Mahayanists and the historical record

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby BlackBird » Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:28 am

I have at times thought the same way Mike.

But applying a skeptical rigour, it became more important to cut right to the heart of the matter. That is, if I were existing during the Buddha's time, and I came across a teacher who claimed that enlightenment was possible but was not themselves enlightened, my fundamental question would be: Well where's your proof? Wheres your proof that your path leads where it says it does?

The Buddha claimed to be the enlightened one, many of his followers claimed to have attained arahantship, and the Dhamma encourages one to come and see for oneself. But if there was no Buddha, no arahants, no ariyans. The skeptic in me would ultimately come to think: "Well, where's the proof that this path leads where it says it does?"

That is why I ended up following Nanavira Thera's teachings. Because fundamentally here was a guy whom made the claim (to his preceptor and was later published following his suicide) that he had attained sotapatti. He said ya know, this is what's wrong with the traditional method, I've got a good reason to think so (sotapatti) they're quite mistaken, follow my method and you'll get there yourself, proof is in the pudding.

So I'm willing to try it out. Maybe if it doesn't work I'll return to a traditional interpretation at some point and I don't discount other people's methods or teachings like I once did, I say this to show you there are correlations between my faith in the Buddha and my faith in Nanavira Thera. Hopefully it clarifies my method of thinking on this subject: That my faith is predicated on truth and factuality (not to suppose yours or others are otherwise :))

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby zavk » Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:11 pm

Hello Jack

I cannot comment on Mahayana understandings and practices. Nor can I comment on whether there is sufficient basis to assert unambiguously that the Buddha existed as a historical mortal being. What I would like to share, however, is how the question of historicity has become so important for contemporary, and especially, 'Western' Buddhists. What I write below is a very brief summary of ideas articulated by postcolonial research on the historical trend of 'modern Buddhism' or 'Buddhist modernism'. You make look up on this if you wish to explore further; or PM me and I could you point you to specific sources (but I only check in here occasionally).

As I'm sure you are already aware, the term 'Buddhism' was a Western invention. It was coined by Orientalist scholars of the early 19th century who had assumed that the shared iconography of colonised Asian lands (and non-colonised ones like Japan and Thailand), indicated that their diverse sacred traditions could all be traced to the same founder. This was a time when many artefacts (texts, statues, coins, etc) in Asian lands were being excavated - or a good case could be made that they were plundered - by colonialists and brought back to Europe to be studied. It is widely accepted today by many historians (especially those mindful of the continuing subjugating, minoratising after-effects of Western imperialism on the world) that this served a political function: to own another's cultural artefacts is a form of control, a way to assert ideological dominance.

So under such conditions, the search for the historical origins of the Buddha and the writing of his biography became a central task. Early Western Buddhist scholars, of course, required the help of native translators. But there wasn't exactly mutual respect and recognition in the working relation between them. It was not uncommon for European scholars to be very selective in what the native Buddhist presented to them, picking what appealed to their own views, and ignoring others that may require them to rethink their own views. Very often there was no acknowledgement of the native Buddhists' contribution - sometimes they were even disparaged by their European counterparts. And so it was, a historical biography of the Buddha as Gautama was pieced together. There are at least two problems to be noted about this process:

- These pioneering European scholars, who set the wheels in motion for the production of Western Buddhist knowledge, were working according to the prevailing *Biblical* scholarly norms of the time. According to the Christian paradigm of textual and historical analysis, Jesus of Nazareth was the founder of Christianity, a founder who must have been a mortal man. Could such assumptions simply be transposed onto the various expressions of the Dhamma found across Asian cultures? (We could note here that the earliest representations of the Buddha were NOT anthropomorphic - I cannot say with certainty what this means, but at the very least, it does indicate that things are not so straightforward).

- The Dhamma texts which the European scholars consulted - or those they deemed worthy of attention, at any rate - were composed for very different purposes and could not be interpreted in the same way as the texts of European civilisation. They also do not easily meet the European criteria for a biography. Yet, the task of identifying the mortal origins of Gautama was completed (as per above, by way of selective and decontextualised readings).

