Mahayana split

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

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.
>> 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
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Mahayana split

Post by manas »

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:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

ImageMmmmm, Mahayana split. Oooooo.
>> 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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10575" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;%...hika#Doctrines

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10218" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5915" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10540" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Mahayana split

Post by retrofuturist »

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. :)
"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."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Mahayana split

Post by Dan74 »

I think over the years, scholars here and elsewhere have tried to share the current understanding of the emergence of Mahayana which was unlikely due to any "splits."

This "one Buddhadhamma" notion is neither the reality as it is (even within Theravada) nor is it necessarily desirable - as it is said - 84000 teachings to cure 84000 afflictions. Different strokes for different folks.
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Mahayana split

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Dan74 wrote:This "one Buddhadhamma" notion is neither the reality as it is (even within Theravada)
"As it is" as in the year 2012 is a fair statement, but it wasn't always this way...
Bhikkhu Dhammavihari, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, p33 wrote:It is clear from the evidence relating to the early history of the Buddhist Sangha that the first hundred years of the Sangha knew of only a single body of disciples, more or less homogenous. One does not discover at this stage any traces of groups with distinct names which indicate their partisan loyalties or sectarian teachings.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Mahayana split

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:
Bhikkhu Dhammavihari, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, p33 wrote:It is clear from the evidence relating to the early history of the Buddhist Sangha that the first hundred years of the Sangha knew of only a single body of disciples, more or less homogenous. One does not discover at this stage any traces of groups with distinct names which indicate their partisan loyalties or sectarian teachings.
The Third Council was called at the most 150 years after the Buddha's death. I think venerable's assessment is a bit too rosy.

"The reason for convening the Third Buddhist Council is reported to have been to rid the Sangha of corruption and bogus monks who held heretical views." *

The various notions refuted during the Third Council did not spring up overnight, and one must keep in mind it was at the Second Council that gives us the Mahāsāṃghikas which was 100 years or less after the Buddha's parinibbana, depending how one dates the Buddha's death, and, again, it is rather likely that the issues debated during the Second Council had been brewing for quite sometime before the council.

"If, as is now almost universally accepted by informed Indological scholarship, a re-examination of early Buddhist historical material, ..., necessitates a redating of the Buddha's death to between 411 and 400 BCE...." —Paul Dundas, The Jains, 2nd edition, (Routledge, 2001), p. 24.

The Dating of the Historical Buddha
>> 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
Post Reply