Buddhist Historical Narrative

[C T]

14 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

 

Thats basically how I see it. While I enjoy these sutras and mantras etc, I cant help feel they represent a decay or corruption of authetic Buddhism. If the goal of Buddhism is Buddhas, whats with all the crazy talk of rebirths and magical buddha lands? When a Buddha dies hes really and totally dead and gone and not coming back. Instead we have ideas of eternal Buddhas with infinite lifespans...which seems entirely contrary to the basic principles. I cant read the Amitabha sutra without thinking 'this is fake', even though I love the splendid character of Amitabha.

 

Original Buddha, supposedly, was not given a revelation by a being. Why should we accept such 'gifts' from dubious sources? I apply the same criticism to western religions.

 

But not to sidetrack too much, lets see how it could be that Mahayana existed from the beginning as Apech suggests...

 

8)

 

The rationale behind the variety of teachings and paths indicates & acknowledges the evolving sophistication of wide-ranging mental capacities, with different progressive cultures requiring adaptations to be made - to facilitate this, the way the Dharma was presented were made more palatable to suit local customs and traditions (mental diets), taking care not to completely discount the main staple. Much like how parents devise novel ways to liven up a toddler's feed time. 

 

 

[Apech]

15 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

 

Thats basically how I see it. While I enjoy these sutras and mantras etc, I cant help feel they represent a decay or corruption of authetic Buddhism. If the goal of Buddhism is Buddhas, whats with all the crazy talk of rebirths and magical buddha lands? When a Buddha dies hes really and totally dead and gone and not coming back. Instead we have ideas of eternal Buddhas with infinite lifespans...which seems entirely contrary to the basic principles. I cant read the Amitabha sutra without thinking 'this is fake', even though I love the splendid character of Amitabha.

 

Original Buddha, supposedly, was not given a revelation by a being. Why should we accept such 'gifts' from dubious sources? I apply the same criticism to western religions.

 

But not to sidetrack too much, lets see how it could be that Mahayana existed from the beginning as Apech suggests...

 

8)

 

 

Thanks,

 

I think this is a typical view which I don't really agree with.  For instance the Buddha taught rebirth and the jakatas list his births up to Buddhahood - although of course the modern sceptical Buddhist start to get selective at this point.  

 

I am not saying that the cultural phenomena of Mahayana sutras existed from the beginning - but the general attitude, motivation and approach did - but only getting popular expression in the first centuries AD.

 

'If the goal of Buddhism is Buddhas' - well that actually is a Mahayana view - the goal of Hinayana is becoming an arhat - the goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood.  Which is probably the primary difference as it includes the Bodhisattva path which the Hinayana refutes.

 

I'll write in more detail later.

[steve]

16 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

 

Thats basically how I see it. While I enjoy these sutras and mantras etc, I cant help feel they represent a decay or corruption of authetic Buddhism. If the goal of Buddhism is Buddhas, whats with all the crazy talk of rebirths and magical buddha lands? When a Buddha dies hes really and totally dead and gone and not coming back. Instead we have ideas of eternal Buddhas with infinite lifespans...which seems entirely contrary to the basic principles. I cant read the Amitabha sutra without thinking 'this is fake', even though I love the splendid character of Amitabha.

 

Original Buddha, supposedly, was not given a revelation by a being. Why should we accept such 'gifts' from dubious sources? I apply the same criticism to western religions.

 

But not to sidetrack too much, lets see how it could be that Mahayana existed from the beginning as Apech suggests...

 

8)

 

Some of the "crazy talk" is simply a different perspective.

It sounds crazy if we do not yet see the world and the teachings through that perspective.

Some of that refers to culture and some to our own level of spiritual development.

 

I mean no disrespect, none of us understands everything contained within the teachings - certainly not me.

 

Buddha does not die because Buddha has never been born.

Buddha does not refer to the bag of skin that is born, dies, and decays nor to the personality that inhabits it.

Buddha is the awakening of self-illuminated, unbounded spaciousness within that bag of skin and personality.

The body dies, the personality dies, but awakening presence does not. 

 

Rebirth is a sticky wicket for many but it is easier to grasp when one sees the truth of sunyata and dependent origination.