Armed with a textualised and supposed more 'original' and more 'authentic' Buddhism that is divorced from the reality of embodied on-the-ground practices - practices which the Europeans didn't think much of in the first place; otherwise why all the hoohah about portraying colonisation as a 'civilising' mission? - it didn't take long before Western critics began to denigrate traditional Asian Buddhist thought and practice as 'debased' or 'corrupted'. Such criticisms were articulated by colonialists and Christian missionaries, and served to perpetuate the ideological subversion of colonised peoples - since a key way to justify domination is to say, 'I know better than you. tsk tsk. Let show you the light, let me "enlighten" you.'

I better finish off.Contemporary 'Western' Buddhist understanding developed out of this colonial history, the after effects of which (sometimes violent) are still playing out today. But let me be clear. I am not saying that the ideas we are working with today are 'bad' or 'wrong'. Nor am I saying that there is no merit in exploring the historicity of the Buddha. What I'm trying to point out is the need to be mindful:

- The question of historicity - the task of identifying a more 'original' or 'authentic' Buddhism - is always and already enmeshed in a network of power relations and struggles.In other words, there are implications: the continuing marginalisation of postcolonial lifeworlds is one implication.

- To pursue this question of the historicity of the Buddha or 'original' Buddhism WITHOUT being reflexive about the history of this question itself - well, is one really being historically reflexive? Is one really engaging with historicity?

I think it is important to be mindful of these, so as to not conflate views with understanding.

Best wishes :anjali:
Last edited by zavk on Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
zavk
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby BlackBird » Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:20 pm

Hi Zavk, thank you for your informative post. Incidentally perhaps, I tend to build my conception of the Buddha based on what appears in the Nikayas and I tend to treat anything written by a scholar be they Occidental or Oriental, with the same level of critical thought an analysis. You make an important point and it's worth bearing in mind :)

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby James the Giant » Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:30 pm

All this meta-discussion is interesting, but does not address the original question.
Maybe ask over at DharmaWheel in a new thread. There weren't really any satisfying answers (for me) in
the 2009 thread "Historicity of Mahayana Sutras -- Does it matter?"
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=309

Maybe the whole question is just not a factor for them.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
User avatar
James the Giant
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby BlackBird » Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:33 pm

James the Giant wrote:All this meta-discussion is interesting, but does not address the original question.
Maybe ask over at DharmaWheel in a new thread. There weren't really any satisfying answers (for me) in
the 2009 thread "Historicity of Mahayana Sutras -- Does it matter?"
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=309

Maybe the whole question is just not a factor for them.


My bad Jamie :embarassed:

In addition I am starting to feel that perhaps it's not much of a factor for all that many Theravadins either.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby James the Giant » Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:57 pm

BlackBird wrote:In addition I am starting to feel that perhaps it's not much of a factor for all that many Theravadins either.

It is for me. It's quite important.
Not as foundational as my basis in meditation and daily living practise, but I still think it is very important.
Especially to try to understand those mysterious Mahayana brothers and sisters of ours.
Then,
saturated with joy,
you will put an end to suffering and stress.
SN 9.11
User avatar
James the Giant
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Lazy_eye » Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:09 pm

Hello,

The original question was:

"how Mahayanists establish faith when posed with the same question of historical attribution. Is the literal word of the Buddha just not that important in Mahayana? Do they reckon that those who wrote the later sutras were enlightened as well, and so justify their attribution to being the Buddha's word as being forgivable and not a detraction from the supposed dharma within the sutra?"

One answer is that the Mahayanists took up the notion of a transcendental, superhuman Buddha, one who is capable of appearing to highly-attained practitioners and providing them with teachings. The idea goes back to early Buddhism and was a feature of Mahasamghika thought and practice. It may derive from certain passages, in the Sutta Nipata, where the Buddha is presented in rather mystical and superhuman terms. Guang Xing's The Concept of the Buddha discusses this at some length.

