Would the Buddha disapprove of Mahayana Buddhism

[Gami47]

[JamesTheGiant]

I think he would be disappointed by all the extra things they had added to his teachings.
But then he would kindly praise all the many things they got right, and he would give a talk correcting the wrong extras.
There are many people who have attained nibbana through Mahayana, so there's a lot of good there.

In my opinion.

[Mumfie]

Of course he wouldn't approve. We know that because he predicted the rascals!

“Again, in the future there will be bhikkhus who are undeveloped in body, virtuous behavior, mind, and wisdom. While engaged in talk pertaining to the Dhamma, in questions-and-answers, they will slide down into a dark Dhamma but will not recognize it. Thus, bhikkhus, through corruption of the Dhamma comes corruption of the discipline, and from corruption of the discipline comes corruption of the Dhamma. This is the third future peril as yet unarisen that will arise in the future. You should recognize it and make an effort to abandon it.

The Drum Peg

At Sāvatthī. “Bhikkhus, once in the past the Dasārahas had a kettle drum called the Summoner. When the Summoner became cracked, the Dasārahas inserted another peg. Eventually the time came when the Summoner’s original drumhead had disappeared and only a collection of pegs remained.

“So too, bhikkhus, the same thing will happen with the bhikkhus in the future. When those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness, are being recited, they will not be eager to listen to them, nor lend an ear to them, nor apply their minds to understand them; and they will not think those teachings should be studied and mastered. But when those discourses that are mere poetry composed by poets, beautiful in words and phrases, created by outsiders, spoken by [their] disciples, are being recited, they will be eager to listen to them, will lend an ear to them, will apply their minds to understand them; and they will think those teachings should be studied and mastered. In this way, bhikkhus, those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness, will disappear.

[TRobinson465]

He would disapprove of mahayana texts thats are falsely attributed to him. But I think he would approve of thier mindset of compassion and helping other beings, as well as the stuff that was right and is prevalent in all forms of Buddhism- four noble truths, 8 fold path, etc.

Personally i think all forms of buddhism today are wrong to some extent- its just that some are more wrong than others and some more right, so he would approve of Mahayana more than secular Buddhism or non-Buddhist religions in general.

[Mahabrahma]

Don't blaspheme the Dhamma.

That's all I gotta say.

☮

/Ekayana.

[Ontheway]

Yes, for certain Mahayana doctrines such as

1) Sukhavati World
2) Only Sammasambuddha is worthy but not the rest
3) Buddha is still within this world
4)Chanting Amitabha mantra for salvation
5) Antarabhava concept
6) Upasaka Vimalakriti is superior to Arahants
7) Vegetarianism is essential
8) the existence of Amitabha Buddha, Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, and Majshuri Bodhisattva that can bestow salvation and forgiveness of sins (in Chinese Mahayana, it is called "Qian Hui")

and many more I suppose...

[Dhamma Chameleon]

Don't blaspheme the Dhamma.

One of the admirable features of the buddhadhamma is that there is no sacred figure, object or concept. The Buddha was a normal human man, the dhamma is reality and natural law, the sangha is fallible and self-correcting. All are free to be disagreed with (ideally in a respectful way).

He said that all paths that contain the eightfold path lead to enlightenment, so i doubt he'd have big problems with it.

[Spiny Norman]

I think the Buddha would have been fascinated by the way his teachings developed and adapted.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I think he'd react similarly to how he'd react to the Theravada Abhidhamma.

However that would be.

Metta,
Paul.

[Brus963]

“Those who, dwelling on views,
dispute, saying, ‘Only this is true’:
Do they all incur blame,
or also earn praise there?”

“[The praise:] It’s such a small thing,
not at all appeasing.1
I speak of two fruits of dispute;
and seeing this, you shouldn’t dispute—
seeing the state
where there’s no dispute
as secure."

“They say their own teaching is perfect
while the doctrine of others is lowly.
Thus quarreling, they dispute,
each saying his agreed-on opinion
is true.
If something, because of an opponent’s say-so,
were lowly,
then none among teachings would be
superlative,
for many say
that another’s teaching’s inferior
when firmly asserting their own.
If their worship of their teaching were true,
in line with the way they praise their own path,
then all doctrines
would be true—
for purity’s theirs, according to each.

Seeking controversy, they plunge into an assembly,
regarding one another as fools.
Relying on others’ authority,
they speak in debate.
Desiring praise, they claim to be skilled.

Those who dispute, taking hold of a view,
saying, “This, and this only, is true,”
those you can talk to.
Here there is nothing—
no confrontation
at the birth of disputes.

Whom would you gain as opponent, Pasūra,
among those who live above confrontation—
not pitting view against view—
who have nothing here grasped as supreme?

So here you come,
conjecturing,
your mind thinking up
viewpoints.
You’re paired off with a pure one
and so cannot proceed.”

Reading verses like these makes me think the Buddha would have been very disappointed with a lot of what transpired after his death. Disputes, schisms, and so on, whether mahayana or non-mahayana. To this day there are disagreements on all sides. Make of that what you will, I guess.

[Ceisiwr]

It depends on the Mahayana. The forms that talk of an Atman, no. Others, possibly.

[Spiny Norman]

It depends on the Mahayana. The forms that talk of an Atman, no. Others, possibly.

Which Mahayana schools talk of an Atman?

[Ceisiwr]

It depends on the Mahayana. The forms that talk of an Atman, no. Others, possibly.

Which Mahayana schools talk of an Atman?

Some of the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras do. If I remember correctly the Nirvana sutra teaches that the ultimate truth is that there really is an atta.

[Ceisiwr]

I think he would find it more bemusing how people talk about birth here, or experience.

[form]

The Buddha can see the future right? He didn't talk about it