 

My teacher helped me to be more accepting of aspects of the teachings that don't speak to me.

He freely admits there is much he doesn't understand contained within the teachings.

Rather than look at it as wrong or crazy, he invites us to recognize our own limitations in understanding and cultivate a degree of trust in the wisdom of the lineage and an interest in gaining a deeper and more comprehensive understanding over time through patient study and practice.

 

It's also important to acknowledge that not everyone is suited for every path and if the path does not speak to us it is OK to take a different one. The Dalai Lama often recommends we take from Buddhism what works for us and not be too concerned with what doesn't. It's not an all or none proposition, even though there are those who would have us believe it must be.

 

[Apech]

The term Mahayana first appears in the 2^nd century AD and from there begins to grow, at first as a minority view but alongside Hinayana (using that term for convenience), then later to become the majority view in North India and China. It is likely that terms or schools exist for some time before being mentioned in texts – so it is very possible that the Mahayana as such was around from about the begining of the millenium.

 

The Mahayana sutras which were written in the first few centuries AD while purporting to be the words of the Buddha are not included in the Early Buddhist texts (Pali Canon and Agamas). The style and presentation of these sutras is perhaps characterised by a more ‘flowery’ and religious imagery and emphasise the Buddha as eternal rather than a living human teacher.

 

The origins of the Mahayana are indistinct and do not seem to result from either schism (there is no substantial difference in vinaya rules for monks) or a kind of popularism from the laity wanting a more devotional practice, as the laity were more conservative than monks, worshiped with monks at stupas from the very beginning and did not favour esoteric practices which characterise some of the Mahayana.

 

So what exactly disinguishes the Mahayana?

 

There are several candidates for the difference:

 

Emptiness versus no-self.

 

The Mahayana upholds ‘sunya’ or the emptiness of all phenomena. This means that while in a conventional sense things exist, everything is emphemeral, made of parts and lacks a ‘self’ = svabhava – which means they do not exist in and of themselves. The Sunyavada is attributed to to Nagajuna who lived around 200 AD and promoted this view.

 

No-self on the other hand (anatman) is the refutation by the Buddha of the idea of the Atman which was taught in the Vedic Upanishads – and is an eternal self which reincarnates over succesive lives. It is something like an immortal soul. Buddha said this does not exist and that what we experience as a self is just an ‘effect’ caused by the coming together of causes and conditions at five levels (skandhas).

 

So does Sunya conflict with Anatman? Not really - Anatman is really just a special case of Sunya – that is applying emptiness to our selves. Nagarjuna in fact was probably arguing at least partly against the Buddhist school of Sarvastivada – the ‘everything is real’ school – which taught reality was a stream of ‘dharmas’ (psycho/physical events or ‘atoms’) in the past, present and future. Other Buddhist schools said that past and future dharmas were only inferred from present dharmas and thus not ‘real’. In doing this Nagarjuna did not believe he was reforming Buddhism or even introducing anything new – he thought he was reviving the Buddhas original words. There is some support for this:

 

Nāgārjuna may have arrived at his positions from a desire to achieve a consistent exegesis of the Buddha's doctrine as recorded in the āgamas. In the eyes of Nāgārjuna, the Buddha was not merely a forerunner, but the very founder of the Madhyamaka system.[16] David Kalupahana sees Nāgārjuna as a successor to Moggaliputta-Tissa in being a champion of the middle-way and a reviver of the original philosophical ideals of the Buddha.[17] (Wiki)

 

Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”

 

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self.

 

“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”

-SN 35.85, World Emptiness (Suñña­ta­loka­-sutta)

 

So this seems more a case of back to basics in response to more elaborate ontological positions.

 

 

Four noble truths, dependent origination and no-self vs. Perfection of wisdom sutras.

 

It is interesting that the classification Hinayana and Mahayana comes only from the Mahayana. While some Mahayana texts categorise the Hinayana approach as being ‘lesser’ and the Hinyayana sangha being antagonistic (like ‘jackals’ in one case), the Hinayana does not mentions Mahayana at all – as if it doesn’t exist. You would have thought if there was some kind of new breakaway movement then some mention would be appropriate. In fact the need for the Mahayanists to distinguish and elevate their view sounds like a minority voice trying to create its own identity.

