I revere the suttas.alan wrote:Not necessary to revere the suttas. But it is imperative to read them.
And if you haven't read them, you're not in a position to interpret them, are you?
You really like to musterbate (Dr. Albert Ellis' term for the cognitively disorting use of should statements) about the suttas, don't you?
And you seem to be stuck in some kind of All-Or-Nothing-Thinking (Dr. David D. Burns' term for cognitively distorting absolutism) about them, don't you?
So, to be clear, you're saying that as a Buddhist, before I can do any interpreting, I have to read every single sutta? When do I know we've read all of them? It seems wise to me to have at least some hermeneutic judgment about this before I read them. Why not wait for the scholars to pinpoint tamperings so I don't have to read those parts? Why not wait until the comparisons with the Agamas are fleshed out more and eliminated Theravadin impositions? Or why not just read the Abhidhamma or some other totality system? And should we read the Vinaya, too? And what about illiterate Buddhists? As Kant pointed out, ought implies can. Is it imperative for them to read them, or can they get away with listening to someone else read them?
Furthermore, reading implies interpretation. So, I infer you mean by "read them", rote memorize all of them, and then and only then start interpreting? Who does that?