What was the reason behind the development of new buddhist vehicles?

[bridif1]

Hi!
I recently posted this on Dharmawheel, and the reception was not what I was expecting.
Maybe the tone of the post may seem rude or as an attempt to proselytize, but that was not my intention at all.

I'm completely ignorant in Mahayana doctrine, philosophy and practice, so I apologize in beforehand if I ask something considered obvious.

It's not my intention at all to be disrespectful. It is curiosity the only motivation behind my questions.

I've been studying the Dharma for a few years, but exclusively from the Theravada perspective.
In my rather short experience, I've seen how the study of the Pali Canon alone has brought tranquility and luminosity to my mind. My perception of the world and the self has changed remarkably, and suffering has ever since become weaker in its influence. 

This is more than enough confirmation to see how the Pali Canon is a sufficient source for itself to achieve liberation from suffering. Or, at least, it is enough to someone who sees the world from my perspective, and it's clear to me that not everyone sees the world under the same lens. 

Having said that I'm confident that although the content of our thoughts may differ from one person to another, the underlying structure of suffering remains the same for most humans.

With all that in mind, my conclusion is that no other philosophical or practical development is needed to overcome suffering and unsatisfaction. The Pali Canon has all the tools necessary for that goal.

(Please, remember that this is just my opinion based on partial knowledge, and I might be biased).

Also keep in mind that Theravada in not an homogenous school, and that it is only one of multiple schools that derived from original early Buddhist sects. 

I don't think that Theravada has the monopoly of interpretation of Pali Canon, mainly because tradition and cultural influences may have distorted the original meaning of the teachings.

Theravada monks and scholar can bring huge insight to illuminate some of the original intention and context behind the suttas, and the weight of lineage should not be discarded immediately. But when trying to see what is valuable and what not, the last word lies mainly in practice and experience.

In the few texts and discussion I've read about Mahayana doctrines, I've seen wonderful teachings about the nature of reality and useful practices to guide people from different backgrounds towards the more abstract teachings of the Dharma.

But these teachings and practices seem accessory to the teachings of the Pali Canon.

We have to remember that the teachings of the Buddha, according to the Pali Canon, were not exclusively directed to monks and nuns, but also to householders and to society as a whole. There are teachings about how to live an skillful family life, on how to be a good monarch, on how to make more peaceful societies, etc. Knowing that, the title of "Hinayana" seems unfair and undeserved.

Also, the teachings given to monks and nuns was varied in difficulty, complexity and deepness. In fact, the Nikayas (collections of suttas) were divided, according to some scholars and monks, by the targeted audience. The Samyutta Nikaya, for instance, has the more complex part of the teachings, while the Anguttara Nikaya seems to contain sermons given to newly conversed monks and nuns. 

This indicates that not everything in the Pali Canon is obscure as it may seem from the outside.

Now, after that long introduction, the question:

What was the need, historically speaking, behind the development of new vehicles and teachings?
Were those developments necessary for the achievement of the ending of suffering?
Were the teachings of the Buddha not good or complete enough?
If so, what were they lacking?
Why was it necessary to give more "turnings" to the Wheel of Dharma?
Was the Buddha wrong in some of its teachings?
What is your personal reason for choosing Mahayana as your main practice?

And finally...
What do you think of the idea found in the Pali Canon that the Buddha made no distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines, and that he taught everything that was required to uproot suffering and its causes?

https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 18512.html
(Look in the section "The Buddha Exhortation")
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.
May all of you have a wonderful day!

[Manopubbangama]

I know this is a lazy approach to your question, but I wanted to post a link to my favorite book on the topic in the case that it may be of any help: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... sattva.pdf

Regarding your last question - Theravada was exoteric for 2600 years and still is, except for tiny pockets of internet fundamentalists that try to calibrate patticasamupada "esoterically."

[DooDoot]

Its bed time for me so I can't post much. But I began sutta study with the core pithy suttas of the MN and then the SN. But once I browsed the AN, which brought to mind the Jataka Tales, I developed the view that the development of Mahayana looked very similar to the development of Theravada. The Bodhisatta of the Theravada Jataka appeared to be the model for the Bodhisattva of Mahayana. The AN loaded with Brahmanistic godly realms appeared to be the model for the Mahayana transforming Hindu gods into Vajrayana Bodhisattvas. To me, they are very similar. I speculate each used the same method to expand their audiences (which ultimately lead to their demise in India via Hindu absorption & in Tibet due to creating an uneducated feudal society lacking in Buddhist wisdom to deal with change). Imo, the Buddha was not wrong in some of its teachings. However, I speculate the ambitious Buddhist clergy & the ambitious King Ashoka, in wanting to expand the appeal of Buddhism, found the Buddha's teaching inadequate for such a worldly ambition. Thus reinvention.