If this is the case, then Mahayanists (and their Mahasamghika forebears) would be inclined to reject historicity as the basis for distinguishing legitimate buddhavacana, because they ultimately reject the notion of a human being who taught for a number of years and then died, leaving behind a limited number of teachings. A transcendental Buddha is by nature capable of appearing at any time, and can give teachings to those able to engage him. The more rationalist tendencies within Buddhism would of course dismiss this as mere hallucination.

Just sharing what I gleaned from my studies of this question awhile back, for those interested.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby daverupa » Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:28 pm

That's the gist of the sort of response I've gotten, as well. Akashic Records, basically.
    "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: 4065
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby pilgrim » Sun Apr 07, 2013 1:49 pm

For me,historicity is important but I could still accept the Mahayana if the later sutras were at least consistent with the Pali suttas. But a fair number of them like the Lotus sutra, Pure Land sutras are far beyond what I can accept as the Buddha's teachings. Even if there is some wisdom in them, such wisdom can be found in the Pali suttas, thus making these Mahayana sutras unnecessary at best and misleading at worst. Then when you consider the deities, rituals and tantric practices of Vajrayana, these are even further from the Buddha's teachings.
User avatar
pilgrim
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby BlackBird » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:38 pm

Lazy_eye wrote:Hello,

The original question was:

"how Mahayanists establish faith when posed with the same question of historical attribution. Is the literal word of the Buddha just not that important in Mahayana? Do they reckon that those who wrote the later sutras were enlightened as well, and so justify their attribution to being the Buddha's word as being forgivable and not a detraction from the supposed dharma within the sutra?"

One answer is that the Mahayanists took up the notion of a transcendental, superhuman Buddha, one who is capable of appearing to highly-attained practitioners and providing them with teachings. The idea goes back to early Buddhism and was a feature of Mahasamghika thought and practice. It may derive from certain passages, in the Sutta Nipata, where the Buddha is presented in rather mystical and superhuman terms. Guang Xing's The Concept of the Buddha discusses this at some length.

If this is the case, then Mahayanists (and their Mahasamghika forebears) would be inclined to reject historicity as the basis for distinguishing legitimate buddhavacana, because they ultimately reject the notion of a human being who taught for a number of years and then died, leaving behind a limited number of teachings. A transcendental Buddha is by nature capable of appearing at any time, and can give teachings to those able to engage him. The more rationalist tendencies within Buddhism would of course dismiss this as mere hallucination.

Just sharing what I gleaned from my studies of this question awhile back, for those interested.


Ah very interesting. It is responses like these that I was hoping for. Answers to how Mahayanists tackle the problem, without setting it a side :D

Thank you for reporting back on your studies :)

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Dan74 » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:00 pm

BlackBird wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:Hello,

The original question was:

"how Mahayanists establish faith when posed with the same question of historical attribution. Is the literal word of the Buddha just not that important in Mahayana? Do they reckon that those who wrote the later sutras were enlightened as well, and so justify their attribution to being the Buddha's word as being forgivable and not a detraction from the supposed dharma within the sutra?"

One answer is that the Mahayanists took up the notion of a transcendental, superhuman Buddha, one who is capable of appearing to highly-attained practitioners and providing them with teachings. The idea goes back to early Buddhism and was a feature of Mahasamghika thought and practice. It may derive from certain passages, in the Sutta Nipata, where the Buddha is presented in rather mystical and superhuman terms. Guang Xing's The Concept of the Buddha discusses this at some length.

If this is the case, then Mahayanists (and their Mahasamghika forebears) would be inclined to reject historicity as the basis for distinguishing legitimate buddhavacana, because they ultimately reject the notion of a human being who taught for a number of years and then died, leaving behind a limited number of teachings. A transcendental Buddha is by nature capable of appearing at any time, and can give teachings to those able to engage him. The more rationalist tendencies within Buddhism would of course dismiss this as mere hallucination.

Just sharing what I gleaned from my studies of this question awhile back, for those interested.


