Origin of the Mahayana.

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Post Reply
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Origin of the Mahayana.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The Origin of the Mahayana.

In the earliest strata of the discourses the Buddha teaches the abandonment of all views and calls the resultant state emptiness.

This is in sharp contrast to the middle and late strata discourses which are based on a certain world-view. The elements of which are:

1. The cosmos, consisting of three realms, and including a total of thirty-one planes of beings.

2. Deva's and Brahma's, humans, animals, hungry ghost's, and heavens and hells.

3. A literal understanding of kamma and rebirth.

It is not possible to describe the true path to awakening within such a world-view, so a false description was given instead. Ordinary people were allowed to think that nibbana was a realm outside or beyond the cosmos, where Arahants would exist, after death, in a state of bliss for eternity.

This 'nibbana after death' is the only understanding of nibbana which is compatible with the basic worldview. But it is only a speculative view which the teachings never confirm.

So the discourses have already departed from the original teachings. This is probably because the early Buddhist movement based it popular teachings for lay followers on the other religious teachings of the time. Also, the claim which most impressed lay followers was the claim that one was liberated from the cycle of rebirth.

The Abhidhamma Teachings.

This departure only gets worse with the introduction of the Abhidhamma. These teachings are characterised by: realism, reductionism, mechanistic, nihilism. They are consistent with the Nikaya world-view, and ignore the higher teachings found in the discourses, such as emptiness, the cessation of the aggregates, and parinibbana within this life.

The Mahayana.

I suggest that the Mahayana originates in a rejection of both the Abhidhamma and the false teachings included in the discourses.
The Mahayana is an attempt to re-formulate the teachings using a different set of key ideas, which is why the process took so long.

1. They drop the idea that the awakened one is liberated from rebirth.

2. They remove the distinction between samsara and nibbana these become the same thing.

3. They discard the four stages description of the path, and the terms stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, and Arahant.

I know very little about the Mahayana teachings.

My knowledge of the later discourses and the Abhidhamma has led me to be very dissatisfied with them.

The fundamental contradiction between the early and later teachings remains unresolved.

Did the Mahayana solve this problem?

I would like to know your thoughts.

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Origin of the Mahayana.

Post by Lazy_eye »

Hello, Vincent,

The assertion that Mahayana "drops the idea that the awakened one is liberated from rebirth" sounds iffy to me. My understanding is that the ultimate goal in Mahayana is "anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi" (complete perfect enlightenment), which entails freedom from the rounds of rebirth.

Where there may be a difference is in the respective notions of parinibbana/parinirvana.

Rejecting the difference between samsara and nirvana is a logical consequence of "freedom from views." That is, the tendency to make distinctions and engage in dualisms is a characteristic of ordinary (that is, unenlightened) thinking, so at some point it is necessary to jettison this habit.

The "four stages" seem to be incorporated in some parts of Mahayana -- e.g. Pure Land is sometimes equated with the "non-returner" stage.

Just some thoughts...interesting topic. I tend to agree that Mahayana partly arose out of an effort to resolve earlier contradictions...for example "alaya-vijnana" is a way of reconciling kammic rebirth with the Abhidhammic "citta" model.

Robert
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Origin of the Mahayana.

Post by vinasp »

Hi Lazy_eye,

Lazy_eye: - "The assertion that Mahayana "drops the idea that the awakened one is liberated from rebirth" sounds iffy to me. My understanding is that the ultimate goal in Mahayana is "anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi" (complete perfect enlightenment), which entails freedom from the rounds of rebirth."

Yes, you are correct, thanks. This follows from the fact that the Bodhisatta aspires to become a Buddha in the future.
So the ultimate goal is still liberation from rebirth, although the practical focus has shifted to the long series of future lives.

Lazy_eye: - "Rejecting the difference between samsara and nirvana is a logical consequence of "freedom from views." That is, the tendency to make distinctions and engage in dualisms is a characteristic of ordinary (that is, unenlightened) thinking, so at some point it is necessary to jettison this habit."

That is interesting. The world-view that we construct from words/concepts requires that numerous distinctions are maintained. So eliminating these distinctions can collapse the entire world-view.

In the Theravada teachings this 'tree structure' of distinctions is called 'papanca', which the arahant is said to be without.

Lazy_eye: - "The "four stages" seem to be incorporated in some parts of Mahayana -- e.g. Pure Land is sometimes equated with the "non-returner" stage."

Yes, its all so confusing. Perhaps 'Mahayana' has no clear meaning other than 'not Theravada'. My position is that I agree with 'new' teachings, but I think that all teachings should be transcended. [ie. non-realism.]

Lazy_eye: - "Just some thoughts...interesting topic. I tend to agree that Mahayana partly arose out of an effort to resolve earlier contradictions...for example "alaya-vijnana" is a way of reconciling kammic rebirth with the Abhidhammic "citta" model."

If the Buddha was correct, and truth and reality are beyond the reach of language and concepts, then any teaching will be full of contradictions. This means that all teachings have to be transcended. So the 'final state' is probably the same, regardless of the vehicle that one started with.

The central problem is that one cannot found a popular religion on non-realism because the ordinary man wants to be told 'how things really are.'

Regards, Vincent.
sandun Wanniarachchi
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: Origin of the Mahayana.

Post by sandun Wanniarachchi »

For those who are interested about mahayana and abhidhamma evolvement these books by ven. Analayo is highly recommended

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... dharma.pdf (dawn of abhidharma) https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... sattva.pdf (genesis of the bodhisattva ideal )
“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the world, the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, might there be the world or the description of the world?”

“Where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, eye-consciousness, things to be cognized by eye-consciousness, there the world exists or the description of the world.

“Where there is the ear …..

“Where there is no eye, Samiddhi, no forms, no eye-consciousness, no things to be cognized by eye-consciousness, there the world does not exist nor any description of the world.

" Where there is no ear,.....

S.N. 35.66
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Origin of the Mahayana.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I have been looking at some 'early Mahayana' sutra's.
For example: The Stanzas on the Practice of Holy Transcendental Wisdom. [arya prajna-paramita carya gatha.]

Also called: The forty-two Stanzas of the Practice of Holy Transcendental Wisdom, in 164 verse lines.

They seem to be using the term 'bodhisatta' in a way which is similar to its use in the discourses.

In the Nikaya's the Buddha refers to himself, before his enlightenment, as a bodhisatta.

In stanza XVI of the above sutra, the term 'bodhisattvo' seems to mean 'one who has arrived at non-attachment,' but is not yet at the stage of a fully enlightened one.


Stanza XVI

1. kim karanam ayu pravucyati bodhisattvo
2. sarvatra sanga-kriya icchati sanga-chedi
3. bodhim sprsisyati jnana a-sanga-bhutam
4. tasma hu nama labhate ayu bodhisattvo

1. For what reason do we use the term "bodhisattva"?
2. By means of breaking through attachment, of cutting attachment,
3. Having arrived at non-attachment, he knows enlightenment.
4. Therefore he is named an bodhisattva.

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply