Mahayana split

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:29 am

First of all the article in question is a poorly done effort. This poor woman is surprised by what modern Buddhology has shown, but she poorly presents it and what she does present, though not completely off base, is a veiled attack on the claim that the Theravada has the truly true teachings of the Buddha and no one else does. This traditional view of the Pali Canon certainly does not hold up, but it could have been handled quite a bit differently while also presenting the issues of early Buddhism far more accurately.

The unspoken thrust of the essay was not to just knock down the Theravadin claim about its canon, but to defend the Mahayana from the criticism of not having the Buddha's word.

Dan74 wrote:I've been told that Mahayana was a schism and those responsible are burning in the worst of hells. I've been told that Mahayana is invented by renegade monks drunk on samadhi or worse. That it is a forgery, a heresy and a perversion of the Buddha's teachings (the last instance of this sort of thing was not too long ago on this forum).
One would wonder how harsh the criticism of the Mahayana would be if it had not enshrined its criticism of those who did not agree with them in their sutras, putting into the mouth of the Buddha some pretty ugly things. Now, I do not buy into these statements as being accurate or appropriate criticsisms of the Mahayana -- they are not.

And of course I've been told that Mahayana is arrogant, supremacist and supercessionist.
This criticism is, of course, easily supported by quoting Mahayana sutras.

I should perhaps add that the later genesis of all Mahayana Sutras is not commonly accepted in Mahayana. I don't think my teacher who is a monastic of many years particularly minds one way or another, but Red Pine, who is perhaps the greatest of the translators of Chinese Mahayana literature (though I will defer to Ven Huifeng on that judgment) does not hold much stock by the current academic consensus on this matter. I am no expert and so I don't hold to a view here.
Let me quote two things here with which I almost completely agree:

Namdrol wrote:Likewise, while the Mahayana sutras were inspired by the blessings of the Buddha, I don't believe he actually taught a single one of them. Nevertheless, I think the teachings in them are profound and stand on their own.


Namdrol wrote:"So for example, it is spiritually meaningful that the PP sutras are set on Vulture's Peak-- but it sure is not a historical reality. Even though Shakyamuni Buddha certainly never actually taught Mahayana, nevertheless, Mahayana stands on its own and is valid as a spiritual path and practice because the folks that wrote the Mahayana sutras down were realized persons. The source of these teachings are all realized beings-- their assumed historical settings are merely skillful means to instill faith in the teachings in those person's who need to crutch of historical literalism."
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:14 am

The main problem is this:

The article makes statements implying that with the Gandhari manuscripts, we no longer have any grounds for suggesting that any given tradition is more original or authentic than any other. This is incorrect, because she overstates the range for which this applies. It is not any tradition. Rather, it is various traditions that represent the Agama / Nikaya texts. The evidence produced in this article does not go beyond that, into Mahayana texts, or tantra, or whatever. Prof Harrison says as much on pg. 9. As such, some of his comments, which are actually about Mahayana texts, are taken out of context in this article, and applied elsewhere.

I read that article pretty much as soon as it came out, as Prof Paul Harrison who was quoted in it, handed me a copy as soon as it was published. I was studying Sanskrit with him at that time.

But, as far as scholarship for the masses goes, it is a nice essay, and most people can learn a lot from it.

~~ 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.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:22 am

Paññāsikhara wrote:But, as far as scholarship for the masses goes, it is a nice essay, and most people can learn a lot from it.
Bhante,

Your bodhisattva practice of generosity is showing.

But out of curiosity, what did Prof Harrison say about the article?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:24 am

Red Pine, who is perhaps the greatest of the translators of Chinese Mahayana literature (though I will defer to Ven Huifeng on that judgment)


Sorry Dan, Red Pine is not by a long shot the greatest of the translators of Chinese Mahayana literature.
One would have to get past people like Etienne Lamotte, for starters, John McRae, etc. ... :anjali:

(Note how little glitches by RP have led to more than a few bizarre interpretations on certain online fora...)

~~ 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.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:29 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:But, as far as scholarship for the masses goes, it is a nice essay, and most people can learn a lot from it.
Bhante,

Your bodhisattva practice of generosity is showing.

But out of curiosity, what did Prof Harrison say about the article?


Not much, really. It wasn't worth the discussion, probably!
ie. among scholars, nobody is really going to pay much attention to this.

His arguments, quite detailed academic ones, have been given a different direction by the author of this article.
I don't think that there is any way that Paul would suggest that somehow all traditions are equally original,
some are older than others, and we still can't say that any given tradition is the oldest, but that doesn't mean that they're all the same.

