Mahayana split

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Mahayana split

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For those who do not have a Tricycle account:

Whose Buddhism is Truest – Linda Heuman
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For those who do not have a Tricycle account:

Whose Buddhism is Truest – Linda Heuman
Sadly; however, this is not a very good article. Its author is rather selective of the most recent scholarship and in turn the article becomes something of an apologetic for the authenticity of the Mahayana.

The article is probably worth looking at in some detail.
>> 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
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Sherab »

tiltbillings wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:
Sherab wrote:Something to chew on:

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/whose-b ... t?page=0,0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For those who do not have a Tricycle account:

Whose Buddhism is Truest – Linda Heuman
Sadly; however, this is not a very good article. Its author is rather selective of the most recent scholarship and in turn the article becomes something of an apologetic for the authenticity of the Mahayana.

The article is probably worth looking at in some detail.
Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

Sherab wrote:Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
A good part of the article is the question of the origin of the Mahayana. For that I'd point you to Paul Wiilliams book, BUDDHIST THOUGHT, chapter three.

You think this a balanced article?
>> 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
alexbunardzic
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:46 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Post by alexbunardzic »

tiltbillings wrote:
alexbunardzic wrote:Ah, gotcha! My source is some Gypsy woman (at least she looked like she could be Gypsy, but my sources on that are shaky, so let's just leave it at that for now). I ran into her many moons ago at a country fair and she ended up reading my palm (for a nominal fee, of course).
It was a serious question I asked, and your response and your 2 part claim seems to reflect a serious lack of understanding of early Buddhist history. So, it is seriousness all around.
Lighten up:)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

alexbunardzic wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
alexbunardzic wrote:Ah, gotcha! My source is some Gypsy woman (at least she looked like she could be Gypsy, but my sources on that are shaky, so let's just leave it at that for now). I ran into her many moons ago at a country fair and she ended up reading my palm (for a nominal fee, of course).
It was a serious question I asked, and your response and your 2 part claim seems to reflect a serious lack of understanding of early Buddhist history. So, it is seriousness all around.
Lighten up:)
In other words, you are just blowing hot air.
>> 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
alexbunardzic
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:46 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Post by alexbunardzic »

tiltbillings wrote:In other words, you are just blowing hot air.
No, not in other words, in the self same words.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

alexbunardzic wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:In other words, you are just blowing hot air.
No, not in other words, in the self same words.
You are unwilling tp discuss anything in your "book" when politely asked. You are blowing hot air.
>> 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
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Sherab »

tiltbillings wrote:
Sherab wrote:Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
A good part of the article is the question of the origin of the Mahayana. For that I'd point you to Paul Wiilliams book, BUDDHIST THOUGHT, chapter three.

You think this a balanced article?
Huh? A book published in 2000 and reprinted in 2002 and 2003 is recent? Perhaps you are referring to a 2011 revision of the book?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

Sherab wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Sherab wrote:Could you provide one or two recent articles that are more balanced in its presentation? I'm interested to see what they have to say.
A good part of the article is the question of the origin of the Mahayana. For that I'd point you to Paul Wiilliams book, BUDDHIST THOUGHT, chapter three.

You think this a balanced article?
Huh? A book published in 2000 and reprinted in 2002 and 2003 is recent?
Actually, in terms of historical studies, yes.

But you did not answer the question:You think this a balanced article?
>> 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
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Sherab »

tiltbillings wrote:Actually, in terms of historical studies, yes.

But you did not answer the question:You think this a balanced article?
Perhaps you did not notice that the article I linked was a 2011 article which would appear to have information not available in a book that is published in 2000.
As for the contents of the article, I am taking it as it is until someone else who thinks it is unbalanced refutes it with some other pieces of evidence/data/information.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Kim OHara »

Sherab wrote:... the article I linked was a 2011 article which would appear to have information not available in a book that is published in 2000.
Absolutely.
Sherab wrote:As for the contents of the article, I am taking it as it is until someone else who thinks it is unbalanced refutes it with some other pieces of evidence/data/information.
I can't see any lack of balance there. Its basic argument is clear and seems absolutely fair and reasonable in the light of the evidence presented: that a definitive 'pure' 'original' canon does not exist now, that the idea of (re)constructing one is foredoomed to failure, and that we must therefore learn to live with multiplicity and uncertainty.
What elements of it do you object to, Tilt?

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

Kim O'Hara wrote:What elements of it do you object to, Tilt?
I am working on it.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

Just a note: As I am slowly reading through the essay in question, Whose Buddhism is Truest?, outside of maybe some comments about the very most recent finds concerning the Gandhari texts, there is really nothing in this essay that has not been around for quite sometime. In these terms, Williams' book is not out of date.
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:What elements of it do you object to, Tilt?
I am working on it.
It's been quite a while since I read the article, but if I remember correctly the author seems to imply that since there were multiple streams of transmission of the early discourses evolving into different redactions in different Indic languages, that therefore, the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras should be considered just as ancient as the Gāndhārī and other Indic language discourses that are similar in style and content to the Pāli discourses. But this is too much of a leap. All of the earliest discourses (Pāli, Gāndhārī, etc.) differ considerably in both style and content from the earliest (proto-)Mahāyāna sūtras. For these and other reasons, the latter simply can't be placed in the mouth of the historical samaṇa Gotama.
Post Reply