[santa100]

What was the need, historically speaking, behind the development of new vehicles and teachings?
Were those developments necessary for the achievement of the ending of suffering?
Were the teachings of the Buddha not good or complete enough?
If so, what were they lacking?
Why was it necessary to give more "turnings" to the Wheel of Dharma?
Was the Buddha wrong in some of its teachings?
What is your personal reason for choosing Mahayana as your main practice?

The Buddha's Teaching is a complete system in and of itself. It's the mental capacity and orientation of the listeners that varies. Then factoring in the vastly different social/economical/cultural/norms factors as the Dhamma grew and expanded to many regions beyond the original Buddha's kingdom, it's only natural for the Dhamma to adopt the form/approach of the specific region while retaining its central core concepts in order to effectively convey His message to everyone. An analogy, while they're both martial arts, why do Judo and WingChun look completely different? Why Judo is mostly about throws and grappling while WingChung is mostly short-distant hand combos with very few kicks? Well, the history and geography is different. The Japanese samurais wore heavy armors, so punch and kick would be useless, hence the grappling and throws. On the other hand, the fighting in old Southern regions of China mostly happened on boats over rivers and swamps, hence the legs must be steadily anchored with minimal movements, while the hands did most of the work. Lastly and probably the most important point, while the forms and approach might be different, the goal is still the same, whether one's able to walk out of the situation alive and well on his own 2 feet. Similarly for the Dhamma, just like the Buddha's instruction to Gotami:

As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

[Manopubbangama]

Its bed time for me so I can't post much. But I began sutta study with the core pithy suttas of the MN and then the SN. But once I browsed the AN, which brought to mind the Jataka Tales, I developed the view that the development of Mahayana looked very similar to the development of Theravada. The Bodhisatta of the Theravada Jataka appeared to be the model for the Bodhisattva of Mahayana. The AN loaded with Brahmanistic godly realms appeared to be the model for the Mahayana transforming Hindu gods into Vajrayana Bodhisattvas. To me, they are very similar. I speculate each used the same method to expand their audiences (which ultimately lead to their demise in India via Hindu absorption & in Tibet due to creating an uneducated feudal society lacking in Buddhist wisdom to deal with change). Imo, the Buddha was not wrong in some of its teachings. However, I speculate the ambitious Buddhist clergy & the ambitious King Ashoka, in wanting to expand the appeal of Buddhism, found the Buddha's teaching inadequate for such a worldly ambition. Thus reinvention.

Did you read the Ekottara Āgami?

Because this was the ancestor from which the Tibetan canon consists of and it is very, very different from its Pali counterpart.

Also the Tibetan canon was codified almost a thousand years after the Mahayana.

So I don't know if Tibetan is directly related to Pali scriptures in any direct way at all.

Just sayin....

[Polar Bear]

For a realistic but perhaps cynical take on things:

New vehicles were plausibly developed because the Buddha was dead and monks wanted a cooler, grander cosmic story to give their short lives more meaning. Also, meditation induced hallucinations might’ve had something to do with it.

Like with martial arts, different styles of Buddhism have varying degrees of usefulness and varying amounts of entertaining but superfluous fluff. And some techniques might be problematic to use in real life even if they sound cool in that styles’ myths.

[DooDoot]

Just sayin....

Actually, the above was not really sayin much. Just another post without any references or quotes. Just sayin...

The Theravada Abhidhamma below, which either found its way into the suttas or, otherwise, is based on the suttas (who knows ) is very "Mahayana". Its a broader vehicle obviously to appeal to the masses:

18.6.2. Age Limit

What is the age limit of human beings? One hundred years or less or more. (1)

What is the age limit of Cātumahārājika gods? That which is fifty human years is one night and day of Cātumahārājika gods; of such a night thirty nights is a month; of such a month twelve months is a year; of such a year five hundred god years is the age limit of Cātumahārājika gods; by human calculation how much is this? 9,000,000 years. (2)

What is the age limit of Tavatiṃsa gods? That which is one hundred human years is one night and day of Tāvatiṃsa gods; of such a night thirty nights is a month; of such a month twelve months is a year; of such a year one thousand god years is the age limit of Tāvatiṃsa gods; by human calculation how much is this? 36,000,000 years. (3)

