Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the sutras?

Post by Dhammanando »

Hi Element,
Element wrote:I think to understand the origin of something we can look at the result. The origin will be in the result.
In the pre-modern age slaves were employed in the larger monasteries of every Theravada country too. That being so, an argument like yours would rather tend to recoil upon him who advances it.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
Heavenstorm
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:37 am

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the sutras?

Post by Heavenstorm »

Element wrote:Similary, the result of Mahayana Buddhism was a slave culture in Tibet, where human beings were supressed, enslaved and controlled by monastic masters in collusion with the ruling elite using a collection of non-Buddhist beliefs, superstitions & rituals.
Calling your fellow Buddhists "slave traders" are pretty uncalled for. Its shocking that you read the suttas but yet ignored the basic disciplines of right speech. :shock:

May I know why are you so up against Abhidharma and Mahayana? I see neither one of them deserve the negative attitude you display towards them.
User avatar
Rui Sousa
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:01 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the sutras?

Post by Rui Sousa »

Element wrote:Similary, the result of Mahayana Buddhism was a slave culture in Tibet, where human beings were supressed, enslaved and controlled by monastic masters in collusion with the ruling elite using a collection of non-Buddhist beliefs, superstitions & rituals.
Can you present a source for that information? You present about 5 different assumptions on that phrase, I would like to take a look at your sources to see what conclusions I can reach.

Thank you.
With Metta
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Cittasanto »

jcsuperstar wrote:i wasnt asking about the idea of the bodhisatta or bodhisatva, but about the bodhisattvas in the sutras those specific guys manjushri, avolektishvara, etc
Sorry misunderstood what you were asking
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Dharmajim
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Dharmajim »

Good Friends:

The subject of non-Nikaya/Agama Discourses is very complex. First, I think it is a mistake to view them as a unified corpus. It seems that they were written over a long period of time, among various groups, with divergent purposes. Some of them, such as the Diamond Sutra, appear to be very old. Others appear to have been written many centuries after the Buddha's passing.

In other words, I think it is a mistake to use a broad brush in describing them.

My sense of these texts is that they resemble, in many ways, texts on Jesus that continue to appear down to the present time. I don't mean historical works, but works that claim to present the teachings of Jesus, that the author has somehow accessed them and is now presenting "new" teachings. These kinds of works appear every few years; there is really quite a large body of such works.

I think that explains why, historically, Theravada simply hasn't had much to say about non-Nikaya Discourses. Just as dedicated Christian scholars do not spend a lot of time on the above mentioned kinds of works, so also I think that the Nikaya and Agama based traditions just didn't think that they deserved a lot of focus, commentary, and time. That's why one finds so little direct comment on them.

My two cents,

Dharmajim
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Individual »

I mostly agree with the above posters, but I would add that those who wrote some of the Mahayana sutras weren't necessarily heretics, fools, or liars. That is, you shouldn't treat the authors of the Mahayana sutras as a homogenous group, a monolith. As I've said elsewhere, for instance, the Mahayana "sutras" are clearly distinguished from the "tantras" (some of which are in the Mahayana canon, but most of which are in the Tibetan canon).
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by bodom »

I like to keep in mind these words from author Red Pine in his commentary to the Heart sutra:

"The question of authorship (of the Heart sutra) was an important one for early Buddhists concerned with authenticity. But over the centuries it has become less so. Nowadays Buddhists resolve this issue by considering the teaching contained in the texts on its own merit. Accordingly, the principle of the Four Reliances (catuh-pratisarana) has developed to deal with this issue: We are urged to rely on the teaching and not the author, the meaning and not the letter, the truth and not the convention, the knowledge and not the information. Thus, if a teaching accords with the Dharma, then the teacher must have been a Buddha or someone empowered by a Buddha to speak on his or her behalf. For our part, all we can safely claim is that the author of this sutra was someone with an understanding of the major Buddhist traditions of two thousand years ago, the ability to summarize there salient points in the briefest fashion possible, and the knowledge of where buddhas come from."

I believe this can be applied to all of the "controversial" Mahayana sutras.

:namaste:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Individual »

bodom_bad_boy wrote:I like to keep in mind these words from author Red Pine in his commentary to the Heart sutra:

"The question of authorship (of the Heart sutra) was an important one for early Buddhists concerned with authenticity. But over the centuries it has become less so. Nowadays Buddhists resolve this issue by considering the teaching contained in the texts on its own merit. Accordingly, the principle of the Four Reliances (catuh-pratisarana) has developed to deal with this issue: We are urged to rely on the teaching and not the author, the meaning and not the letter, the truth and not the convention, the knowledge and not the information. Thus, if a teaching accords with the Dharma, then the teacher must have been a Buddha or someone empowered by a Buddha to speak on his or her behalf. For our part, all we can safely claim is that the author of this sutra was someone with an understanding of the major Buddhist traditions of two thousand years ago, the ability to summarize there salient points in the briefest fashion possible, and the knowledge of where buddhas come from."

I believe this can be applied to all of the "controversial" Mahayana sutras.

:namaste:
And it's an important methodology to keep in mind, given the possibility that the Pali canon may contain its own fictitious suttas and those who made the canon may have excluded some legitimate discourses of the Buddha that may be present in other Buddhist canons. Now, this is only speculation, but some of the early Buddhist schools claimed that's what the Sthaviravadin's did and we don't have a complete enough or independent record of the early schools, and of the Buddha's sayings, to either substantiate it or reject it.

