Greetings Thomas_R,

I converted to Islam after having been a Buddhist for many years, and maintain ties with the Buddhist community as well as studying Buddhism academically, so insha'Allah I can be of some help here. I've noticed many things on this thread that I would personally define as misconceptions of Buddhism, although of course there are as many ideas about Buddhism as there are Buddhists, and perhaps a few more, so maybe it is true in some tradition.

I can speak for my experiences in Tibetan Buddhism that texts are very much considered sacred. In all traditions it is taught not to place texts directly on the floor and not to step over them, nor to mistreat them in any way. In most traditions, especially Tibetan Buddhism, the language of the text is incredibly holy in and of itself and is considered a source of liberation. In Tibetan Buddhism, practice texts and even hagiographies and commentaries are considered holy and many are the product of revelations - not divine in the Christian sense, but revealed by enlightened beings in visions.

I hope this helps your understanding. Please feel free to message me if I can clarify further.

ya the other day i was out of TP so i thought perhaps is could wipe with a a buddhist scared text, so i looked and looked at my buddhist texts and i did not find one that i thought was sacred so i ended up running quickly back to the bathroom and i noticed some TP hidden by a towel so i went to grab it and realized it was the sacred text i was looking for and i went to  wipe and ralized it is sacreligious to do this, so and used it anyways..

[QUOTE=posterboy;62219]When a person attains enlightenment then their preserved utterances judiciously applied become "sutras".  "Divine" is an Abrahamic term but Buddhism  is not predicated upon theism.  Yet the Buddha Nature is the summum bonum which is potentially realizable by all beings so Buddhism could be described as an equal opportunity religion.  If by "divine" the summum bonum is meant then  I would reluctantly agree to the description in its essence but the wording is still slipshod and inappropriate to accurately describe The Buddha or His preserved teachings, since they come from another conceptual milieu.  Thank you for your insightful dissertation Vacchagotta[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your comment.  It gave me the opportunity to further consider and discuss my use of the term.  While I think we perhaps have different approaches to the perceived strictures of terminology, I am glad you agree in spirit.  I would say that since we are speaking of a latin-derived and not a hebrew term, we place ourselve through the term "divine" into a 'conceptual milieu' that has a philosophic history and sophistication through many influences including the greeks which makes it significantly expanded and developed, though no doubt linked to it through Christianity, from the strictly "abrahamic".   Though perhaps it goes too far, I would dare say strictures on our definition of Theism itself are perhaps unfortunate and too naive, though we loosely accept them anyway.
 
to happily clarify, I use the word "divine"  intentionally as (in my opinion) the best English cognate for a common word in Pali Buddhist scripture, dibba.   I believe you will find it gratifying and auspicious that the article I linked defines one frequent usage of the word as descriptive of a "summa bona"  :D  The etymological connection is striking and I daresay fortuitous for interfaith or at least interlingual discussion, especially on a topic like this, for it shows that even the Buddhist thought grew out of and enlarged from a more simple theistic model and was free to use such terms without diminishing them but rather, I think, deepening them. 

in friendliness,
V.

Oct 18, 2007 -- 12:01PM, Thomas_R wrote:

Why this forum is named "Buddhist Sacred Texts"?.

Are they really sacred in the same way as the Quran and the Bible? I don't think so, because normally Buddhists don't revere their books in the same manner Muslims revere the Quran or Christians/Catholics regard the Bible.

By the way, is there any Buddhist text(s) that can be categorized as "Holy"? Muslims refer the Quran as the "Holy Quran" and ditto for the Bible when it comes to the Cristians. I don't know if there is any Buddhist text prefixed with "Holy".

Comments from Buddhists are very much appreciated

Regards

Thomas

I recently had the opportunity to study Buddhist texts in a "Buddhist Bible" collection for a class.  It is refreshing to find that a lot of the texts involve candid conversations between the Buddha and his disciples.  Unlike the "sacred texts" of most major world religions, Buddhist texts are not a source of official information that are corroborated by officials in the practice.  Buddha instructed his followers to test his teachings, rather than to follow them just because he stated them.  This is very different from the idea of a Bible or a Koran, which is considered the "Word of God" that should be followed, but not really questioned.