What is the age limit of Yāma gods? That which is two hundred human years is one night and day of Yāma gods; of such a night thirty nights is a month; of such a month twelve months is a year; of such a year two thousand god years is the age limit of Yāma gods; by human calculation how much is this? 144,000,000 years. (4)

What is the age limit of Tusita gods? That which is four hundred human years is one night and day of Tusita gods; of such a night thirty nights is a month; of such a month twelve months is a year; of such a year four thousand god years is the age limit of Tusita gods; by human calculation how much is this? 576,000,000 years. (5)

What is the age limit of Nimmānarati gods? That which is eight hundred human years is one night and day of Nimmānarati gods; of such a night thirty nights is a month; of such a month twelve months is a year; of such a year eight thousand god years is the age limit of Nimmānarati gods; by human calculation how much is this? 2,304,000,000 years. (6)

What is the age limit of Paranimmitavasavatti gods? That which is sixteen hundred human years is one night and day of Paranimmitavasavatti gods; of such a night thirty nights is a month; of such a month twelve months is a year; of such a year sixteen thousand god years is the age limit of Paranimmitavasavatti gods; by human calculation how much is this? 9,216,000,000 years. (7)

These six planes of desire
are prosperous in all sense pleasures,
How much altogether is the age of all (these gods)?
Of these (gods) 1,200 koṭis (plus) 28 koṭis
(Plus) 50 hundred thousand are shown
as the total number of years.

NOTE: 1 koṭi = 10,000,000. Total = 12,285,000,000 years.

Having developed the first jhāna to a low degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the first jhāna to a low degree they are born into the company of Brahmāparisajja gods. What is their age limit? A third part of an aeon. (8)

Having developed the first jhāna to an intermediate degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the first jhāna to an intermediate degree they are born into the company of Brahmāpurohita gods. What is their age limit? Half an aeon. (9)

Having developed the first jhāna to a superior degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the first jhāna to a superior degree they are born into the company of Mahābrahmā gods. What is their age limit? (One) Aeon. (10)

Having developed the second jhāna to a low degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the second jhāna to a low degree they are born into the company of Parittābhā gods. What is their age limit? Two aeons. (11)

Having developed the second jhāna to an intermediate degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the second jhāna to an intermediate degree they are born into the company of Appamaṇābhā gods. What is their age limit? Four aeons. (12)

Having developed the second jhāna to a superior degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the second jhāna to a superior degree they are born into the company of Ābhassara gods. What is their age limit? Eight aeons. (13)

Having developed the third jhāna to a low degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the third jhāna to a low degree they are born into the company of Parittasubhā gods. What is their age limit? Sixteen aeons. (14)

Having developed the third jhāna to an intermediate degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the third jhāna to an intermediate degree they are born into the company of Appamaṇasubhā gods. What is their age limit? Thirty-two aeons. (15)

Having developed the third jhāna to a superior degree, where are (beings) born? Having developed the third jhāna to a superior degree they are born into the company of Subhakiṇhā gods. What is their age limit? Sixty-four aeons. (16)

Having developed the fourth jhāna, because of diversity of objects, because of diversity of attention, because of diversity of wish, because of diversity of aim, because of diversity of decision, because of diversity of aspiration, because of diversity of wisdom, some are born into the company of Asaññasatta gods, some are born into the company of Vehapphala gods, some are born into the company of Aviha gods, some are born into the company of Ātappa gods, some are born into the company of Sudassa gods, some are born into the company of Sudassī gods, some are born into the company of Akaniṭṭha gods. Some are born into the company of gods who reach the state of infinity of space, some are born into the company of gods who reach the state of infinity of consciousness, some are born into the company of gods who reach the state of nothingness, some are born into the company of gods who reach the state that is neither perception nor non-perception.

What is the age limit of Asaññasatta and Vehapphala gods? Five hundred aeons. (18)

What is the age limit of Aviha gods? A thousand aeons. (19)

What is the age limit of Ātappa gods? Two thousand aeons. (20)

What is the age limit of Sudassa gods? Four thousand aeons. (21)

What is the age limit of Sudassī gods? Eight thousand aeons. (22)

What is the age limit of Akaniṭṭha gods? Sixteen thousand aeons. (23)

What is the age limit of gods who reach the state of infinity of space? Twenty thousand aeons. (24)

What is the age limit of gods who reach the state of infinity of consciousness? Forty thousand aeons. (25)

What is the age limit of gods who reach the state of nothingness? Sixty thousand aeons. (26)

What is the age limit of gods who reach the state that is neither perception nor non-perception? Eighty-four thousand aeons. (27)

https://suttacentral.net/vb18/en/thittila

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Now, after that long introduction

... which I found quite insightful.