~~ 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.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:37 am

Paññāsikhara wrote:

His arguments, quite detailed academic ones, have been given a different direction by the author of this article.
I don't think that there is any way that Paul would suggest that somehow all traditions are equally original,
some are older than others, and we still can't say that any given tradition is the oldest, but that doesn't mean that they're all the same.

~~ Huifeng
Yes, and thank you.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Dan74 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:54 am

Hi Tilt and thank you for your response.

I guess this is where we are at a cross-purpose, a little.

I am no scholar of Buddhism but a poor deluded sod who was fortunate to stumble upon this vast Wisdom tradition, for which I am incredibly grateful.

I have no interest in defending Mahayana sutras here - I didn't write them. I was never taught that Hinayana of the sutras is Theravada, this is not my tradition. Personally I would be grateful if people who attack Mayahana were as knowledgeable about it as you, but people will invariably cast stones with their eyes closed, oblivious to destroying their own glasshouses and more.

At the end of the day, we have an incredible body of wisdom handed down to us and we are very lucky indeed. So I hope we don't squabble like billionaire's children, over exactly who was supposed to get what, nor get lost in endless deliberations with the paperwork, but make the most of what we have - get on with practicing to the best of our abilities.

PS Sifu, that other thread on Red Pine's translation of Bodhidharma is a complete misreading, I thought. But of course I take your word as to his place. I just love all the additional material he includes in his translations as well as his style. :bow: Learning Mandarin is on the cards for me - maybe next year.


tiltbillings wrote:First of all the article in question is a poorly done effort. This poor woman is surprised by what modern Buddhology has shown, but she poorly presents it and what she does present, though not completely off base, is a veiled attack on the claim that the Theravada has the truly true teachings of the Buddha and no one else does. This traditional view of the Pali Canon certainly does not hold up, but it could been handled quite a bit differently while also presenting the issues of early Buddhism far more accurately.

The unspoken thrust of the essay was not to just knock down the Theravadin claim about its canon, but to defend the Mahayana from the criticism of not having the Buddha's word.

Dan74 wrote:I've been told that Mahayana was a schism and those responsible are burning in the worst of hells. I've been told that Mahayana is invented by renegade monks drunk on samadhi or worse. That it is a forgery, a heresy and a perversion of the Buddha's teachings (the last instance of this sort of thing was not too long ago on this forum).
One would wonder how harsh the criticism of the Mahayana would be if it had not enshrined its criticism of those who did agree with them in their sutras, putting into the mouth of the Buddha some pretty ugly things. Now, I do not buy into these statements as being accurate or appropriate criticsisms of the Mahayana -- they are not.

And of course I've been told that Mahayana is arrogant, supremacist and supercessionist.
This criticism is, of course, easily supported by quoting Mahayana sutras.

I should perhaps add that the later genesis of all Mahayana Sutras is not commonly accepted in Mahayana. I don't think my teacher who is a monastic of many years particularly minds one way or another, but Red Pine, who is perhaps the greatest of the translators of Chinese Mahayana literature (though I will defer to Ven Huifeng on that judgment) does not hold much stock by the current academic consensus on this matter. I am no expert and so I don't hold to a view here.
Let me quote two things here with which I almost completely agree:

Namdrol wrote:Likewise, while the Mahayana sutras were inspired by the blessings of the Buddha, I don't believe he actually taught a single one of them. Nevertheless, I think the teachings in them are profound and stand on their own.


Namdrol wrote:"So for example, it is spiritually meaningful that the PP sutras are set on Vulture's Peak-- but it sure is not a historical reality. Even though Shakyamuni Buddha certainly never actually taught Mahayana, nevertheless, Mahayana stands on its own and is valid as a spiritual path and practice because the folks that wrote the Mahayana sutras down were realized persons. The source of these teachings are all realized beings-- their assumed historical settings are merely skillful means to instill faith in the teachings in those person's who need to crutch of historical literalism."
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Postby daverupa » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:40 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:I didn't use the word 'chauvinist' although it seems that you think I did.


Heuman used that term; you used the term "absolutist", and in this context either of those terms point to interesting assumptions, yet neither term has been clearly unpacked.

Kim O'Hara wrote:While I'm off catching up with the rest of my life, you folk may like to toss the implications of the 'Tantric Theravada' thread into this discussion. More braided rivers!


