First, scriptures are memorized. Sometimes they are
memorized for no other reason than that memorizing
the Buddha’s word is considered a virtuous activity
that brings much merit. In Thailand, for example,
those (albeit few) monks who have managed to mem-
orize the entire Pali canon have an exalted status in the
society, even being recognized with an official title by
the government. Sometimes scriptures are committed
to memory so as to be used liturgically, as is the case
with the HEARTSUTRAin the East Asian Tibetan tra-
ditions. In each of these cases it is possible that the per-
son who is memorizing the text will not understand
the meaning of the scripture, and this tells us that scrip-
tures cannot be reduced to their content or meaning,
since they are put to many uses that have nothing to
do with their meaning. For example, scriptures are of-
ten displayed on altars, where they serve as a repre-
sentation of the second of the three jewels, the jewel of
the dharma, and where, in that capacity, they serve as
an object of worship and devotion. In large monaster-
ies in Tibet, for example, it is common for ambulato-
ries to exist below shelved scriptures, permitting the
devout to receive the merit and blessing of the dharma
by walking underneath (in a squatting position that in-
dicates subservience to and respect for) the physical
texts located above them. In addition, in some Bud-
dhist traditions scriptures are often taken in proces-
sion into the fields before sowing or harvesting as a
way of blessing the earth and assuring a good crop.
Sometimes portions of scripture will be tattooed onto
the body, sometimes they are worn in the form of
AMULETS AND TALISMANS, and sometimes they are
burnt and ingested, all of this as a way of protecting
the bearer or consumer of the text from evil or harm.
All of these might be called “magical” or “popular” uses
of scripture, wherein the physicality of the text (its
sound and its material quality) are the principal focus
of the various practices. It would be mistaken to con-
sider these practices to belong exclusively to the LAITY,
since MONKSand NUNSalso engage in them.
In addition to these popular practices, however,
there are also what might be called the more elite uses
of scripture. Here it is the content or meaning of the
text that is the focus, and this is the object of concern
of religious virtuosi, usually, though increasingly not
exclusively, male monastics. In India the process of ap-
propriating scriptural material in this fashion was sys-
tematized in the doctrine of the “three ways of gaining
knowledge”: through hearing, thinking, and MEDITA-
TION. First, the scripture is heard. Since the earliest
form of scripture was oral, the only access that monks
had to scripture was through hearing it spoken or re-
cited. This spoken text was then usually memorized,
and thus internalized linguistically. Once this had been
accomplished, the monk was expected to begin the
process of critically scrutinizing the meaning of the
words. This would involve questioning the text, al-
lowing doubts to emerge, and resolving those doubts
through reasoning. Finally, once a stable form of cer-
tainty had been reached by pondering the meaning of
the text, it was expected that that meaning would be-
come the focus of one’s meditation, so that the doctri-
nal content of the scripture would be internalized in
such a way that it had a permanent transformative im-
pact on the person of the practitioner. This process that
begins with language and proceeds through critical re-
flective practices culminating in transformative expe-
rience is paradigmatic of the Buddhist scholastic
approach to the study of scripture. It became the quin-
tessential mode of elite appropriation of scriptural texts
in much of later Indian, Tibetan, and East Asian Bud-
dhism, and it is in large part what gave rise to the vast
commentarial tradition, that is, to scriptural exegesis.Although most Buddhist scholastics tended to fol-
low the pattern of scriptural study just mentioned, it
must be pointed out that there were also differences.
For example, Indian and especially Tibetan Buddhist
institutions tended to develop broad curricula that en-
couraged the study of many different scriptural texts
(or their at times quasi-canonical commentaries). By
contrast, in East Asia one finds that, rather than seek-
ing diversified scriptural curricula, specific schools
tended to focus on a particular scriptural text or on
a small group of texts. Hence we find a focus on the
LOTUSSUTRA(SADDHARMAPUNDARIKA-SUTRA) on the
part of the TIANTAI SCHOOLof East Asia. In a similar
fashion, the Chinese HUAYAN SCHOOLdeveloped an
elaborate system of metaphysics and hermeneutics
around the HUAYAN JING(Avatamsaka-sutra, Flower
Garland Sutra). PURE LAND SCHOOLSlikewise had
their own canon-within-the-canon in the form of the
SUKHAVATIVYUHA-SUTRA.It would be mistaken to think that all Buddhist
schools are univocally in favor of scriptural study, how-
ever. For example, those forms of Japanese Buddhism
that derive from NICHIREN (1222–1282) tended to
downplay the study of the content of the Lotus Sutra,
believing, rather, that the appropriate practice in the
present “degenerate age” should be the recitation of
the DAIMOKUtitle of the sutra (Myoho-renge-kyo in
Japanese). An even more ambivalent attitude towardSCRIPTURE