What was the need, historically speaking, behind the development of new vehicles and teachings?

People see things differently, those differences become unresolved in the absence of a Buddha to clarify the Dhamma, and these differences become reified.

Were those developments necessary for the achievement of the ending of suffering?

No

Were the teachings of the Buddha not good or complete enough?

They are good and complete.

Why was it necessary to give more "turnings" to the Wheel of Dharma?

It wasn't.

Was the Buddha wrong in some of its teachings?

No.

What is your personal reason for choosing Mahayana as your main practice?

Not applicable.

And finally...
What do you think of the idea found in the Pali Canon that the Buddha made no distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines, and that he taught everything that was required to uproot suffering and its causes?

Fact.



Metta,
Paul.

[budo]

People lowering the bar to their standards, instead of raising themselves to the bar, because the way the mind works for the average person, you want to do everything but the actual solution which hurts to face. Raising yourself to the bar means acknowledging your weakness, and that reaching the bar may be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

This is why these movements and schisms with all these new shortcuts pop up:

- You don't need jhanas
- You don't need arahantship, just be a bodhisattva.
- You don't need to give up sex
- You don't need to help yourself, easier to focus on others
- You don't need to believe in the Buddha or the Dhamma
- You don't need to accept the Pali, it is an unknown language

And the list goes on

At the end of the day, there are no shortcuts, and the road ahead will be the hardest thing you've ever done in your infinite existences within samsara.

[Dhammanando]

What was the need, historically speaking, behind the development of new vehicles and teachings?

I suspect that the perceived need was the expectation that the Buddha’s teaching should do things it was never intended to do, serve ends it was never intended to serve, answer questions it was never intended to answer, and provide comforts and consolations it was never intended to provide. In other words, the same perceived need that has given rise to the cult of amulets and cult of forest ajahns in Thailand, the cult of nats in Burma, and to engaged Buddhism in the West.

I believe the cause of such expectations is what Glenn Wallis calls the “principle of sufficient Buddhism” — the notion that Buddhism has the goods on everything (and if doesn’t, then it damn well ought to and so where they are lacking we’ll just have to invent them!).

And the “principle of sufficient Buddhism” arises from a failure to take to heart and to reckon fully with the message of the Siṃsapā Sutta:

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kosambī in a siṃsapā grove. Then the Blessed One took up a few siṃsapā leaves in his hand and addressed the bhikkhus thus: “What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more numerous: these few siṃsapā leaves that I have taken up in my hand or those in the siṃsapā grove overhead?”

“Venerable sir, the siṃsapā leaves that the Blessed One has taken up in his hand are few, but those in the siṃsapā grove overhead are numerous.”

“So too, bhikkhus, the things I have directly known but have not taught you are numerous, while the things I have taught you are few. And why, bhikkhus, have I not taught those many things? Because they are unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and do not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have not taught them.

“And what, bhikkhus, have I taught? I have taught: ‘This is suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ And why, bhikkhus, have I taught this? Because this is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have taught this.

“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’ An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the origin of suffering.’ An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the cessation of suffering.’ An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”

[DooDoot]

Why was it necessary to give more "turnings" to the Wheel of Dharma?

I suspect. per Wiki below, the 2nd turning occurred because Theravada got bogged down in reincarnation emphasis or 'metaphysics'. However, there is nothing original in the attempted 2nd turning. It was just an attempted return to the original core teachings. Mahayana teachers still falsely promote the idea that 'compassion' & 'emptiness' have Mahayana origins.

As for the 3rd turning, my impression is this is a "mind-only" doctrine, which is a return to the old Brahmanism or Creationism; that is, influenced by the new esoteric Hinduism; where mind is god or the centre of the universe.

Second Turning
In the second turning, the emphasis is on emptiness (Skt: śūnyatā) as epitomized in the Prajnaparamita sutras, and on compassion (Skt: karuṇā). These two elements form bodhicitta, the epitome of the second turning. The Madhyamika school that Nagarjuna founded arose from his exegesis of the early texts and is included under the second turning. Nagarjuna attacked the metaphysics of the Sarvastivada school and a school which broke away from it called Sautrantika, and promoted, among other things, the classical emphasis on the dependent arising of phenomena of the early texts.

Third Turning
The first sutra source which mentions the "three turnings" is the Ārya-saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra or Noble sūtra of the Explanation of the Profound Secrets, the most foundational sutra of the Yogācāra school. The sūtra affirms that the earlier turnings while being authentic are also flawed or incomplete and require interpretation. The Saṃdhi-nirmocana further claims that its teachings are the ultimate and final truth. Major ideas include the basis-consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna), and the doctrine of cognition-only (vijñapti-mātra) and the "three natures" (trisvabhāva).