You might be joking about the braided rivers, but in fact this is precisely the point; that Tantric business is simply not attested in the SuttaVinaya, and afaik nowhere in any Early Buddhism source, and as such the idea that braiding rivers allows it to be considered viable as Buddhavacana is simply flawed. This'll be one of the problems with that article - it allows this sort of sloppy "anything goes" approach to be brought to bear on what is obviously not attested in the early source material, a very significant problem with Tantra... and a very significant problem with Mahayana, one that the author appears to want to sidestep.

Indeed, the author's primary source material has been disingenuously massaged, as noted a few posts ago by Paññāsikhara, which lends credence to this perception.

The whole thing is a house of cards.

(IMO <--- should go without saying, but just in case, here it is.)
    "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]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Nyana » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:03 pm

daverupa wrote:You might be joking about the braided rivers, but in fact this is precisely the point; that Tantric business is simply not attested in the SuttaVinaya, and afaik nowhere in any Early Buddhism source, and as such the idea that braiding rivers allows it to be considered viable as Buddhavacana is simply flawed.

Actually, your reasoning is flawed. The methods taught in the Pāli Yogāvacara meditation texts are based on canonical practices. Who are you to say they aren't effective? Moreover, as Lance Cousins correctly states in his paper Aspects of Esoteric Southern Buddhism:

    There is a surprisingly widespread notion that Theravāda Buddhism is, at least doctrinally, a rather uniform, if not monolithic, type of Buddhism. This is certainly a mistaken impression.

And not only doctrinally, but in terms of practice as well. This idea of some sort of pristine dhamma practice passing from the lips of the Buddha to our ears 2500 years later is quite naïve.

daverupa wrote:a very significant problem with Tantra... and a very significant problem with Mahayana

The problem is when you reify some sort of hypothetical monolithic "Mahāyāna" and then set out to attack this illusion.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby daverupa » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:54 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:The methods taught in the Pāli Yogāvacara meditation texts are based on canonical practices. Who are you to say they aren't effective?


I never said they weren't effective, I said they weren't attested as Buddhavacana; "based on", in terms of the thread in question, is not something I see support for, and the phrase "who are you to say" is the shadow of an ad hominem.

(You have elsewhere said that in your view meditation is a matter of working with internal energy, but I think this reads a lot into the texts which isn't there. I'm no stranger to kundalini and qigong practices, and indeed Majjhima Nikaya 23 shows a certain awareness of esoterica. Despite this, it's never touted as a preferred modality for practice, and the lack of a closed fist indicates it'd be talked about if it were.)

:offtopic: + :strawman:

Ñāṇa wrote:And not only doctrinally, but in terms of practice as well. This idea of some sort of pristine dhamma practice passing from the lips of the Buddha to our ears 2500 years later is quite naïve... The problem is when you reify some sort of hypothetical monolithic "Mahāyāna" and then set out to attack this illusion.


I'm not reifying the phrase, I'm using it equivalently per the article in question (and, the linked thread in question). I'm also nowhere asserting the presence of "pristine dhamma practice"; I claim that that which is not dhamma practice (of whatever level of pristineness) can be ascertained by reference to the SuttaVinaya, and what isn't there? Mahayana as understood and conveyed by the author of the article.

:strawman:

In sum:

Paññāsikhara wrote:...she overstates the range for which this applies. It is not any tradition. Rather, it is various traditions that represent the Agama / Nikaya texts. The evidence produced in this article does not go beyond that, into Mahayana texts, or tantra, or whatever.


:heart:
    "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]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Nyana » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:30 pm

daverupa wrote:I'm no stranger to kundalini and qigong practices

You're the one who keeps bringing kundalini into the discussion.

daverupa wrote:I claim that that which is not dhamma practice (of whatever level of pristineness) can be ascertained by reference to the SuttaVinaya, and what isn't there? Mahayana as understood and conveyed by the author of the article.

You went well beyond this by asserting:

daverupa wrote:This'll be one of the problems with that article - it allows this sort of sloppy "anything goes" approach to be brought to bear on what is obviously not attested in the early source material, a very significant problem with Tantra... and a very significant problem with Mahayana, one that the author appears to want to sidestep.

I don't know who your Mahāyāna teachers are, but the teachers I've had would never accept nor teach a "sloppy anything goes approach." Quite the opposite.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby daverupa » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:14 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
daverupa wrote:I'm no stranger to kundalini and qigong practices

You're the one who keeps bringing kundalini into the discussion.


Once, in an off-topic parenthetical. This is very nit-picky.

Ñāṇa wrote:I don't know who your Mahāyāna teachers are, but the teachers I've had would never accept nor teach a "sloppy anything goes approach." Quite the opposite.


I was primarily criticizing the article, which appeared in a widely-read Buddhist magazine and as such propagated a very problematic point of view. The "sloppy" phrase through which I criticized Mahayana generally (as a colloquial term with the same referents as in the article) applies in that context: it means that the article provides an excuse to allow historically late and geographically distant texts to be considered as equivalent to those historically and geographically situated in an altogether earlier and more proximal stratum of Buddhist history. This is, in a word, sloppy, and it's a perspective the article consciously supports.
    "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]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:55 pm

daverupa wrote:The whole thing is a house of cards.

Dave, you (and Tilt) seem to be taking the article far more seriously than it warrants and then finding grave faults in it. It isn't a house of cards (IMO :tongue: ), but neither is it a rigorous scholarly article in which every sentence should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Rather, it is (as Huifeng said) a piece of reasonably competent, reasonably interesting and informative journalism for a general audience.
Relax! Laugh about it, if you wish.
If you want to discuss the article's contents seriously, I think you need to discuss Heuman's source material, not her article.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:37 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
daverupa wrote:The whole thing is a house of cards.

Dave, you (and Tilt) seem to be taking the article far more seriously than it warrants and then finding grave faults in it. It isn't a house of cards (IMO :tongue: ), but neither is it a rigorous scholarly article in which every sentence should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Rather, it is (as Huifeng said) a piece of reasonably competent, reasonably interesting and informative journalism for a general audience.
Relax! Laugh about it, if you wish.
If you want to discuss the article's contents seriously, I think you need to discuss Heuman's source material, not her article.

:namaste:
Kim
It is a poorly done article that has an unfortunate subtext. As for dealing with the source material, that has already been done, but we certainly could do it to a far greater extent, though I am sure that would get complained about as well, and what we saw, for example, in this article is that the author grossly misused used what Harrison said. Tricycle has scholars writing articles for it all the time, so there is really no excuse for this drivel.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:12 am

tiltbillings wrote:It is a poorly done article that has an unfortunate subtext. As for dealing with the source material, that has already been done, but we certainly could do it to a far greater extent, though I am sure that would get complained about as well, and what we saw, for example, in this article is that the author grossly misused used what Harrison said. Tricycle has scholars writing articles for it all the time, so there is really no excuse for this drivel.

Hi, Tilt,
You have just reinforced my feeling that you are taking it far too seriously and (therefore) exaggerating both its importance and its faults.
I don't think it's worth the trouble of defending further - or attacking further, as the case may be.
The field is yours, FWIW. I'll go and :meditate: or :toast: - or, more realistically, water my garden. The monsoon hasn't deigned to appear yet.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:16 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:It is a poorly done article that has an unfortunate subtext. As for dealing with the source material, that has already been done, but we certainly could do it to a far greater extent, though I am sure that would get complained about as well, and what we saw, for example, in this article is that the author grossly misused used what Harrison said. Tricycle has scholars writing articles for it all the time, so there is really no excuse for this drivel.

Hi, Tilt,
You have just reinforced my feeling that you are taking it far too seriously and (therefore) exaggerating both its importance and its faults.
I don't have to exaggerate anything in this article. It author clearly distorted Harrison to make a fluffy-bunny point of view. How serious to take this article? Not very, but it is unfortunate in that it is misleading.

I don't think it's worth the trouble of defending further - or attacking further.
It was worth exposing its flaws.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby manas » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:39 am

I know this post could get deleted for being kind of off-topic, but every time I see the heading 'Mahayana split' I think of the dessert 'Banana split'. For some reason this sankhara keeps rearising in my mind.

Anyway, sorry, back to topic...hope it all gets resolved fully someday...

:anjali:
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2102
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Mahayana split

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:47 am

ImageMmmmm, Mahayana split. Oooooo.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19207
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:58 pm

For those who may have forgotten:

False Teachings in Buddhism (defined)

In Buddhism, teaching practices which were not taught by Buddha are considered by definition as "false teachings". To take a custom from an existing society and to represent it as something that Buddha taught is False Speech. Unfortunately, as Buddhism spread around the world and as the memorized dhamma was passed from one community to another distortions arose, and representations were made, particularly in ritual, which had nothing to do with Buddhism.

For support as to the many false teachings and distortions of The Mahayana (only for those who have an interest) I suggest the following links, which specifically address false teachings in Buddhism. As taught by Buddha himself, don't take my word or anyone else's word as authoritative, especially not so-called masters, because they are only regurgitating what they have been taught through indoctrination. Validate and verify all teachings for yourself. Don't allow anyone to persuade you not to do so with everything that you are taught. Ignore their ridicule and objections, because they are only squirming in the light of reality and personal discovery, which will reveal them to be perpetrators of distortions.