What we can say is that the Sutta Pitaka (and the Agamas of the Mahayana canon) represent the most reliable account of the Buddha's original teaching. You can't extend that same reliability, though, based on the evidence, to the Pali Vinaya, Abhidhamma, commentaries, the other Mahayana sutras, or the Tibetan canon.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Individual,

Why not the Pali Vinaya?

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."
Element

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Element »

tiltbillings wrote:Chinese Communists would like to say this sort of thing, but I suspect it is not quite stark as that. But is it any more fair to blame Theravada Buddhism for the ugly and large sex trade and the ongoing illegal child sex slavery in Thailand? And let us not forget that Thailand had been a slave culture in to at least the 19th century.
I would question your logic Tilt. Thailand was never a theocracy. The sex trade is not carried on by monks.
So, following your "logic," the intention of the Mahayana was slavery.
Sadhu! Well spoken. May we save all sentient beings from themselves, like we must save women by making them wear burkas.

:coffee:
User avatar
Anders
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Anders »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

Why not the Pali Vinaya?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Modern scholarship strongly suggests that the mahasamghikan vinaya represent the earliest stratum of Vinaya we know of today.

That said, that differences are apparently fairly trivial, so I think it's fair to say the Theravadin Vinaya represent a fairly reliable account of the hallowed 'ur-dhamma-vinaya' regardless.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Ceisiwr »

I dont think the mahayana sutras were designed with any kind of menevolence in mind. I think it just comes from different interpretations of the dhamma and mode of practice. Some seem to stick to the core message, some seem to vere off a bit.

You can kinda see how they developed by this very website, different beings all practising the dhamma but having great divergence in reguards to some topics. This is what happened centuries ago leading to the schism.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Anders
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Anders »

Individual wrote:What we can say is that the Sutta Pitaka (and the Agamas of the Mahayana canon) represent the most reliable account of the Buddha's original teaching. You can't extend that same reliability, though, based on the evidence, to the Pali Vinaya, Abhidhamma, commentaries, the other Mahayana sutras, or the Tibetan canon.
The Pali pitaka probably has a slightly better claim to 'complete' body here, as the Madhyama-gama and Samyukta-gama (mahjima & samyutta nikayas in the pali canon) are from the Sarvastivadins and the Dirgha-gama and Ekottara-gama (digha and anguttara nikayas) came from the mahasanghikans, so its not a full representative of any early school's collection of scriptures the same way the Theravada is.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by tiltbillings »

Anders Honore wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

Why not the Pali Vinaya?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Modern scholarship strongly suggests that the mahasamghikan vinaya represent the earliest stratum of Vinaya we know of today.

That said, that differences are apparently fairly trivial, so I think it's fair to say the Theravadin Vinaya represent a fairly reliable account of the hallowed 'ur-dhamma-vinaya' regardless.
In HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Aug. 76 Vol. 16 Nattier and Prebish point out that
the Mahasamghika Vinaya is the oldest version (pp.267-9). It is only in the
Pali, Dharmagupta, Sarvistivada, etc. vinayas that we find the three
allowances.

Nattier and Prebish argue that Mahasanghika vinaya is the oldest on the
basis of the Pratimoksa rules, the Mahasanghikas having fewer rules. They
argue since the Pratimoksa is important for maintaining the identity of the
sangha, it is not likely to be easily changed, and the assumption seems to be
the fewer the rules, the least changes and therefore the older it is. Maybe.
We don't think one can generalize from the specific patimokkha rules -- if
they are older or not -- to the whole of the vinaya. None of the different
schools rules mention the three allowances, but none of the patimokkha rules
of any school prohibit meat eating. The discussion of meat eating in the Pali
texts can be found in at least three places in the Pali vinaya, and these
three allowances are found in the vinaya texts of all except the
Mahasanghikas. Again, it may be that the Mahasanghikas have the oldest
pratimoksa, but that is not necessarily to say that their vinaya texts as a
whole are older.

Nakamura in his INDIAN BUDDHISM states that comparative
study of the vinayas is "a favorite subject of Japanese scholars." He is of
the opinion based upon recent and exhaustive Japanese studies, that the Pali
vinaya is the oldest, followed by the Dharmaguptas, and then we have the
Mahasanghikas.

In a footnote in John C. Holt's DISCIPLINE: The Canonical Buddhism of the
Vinayapitaka, Holt states: "Hirakawa argues that the Suttavibhanga of the
Pali Vinaya represents the oldest version of the first part of the
Vinayapitaka that has survived. He bases his assertion on the fact that the
Pali recension contains the least amount of apadana material when
compared to other texts. Hirakawa considers apadanas to be a genre of
literature from a later period. See Hirakawa, A STUDY OF THE VINAYA (Tokyo:
Sakibo-Busshoron, 1960), pp.12-15."
>> 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
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Theravadins' thoughts on the origin of the Mahayana sutras?

Post by Individual »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

Why not the Pali Vinaya?

Metta,
Retro. :)
Good point. There isn't much of a variation between Theravada and Mahayana Vinaya. Sorry about that. What Anders said is true, though, too. :)
Last edited by Individual on Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Post Reply