Some Buddhist traditions also consider the Tathāgatagarbha (also known as Buddha nature) teachings as part of this turning. This was elaborated on in great detail by Maitreya via Asanga in the Five Treatises of Maitreya, which are also generally grouped under the third turning. The Yogachara school reoriented later refinements, in all their complexity, so as to accord with the doctrines of earliest Buddhism.

In Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhist tantra and its associated scriptures are sometimes considered to also be part of the third turning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Tur ... nd_Turning

[Dan74-MkII]

This is an old saw and no definitive answer will ever be found, I suspect.

If you asked a Mahayana practitioner throughout the centuries, they would just say it's the Buddha's teachings and indeed many (most?) still believe that it is literal Buddhavacana. So there is no notion of "development of new" - there always have been different vehicles for different practitioners.

If you ask modern scholars, then on the basis of textual analysis, using language and thematic tools, they are pretty sure most Mahayana sutras are of later origin. But this is also open to doubt and there are other possible interpretations of the facts.

My experience as a Seon (Korean Zen) practioner is that among the actual practitioners, there is very little concern with this and related questions, maybe because there is such an emphasis on the application here-and-now. Even teachers I've heard are quite pragmatic about it and regard at least some Mahayana as acculturation of the Dharma as is passed through the rich Chinese, Korean and Japanese cultures and had to combat the pre-existing belief-systems. The ultimate point being that having passed some tough battles, it is true to its mission of liberation.

Of course Mahayana does claim that it is a Greater Vehicle because it is concerned with ferrying all sentient beings across, not just one. The Bodhisavvta Vows remind the practitioner that ultimately one practices not for one's own benefit, but for others. To what extent one embodies this in reality is of course another question, but this is the aspiration. And in my view, it is noble and useful, but horses for courses.

Does it offer something that Theravada lacks? That's a very loaded question in itself. Some folks need very little for liberation and others require more, and depending on personalities, different approaches and methods work. Obviously in the centuries since the Buddha, enlightened teachers have devised new ways of imparting the Dhamma. So in Tibetan Buddhism and also in some Zen schools, there are energetic and body practices, since it makes sense to use the body as part of practice to relinquish the defilements and attain clarity needed for insight. I don't know if chanting "buddho" was taught by the Buddha, but many Theravadins find it a very useful practice. And so it goes.. Not to say that the Dhamma as preserved in the Tipitaka is incomplete (though it is likely to be missing quite a bit of what the Buddha had taught), all the essentials are there and then some! But we should be wary of our Judeo-Christian bend to yearn for a closed Holy Scripture, authored by God's hand to be revered and worshipped. All of it is a vessel to cross to the other shore, no more, no less.

_/|\_

[AgarikaJ]

I know this is a lazy approach to your question, but I wanted to post a link to my favorite book on the topic in the case that it may be of any help: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... sattva.pdf

This is indeed a very good book to read.

Another one is Hirakawa, Akira - Indian Buddhism: A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, where Early Buddhism, Nikaya Buddhism and early Mahayana tradition are handled at length on together about 300 pages.

[Dhammanando]

If you asked a Mahayana practitioner throughout the centuries, they would just say it's the Buddha's teachings and indeed many (most?) still believe that it is literal Buddhavacana. So there is no notion of "development of new" - there always have been different vehicles for different practitioners.

If you ask modern scholars, then on the basis of textual analysis, using language and thematic tools, they are pretty sure most Mahayana sutras are of later origin. But this is also open to doubt and there are other possible interpretations of the facts.

By “other possible interpretations” do you mean others that are deemed credible by modern textual scholars or others that merely reiterate the Mahayanists’ traditional view of their sūtras’ provenance?

[Manopubbangama]

I know this is a lazy approach to your question, but I wanted to post a link to my favorite book on the topic in the case that it may be of any help: https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... sattva.pdf

This is indeed a very good book to read.

Another one is Hirakawa, Akira - Indian Buddhism: A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, where Early Buddhism, Nikaya Buddhism and early Mahayana tradition are handled at length on together about 300 pages.

Thanks for the dig.

I'd love to have been reborn with the time to become a scholar.

Its neverendingly interesting.

Right now, I just try to constantly reaffirm that what I'm trying to do is the right way for me.

I chose a rusty, warn-out old vehicle after all, instead of a brand new Nalanda-engineered turbo-engine monster.