Ah very interesting. It is responses like these that I was hoping for. Answers to how Mahayanists tackle the problem, without setting it a side :D

Thank you for reporting back on your studies :)

metta
Jack


I guess I am uneasy with Lazy Eye's response because it seems to posit a "transcendental superhuman Buddha" as opposed to the immanent human us... This is very alien to Mahayana that I studied. The three bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya/) etc are, a far as I can tell, founded on the teachings that the limitations and hindrances that we perceive are karmically conditioned and can be removed. That we can all transcend them, because they are empty, unreal, created by the mind. So this notion of a superhuman Buddha is possibly misleading.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby BlackBird » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:03 pm

Good post Dan, my question would be, are conceptions of the trikaya different between Zen and Vajrayana?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Dan74 » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:19 pm

BlackBird wrote:Good post Dan, my question would be, are conceptions of the trikaya different between Zen and Vajrayana?


I don't know but suspect they are hardly monolithic on this and other issues. Both traditions are informed by the same root texts (that I am thinking of), however.

I confess not to have much insight into the trikaya teachings and as for concepts, I try to steer clear of those!

Trikaya teachings, as far as I know, have not been used to ascribe the authorship of the sutras to the Buddha traditionally. Most Mahayana Buddhist have (and probably still do) believe them to have been taught by the historical Buddha.

As for me, I suspect the key texts were passed down orally for quite some time before getting written down. They may have originated with the Buddha, or an enlightened monk of a later time and over time acquired more importance and new authorship. It is kind of comical how some people seem to imagine an evil Mahayana monk sitting somewhere in the bushes and concocting a forgery with the Buddha's name on it. I don't think that's how things worked in those days.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby plwk » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:29 pm

...are conceptions of the trikaya different between Zen and Vajrayana?
Here's some for your kind perusal...
The Late Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera's 'Trikaya - The Three Bodies of the Buddha'
The Sixth Patriarch's teaching on the Trikaya
The Four Kayas
Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.
What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One.
If this single thing is recollected and made much,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.

Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: Pañhamavagga
VSM VMM WBB TBHT WTBT My Page
plwk
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Monkey Mind » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:57 pm

Jack, I have been asking the same question as the OP for years. (I appreciate how gracefully you have tread on this topic.) One answer I received was especially helpful for my understanding, I don't know if this helps you with yours:

Buddha (Gautama Buddha or Shakyamuni) taught using many metaphors, similes, and allegories. Many of these lessons would be lost to us today if it weren't for the commentaries, because the metaphor was culturally or linguistically bound and the language or culture has changed. The Mahayana traditions allow for/ believe in/ emphasize the possibility of modern day Awakened teachers who can paraphrase the Dharma into the language of today, in a way that is understandable/ accessible to modern people and local customs. So those traditions have produced Chinese Awakened teachers, Tibetan awaken teachers, Japanese awakened teachers, etc., and believe this continuity to be essential for the survival of the Dharma.

It is not enough of an explanation for me to change the flag I sail under, but it was enough that I don't worry so much about the other flags out there.
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.

Sutta Nipāta 3.710
User avatar
Monkey Mind
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:56 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Mojo » Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:12 pm

The way I see it, our mental state is a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum is Samsara and on the other side is Nirvana. Our actions and thoughts contribute to where on this spectrum our mental state is. So for me, it is completely unimportant whether the historical Buddha was real or not. He is an ideal at one side of the spectrum and any teachings that help cultivate a mental state on that side of the spectrum is a good one.

There is a verse from the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 18:21-35
New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. [ a]

23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold [ b] was brought to him.

25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,' he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’

27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. [ c ] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.

31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master
everything that had happened.

32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.

33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’

34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”


So despite not believing in the divinity of Jesus, I hold this teaching in high regard as one that can help us cultivate a mental state on the Nirvana aside of the spectrum. And even if Jesus, the Mortal Son of Mary and Joseph, never actually lived, I still say this is a wonderful teaching. The teaching is wonderful on its own merit!

The Dhamma is wonderful on its own merit!
User avatar
Mojo
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:23 am

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Lazy_eye » Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:23 pm

Dan74 wrote:I guess I am uneasy with Lazy Eye's response because it seems to posit a "transcendental superhuman Buddha" as opposed to the immanent human us... This is very alien to Mahayana that I studied. The three bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya/) etc are, a far as I can tell, founded on the teachings that the limitations and hindrances that we perceive are karmically conditioned and can be removed. That we can all transcend them, because they are empty, unreal, created by the mind. So this notion of a superhuman Buddha is possibly misleading.


Hi Dan :hello:

Yes, but can we agree that Mahayana is very broad and diverse? And Zen, particularly stemming from Dogen, has a pronounced rationalist strain, at least compared to other schools and traditions.

But if we look at the Avatamsaka Sutra for example -- well, it certainly seems to be presenting a transcendental vision. I don't know how else one could read it. There are also various early sutras (unfortunately I don't have the references handy, so I'm only as good as my word here!) that explicitly present this or that disciple as achieving profound meditative absorption and then being taught by a Buddha.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:59 pm

For me Historical accuracy is but one factor in confidence. Another factor is that the Buddhist Tradition as a whole Mahayana or Theravada has given rise to Awakened beings Like:

Tsong kappa, Nagarjuna, Dipa Ma, Milarepa, Sariputra, Achaan Cha, Padmasambahava, Pema Chodron, Buddhadasa, Atisha, Buddhagosa, Shantideva, Anagarika Dhammapala

Those are just a few and I personally regard all of these as Awakening to the Dhamma at least to some meaningful degree. I expect that there have been many more over the ages who either have not been recorded in any way, who I just haven't thought of today or who I don't know about. As far as Im concerned It is important that the core principles of what can be realistically attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha are not contradicted by later teachings. For me much of what can be found in the Mahayana is a helpful expansion on the Buddhas teaching by way of specific practices and doctrinal elucidation. Not to mention the helpful aspect of the arising of faith when hearing about the life stories of many of the practitioners within that branch of the tradition.

This is why I would never call myself either a Theravadin or a Mahayana Buddhist. I am a Buddhist first.


Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Aloka » Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:05 pm

Monkey Mind wrote:Buddha (Gautama Buddha or Shakyamuni) taught using many metaphors, similes, and allegories. Many of these lessons would be lost to us today if it weren't for the commentaries, because the metaphor was culturally or linguistically bound and the language or culture has changed. The Mahayana traditions allow for/ believe in/ emphasize the possibility of modern day Awakened teachers who can paraphrase the Dharma into the language of today, in a way that is understandable/ accessible to modern people and local customs. So those traditions have produced Chinese Awakened teachers, Tibetan awaken teachers, Japanese awakened teachers, etc., and believe this continuity to be essential for the survival of the Dharma.



As a former Vajarayana practitioner, I can honestly say that I found Theravada and many of the Buddha's teachings in the Pali Canon a revelation and a much needed breath of fresh air.

The endless array of deities, protector deities, guru devotion, supplication to lineage gurus etc, as well as stories of former gurus being trasported up to 'heavens' -for example to receive teachings from Maitreya in Tushita Heaven, the 'protection chords', blessings and amulets ,the superstitions and add ons were all too much in the end.

So I'm not so convinced personally that it can be termed 'survival' of Dhamma, because with respect, it seemed rather like a different religion to me. It isn't my intention to offend anyone, I'm just being honest.


With kind wishes,

Aloka
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Mahayanists and the historical record

Postby Samma » Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:26 pm

The dating of the earliest Mahayana sutras, like that of all ancient Indian texts, is extremely problematic. The earliest firm date we have for the existence is the late second century ce when a number of Mahayana sutras were translated into Chinese by Lokaksema. Many Mahayana sutras as we have them show evidence of a particular kind of literary history: an older core text is expanded and elaborated; thus the sutras translated by Lokaksema originated possibly a century or so earlier in India. Most scholars push the date of the earliest Mahayana sutras back into the first century BCE, but the production and elaboration of Mahayana sutras certanly continued for a number of centuries. For their part, however, the Mahayana sutras present themselves as teachings which, having been originally delivered by the Buddha himself, were not taught until the time was ripe (Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, p. 224-5)


So hey, they may have just made stuff up and attributed it to the Buddha. But I suppose they would argue that pali cannon lost some teachings, is not the whole story, etc. Why not ask them:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=12214
Samma
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clw_uk, Goofaholix, Nicolas and 11 guests