The truth, the dhamma, is there for everyone to discover on their own.


This is what Buddha himself advised!

http://thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6834

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10575

Notable, in that language and time can make a difference with regard to accuracy. One can predict distortions of process both due to language translation errors and the passage of time without studying even one word of The Tripitaka originally written in Sanskrit, the Mahayana version of The Tipitaka originally written in Pali:


Thanks to David N. Snyder: "From around 350 BCE to 200 BCE there were many early schools of Buddhism rivaling / competing with Theravada but they no longer exist.

What Buddhism was called at the time of the Buddhist Councils:

* The time of the Buddha: "Buddhism" is called Dhamma-Vinaya
* First Council: Dhamma-Vinaya (483 BCE)
* Second Council: Dhamma-Vinaya (350 BCE)
* Third Council: Vibhajjavada ("doctrine of analysis") and shortly thereafter: Theravada (250 BCE)
* Fourth Council: Theravada (100 BCE)

Mahayana probably developed around 100 BCE to 100 CE."


It has been proposed by some Mahayanists that The Mahayana developed from some singular great revelation, which presented "hidden teachings" from his earliest followers. Odd if this slur against The Elders were true that many of Buddha's followers became unbound and released themselves. The fact is that the Mahayana did not arise from but one source, but from self-serving splinter groups.

Most sources place the origin of the Mahāsāṃghikas to the Second Buddhist council. Traditions regarding the Second Council are confusing and ambiguous, but it is agreed that the overall result was the first schism in the Saṃgha, between the Sthaviras and the Mahāsāṃghikas, although it is not agreed upon by all what the cause of this split was.[6] Andrew Skilton has suggested that the problems of contradictory accounts are solved by the Mahāsāṃghika Śariputraparipṛcchā, which is the earliest surviving account of the schism.[7] In this account, the council was convened at Pāṭaliputra over matters of vinaya, and it is explained that the schism resulted from the majority (Mahāsaṃgha) refusing to accept the addition of rules to the Vinaya by the minority (Sthaviras).[7] The Mahāsāṃghikas therefore saw the Sthaviras as being a breakaway group which was attempting to modify the original Vinaya.[8]

Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.[7] Modern scholarship therefore generally agrees that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest.[7] According to Skilton, future scholars may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravāda school.[8]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%...hika#Doctrines

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10218

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5915

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10540

Again:

As taught by Buddha himself, don't take my word, or anyone else's word as authoritative, especially not so-called masters, because they are only regurgitating what they have been taught through indoctrination. Validate and verify all teachings for yourself. Don't allow anyone to persuade you not to do so with everything that you are taught. Ignore ridicule and objections for daring to verify and validate on your own, because those who ridicule you are but squirming in the light of reality and personal discovery, which will reveal them to be perpetrators of distortions of The Buddha-dhamma.

The truth, the dhamma, Buddha's teachings is there for everyone to discover on their own. We, as individual practitioners have an obligation to test what we glean from what has been presented as Buddha's teachings. "Nothing Buddha taught is mysterious or hidden." Buddha taught the truth of suffering, the mechanisms of suffering, that suffering can be ended, and that singular means to ending suffering is The Nobel Eight Fold Path.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Mahayana split

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:52 pm

Greetings,

I'm not inclined to talk about the efficacy of Mahayana (for what would I know about such things?), but I think the words Ron presents here (something of a hybrid of extracts from the Kalama and Mahaparinibbana Suttas), if heard and taken seriously by Buddhists throughout the ages, may have resulted in less of these "splits", because it removes the grounds upon which some entity might form, become otherwise (bhava) and establish its own identity (jati).

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Again:

As taught by Buddha himself, don't take my word, or anyone else's word as authoritative, especially not so-called masters, because they are only regurgitating what they have been taught through indoctrination. Validate and verify all teachings for yourself. Don't allow anyone to persuade you not to do so with everything that you are taught. Ignore ridicule and objections for daring to verify and validate on your own, because those who ridicule you are but squirming in the light of reality and personal discovery, which will reveal them to be perpetrators of distortions of The Buddha-dhamma.

The truth, the dhamma, Buddha's teachings is there for everyone to discover on their own. We, as individual practitioners have an obligation to test what we glean from what has been presented as Buddha's teachings. "Nothing Buddha taught is mysterious or hidden." Buddha taught the truth of suffering, the mechanisms of suffering, that suffering can be ended, and that singular means to ending suffering is The Noble Eight Fold Path.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14623
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Early Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests