So no Three Jewels, just One Jewel?David N. Snyder wrote:The Buddha did specify his successor. It is the Dhamma.alexbunardzic wrote: The Buddha never appointed his successor, so naturally there is no source specifying who his successor was. Lack of source does not automatically imply that he did appoint his successor.
“Remain with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge.”
Samyutta Nikaya 47.13 and also at Digha Nikaya 26.
Mahayana split
Re: Mahayana split
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17223
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Mahayana split
Three Jewels, one successor.sublime wrote: So no Three Jewels, just One Jewel?
The Buddha had the Dhamma for Refuge.
“Let me then honor and respect and dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I have fully awakened.” Anguttara Nikaya 4.21
We have Three Jewels, but there is only one successor to the Buddha: the Dhamma.
(until Metteyya comes after the Dhamma has died out)
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27854
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Mahayana split
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Mahayana split
Something to chew on:
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Mahayana split
There's an odd parallelism there to Sikh beliefs, "founded during the 16th century in the Punjab region, on the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and ten successive Sikh Gurus (the last teaching being the holy scripture Guru Granth Sahib Ji)." (More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism)David N. Snyder wrote: Three Jewels, one successor.
The Buddha had the Dhamma for Refuge.
“Let me then honor and respect and dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I have fully awakened.” Anguttara Nikaya 4.21
We have Three Jewels, but there is only one successor to the Buddha: the Dhamma.
(until Metteyya comes after the Dhamma has died out)
Okay ...
Kim
Re: Mahayana split
It's also possible the idea of previous Buddhas/upcoming Buddhas was borrowed from Jain belief, and is not native to the Dhamma. In any event, it seems a focus on cosmology and past/future is one of the trademarks of early Mahayana. Richard Gombrich remarks that it may be an early misinterpretation of the Tevijja Sutta which contributed to the Mahayana sense that metta/karuna was becoming second-best to vipassana.David N. Snyder wrote:(until Metteyya comes after the Dhamma has died out)
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Mahayana split
Agreed.daverupa wrote:It's also possible the idea of previous Buddhas/upcoming Buddhas was borrowed from Jain belief, and is not native to the Dhamma. In any event, it seems a focus on cosmology and past/future is one of the trademarks of early Mahayana. Richard Gombrich remarks that it may be an early misinterpretation of the Tevijja Sutta which contributed to the Mahayana sense that metta/karuna was becoming second-best to vipassana.David N. Snyder wrote:(until Metteyya comes after the Dhamma has died out)
And we should not forget the context.
The Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta tells that people had a life-span of eighty thousand years, decreasing to a life-span of ten years. After that the life-span increases again to eighty thousand years, and then Metteyya will come.
So if we believe in these life-spans, we may start believing in Metteyya.
If, on the other hand, we prefer to regard the life-spans as parts of a parable or a fable, then we had better regard Metteyya the same way.
Mettāya,
Kåre
Kåre
Re: Mahayana split
While the storyline here is mythical, I'd suggest that the idea of someone in the distant future (or distant past) somewhere in the universe (re-)discovering the 4NT and noble path is within the realm of possibility.Kare wrote:we had better regard Metteyya the same way.
Also FTR, all of this stuff was standard mainstream Indian Buddhism and predates any "Mahāyāna." (I'm sure you're aware of this Kare, I only add it for general context.)
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Mahayana split
The point is that this discourse is a fable about the need for a king to rule in a righteous way. It has, however, been taken literally.Ñāṇa wrote:While the storyline here is mythical, I'd suggest that the idea of someone in the distant future (or distant past) somewhere in the universe (re-)discovering the 4NT and noble path is within the realm of possibility.Kare wrote:we had better regard Metteyya the same way.
Also FTR, all of this stuff was standard mainstream Indian Buddhism and predates any "Mahāyāna." (I'm sure you're aware of this Kare, I only add it for general context.)
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Mahayana split
Well, I have an opinion with no real supporting proof of why the Mahayana split: The doctrinal split was a justification of what had already taken place practically in earlier times. Here is my perspective.
We know that the Buddha and community was not only a spiritual movement--it was a social movement as well. The Sanga accepted people from all walks of life within the Indian social strata--Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. While it is unclear, I suspect that there was an aspect of the emerging Buddhist movement--even during the Buddha's time--centering around the outreach to and upliftment of the disadvantaged and suffering within Indian society. Also, a number of the Buddha's disciples were from the warrior/administrative class (Ksyatriyas). This mindset emphasizes working for the welfare of the kingdom. There was a socially conscious aspect to the movement. My opinion is that these inclinations of members of the Sanga and laity resulted in a split of emphasis between those who were socially directed and those who were contemplatively directed.
There is such a split within both the Hindu and Christian traditions. Within the Hindu system, spiritual paths are split between Karma, Bhakti, Jhana, and Raja. I don't know the origin of this division but it acknowledges that some people prefer the path of action (helping others), some devotion, some wisdom and some integrated. Within the Christian tradition, there is a famous story of Mary and Martha. (You can look up the story if you are interested.) Mary represents the life of the contemplative/devotional approach and Martha represents the active/service (helping others) approach.
What this is pointing to is that every faith seems to have both a path of service and a path of contemplation. Not to say that they are mutually exclusive. Still, it seems to me that the Mahayana vow to help/save all sentient beings is a doctrinal elaboration of what was likely an inherent service-oriented inclination of a segment of the Sanga.
Again, this is just a theory...
We know that the Buddha and community was not only a spiritual movement--it was a social movement as well. The Sanga accepted people from all walks of life within the Indian social strata--Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. While it is unclear, I suspect that there was an aspect of the emerging Buddhist movement--even during the Buddha's time--centering around the outreach to and upliftment of the disadvantaged and suffering within Indian society. Also, a number of the Buddha's disciples were from the warrior/administrative class (Ksyatriyas). This mindset emphasizes working for the welfare of the kingdom. There was a socially conscious aspect to the movement. My opinion is that these inclinations of members of the Sanga and laity resulted in a split of emphasis between those who were socially directed and those who were contemplatively directed.
There is such a split within both the Hindu and Christian traditions. Within the Hindu system, spiritual paths are split between Karma, Bhakti, Jhana, and Raja. I don't know the origin of this division but it acknowledges that some people prefer the path of action (helping others), some devotion, some wisdom and some integrated. Within the Christian tradition, there is a famous story of Mary and Martha. (You can look up the story if you are interested.) Mary represents the life of the contemplative/devotional approach and Martha represents the active/service (helping others) approach.
What this is pointing to is that every faith seems to have both a path of service and a path of contemplation. Not to say that they are mutually exclusive. Still, it seems to me that the Mahayana vow to help/save all sentient beings is a doctrinal elaboration of what was likely an inherent service-oriented inclination of a segment of the Sanga.
Again, this is just a theory...
Re: Mahayana split
The OP of this thread is based on a false premise. The Mahāyāna isn't an ordination lineage and has never "split" from any ordination lineage. There are three existing ordination lineages: Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda. All three are descended from the ancient Sthaviravāda. And of the three, the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Dharmaguptaka lineages are comprised of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen who are also mahāyānikas.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Mahayana split
I do believe that it is only the Dharmaguptas that have an existing ordination lineage of nuns.Ñāṇa wrote:The OP of this thread is based on a false premise. The Mahāyāna isn't an ordination lineage and has never "split" from any ordination lineage. There are three existing ordination lineages: Mūlasarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Theravāda. All three are descended from the ancient Sthaviravāda. And of the three, the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Dharmaguptaka lineages are comprised of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen who are also mahāyānikas.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Mahayana split
Yes. The bhikṣuṇīs who I know within the Tibetan tradition have all ordained in the Dharmagupta lineage. I'm not up to date on the vinaya technicalities of the modern Theravāda bhikkhunis.tiltbillings wrote:I do believe that it is only the Dharmaguptas that have an existing ordination lineage of nuns.
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Mahayana split
Interesting theory, but it assumes that the brahmanic dharmasrama system was the norm for the entirety of (Buddhist) India at that time. While this was often thought to be the case, more recent scholarship shows quite clearly and convincingly that it was not. Rather, the eastern and southern areas were quite a different culture and religious climate. And it is usually in these areas that the Mahayana is considered to have first formed. So, making distinctions on brahmanic social ideals does not seem to be very convincing.anjali wrote:Well, I have an opinion with no real supporting proof of why the Mahayana split: The doctrinal split was a justification of what had already taken place practically in earlier times. Here is my perspective.
We know that the Buddha and community was not only a spiritual movement--it was a social movement as well. The Sanga accepted people from all walks of life within the Indian social strata--Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Sudra. While it is unclear, I suspect that there was an aspect of the emerging Buddhist movement--even during the Buddha's time--centering around the outreach to and upliftment of the disadvantaged and suffering within Indian society. Also, a number of the Buddha's disciples were from the warrior/administrative class (Ksyatriyas). This mindset emphasizes working for the welfare of the kingdom. There was a socially conscious aspect to the movement. My opinion is that these inclinations of members of the Sanga and laity resulted in a split of emphasis between those who were socially directed and those who were contemplatively directed.
There is such a split within both the Hindu and Christian traditions. Within the Hindu system, spiritual paths are split between Karma, Bhakti, Jhana, and Raja. I don't know the origin of this division but it acknowledges that some people prefer the path of action (helping others), some devotion, some wisdom and some integrated. Within the Christian tradition, there is a famous story of Mary and Martha. (You can look up the story if you are interested.) Mary represents the life of the contemplative/devotional approach and Martha represents the active/service (helping others) approach.
What this is pointing to is that every faith seems to have both a path of service and a path of contemplation. Not to say that they are mutually exclusive. Still, it seems to me that the Mahayana vow to help/save all sentient beings is a doctrinal elaboration of what was likely an inherent service-oriented inclination of a segment of the Sanga.
Again, this is just a theory...
Moreover, while the later Mahayana put a fair emphasis on social work, it appears that the ideal of the early Mahayana was largely on emulating the forest meditation of (Sakyamuni) Bodhisattva; quite an ascetic lifestyle, far from any sort of social work or service. So again, that doesn't seem to explain it very well.
However, the point that people are of different tendencies is quite adpt, and has often been considered in this question.
~~ Huifeng
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: Mahayana split
Just to add: From what we actually know of the Indian Mahāyāna based on the archaeological and epigraphical evidence of donative inscriptions discovered at ancient Indian cave temples and so on, the Mahāyāna was largely connected to the lineages of Indian monastic Buddhism. Gregory Schopen states in Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks, p. 32:Paññāsikhara wrote:it appears that the ideal of the early Mahayana was largely on emulating the forest meditation of (Sakyamuni) Bodhisattva; quite an ascetic lifestyle, far from any sort of social work or service.
- [T]he Mahāyāna figures [pertaining to the quantitative numbers of donative inscriptions] are particularly significant. We know on the basis of these figures that, from its first appearance in inscriptions, the Mahāyāna was a monk-dominated movement, and that it continued to be so until the thirteenth century, the date of our last known Mahāyāna inscription.