners here on DhO; they are a good safeguard against forming rigid opinions about Buddhist doctrine: because while there are the central, well standardized themes of the four noble truths and so on, there are also many, many divergent suttas about, for example, dependent arising, and these are far from standardized; furthermore, the suttas convey a sense that the Buddha would teach stuff tailor-made for a particular situation and audience, instead of quoting from a rigid body of dogma. Finally, there often were moments of recognition - "hey, that's how I experienced it, too!" - and little promises or suggestions for things to watch out for: "yeah, I get this and this, but what's that all about?" And so on.
As to relevance: it varied over the years. I was really into the technical meditation suttas of the Majjhima Nikaya for a long time; . . . Finally, as I read the Sutta Nipata, there was so much good stuff in there. . .
There's a kind of intimacy to be found in the discourses that is not found in any other Buddhist literature. We learn about the situational context of important passages in the discourses that is not present in books written as interpretations of the teachings. Plus there's the added value of hearing the teachings directly, as it were, from the horse's mouth. There's no way to equivocate or wriggle out of something that was taught. The reader is forced to accept what is taught within the context of the actual discourse, and to figure out for himself how that lesson and context relates to his own experience.
I found that reading and studying the discourses first hand helped in clearing up misunderstandings in context and intention being asserted by other writers on Buddhism, ideas which amounted to "wrong view" being put into the mouth of the Buddha. There is so much insight to be plumbed from the discourses that one could virtually create a life's career writing explication of the suttas (as indeed some people have).
Yet what gets me is the audacity of some contemporary thinkers and pundits to presume that they can improve on what is already perfection, or that they have figured out something that the Buddha somehow missed. When in actuality it is they who have not fully comprehended what was taught.