 

The Mahayanist uphold the Four Noble Truths, dependent origination and no-self. So in this sense there is no conflict. I have already suggested that emptiness is not a real ground for conflict (except between Sunyavada and Sarvastivadens in the obscure realm of the nature of dharmas).

 

So the only ground for dispute is whether or not the Mahayana perfection of wisdom sutras represent the words of the Buddha. Hinayanists would say no – because they are not part of the Pali Canon or Agamas – and from the Mahayana point of view its not so much questioning the validity of these early Buddhist texts but questioning their completeness – i.e. Is it likely that this is all the Buddha said or taught.

 

Conception of the path (Arhat or Buddha).

 

This is the biggy. There is a major difference between the Hinayana idea of what we are supposed to be doing and the Mahayana one. Perhaps where this comes out strongest is in motivation. Given we accept that suffering exists – is it that we should save our selves, or is it that we should think in terms of saving others (inclucing ourselves and all sentient beings?). Should we go quickly to Nirvana and be a ‘non-returner’ - or should we committ outselves to returning time and again for the benefit of others?

 

So there is a strong motivational difference. And this comes out even more when you start to think about how the ‘goal’ and the teacher is understood.

 

If we say that on the one hand there is suffering in samsara and on the other hand peace in nirvana – and the Buddha taught the way from one to the other and we should follow his way. That is one position.

 

If on the other hand you say – the Buddha gained enlightenment and then did what? He taught for 45 years liberating others. Why? His compassion. Where did that come from? Where do compassion and wisdom come from if we just supposed to immerse ourselves in Nirvana and not return? So wasn’t the Buddha rather than being in charge of the escape committee more demonstrating how we should be. If on enlightenment the Buddha’s mind became not different to ultimate reality then did the Buddha’s mind extinguish? Or is it in some sense eternal like ultimate reality? Are there other beings who realised to some extent their nature as not being different to the Buddhas mind and yet embody the positive qualities which arise from it. Like wisdom and compassion. Was the Buddha’s teaching just the words written down nearly 400 years later in the Pali Canon and Agamas or was his life the teaching also.

 

So I would say that the Mahayana arises not from vinaya or doctinal differences but simply from contemplating the Buddha in a certain way – and I would suggest that the reason no definitive event can be attributed to arising of the Mahayana view is that it was there as a minority/eccentirc view right from the beginning.

 

 

 

[C T]

o

Edited January 26, 2018 by C T

[C T]

http://www.academia.edu/12854001/Who_Composed_the_Mahāyāna_Scriptures_The_Mahāsāṃghikas_and_Vaitulya_Scriptures

[Apech]

5 hours ago, C T said:

http://www.academia.edu/12854001/Who_Composed_the_Mahāyāna_Scriptures_The_Mahāsāṃghikas_and_Vaitulya_Scriptures

 

 

You are full of little gems

 

(but this is the how of the generation of sutras - not the why and where from - as I read it).

[C T]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

(but this is the how of the generation of sutras - not the why and where from - as I read it).

 

 

Maybe surf among the papers done by Paul Williams, David Drewes and Paul Harrison into Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism to get a more complete pic. 

 

Have you read this article before? 

https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/the-origin-of-mahayana

 

link to some of Drewes' research..

http://umanitoba.academia.edu/DavidDrewes

Edited January 26, 2018 by C T

[Apech]

From one of the Drewes texts which CT linked to above:

 

https://www.academia.edu/9226471/Early_Indian_Mahayana_Buddhism_II_New_perspectives

Quote

 

Over the years, a range of terms has been used to distinguish Mahayana from the remainder of Buddhism. In the past, and still sometimes now in textbooks and other general treatments, authors commonly depicted Indian Buddhism as being divisible into Mahayana and Hinayana or Mahayana and Theravada. Both of these schemes are now seen as untenable. Dividing Buddhism into Theravada and Mahayana makes sense only when discussing Buddhism after the disappearance of Buddhism in India. Sri Lankan and South East Asian Buddhists currently identify as Theravadins and East Asian and Tibetan Buddhists currently identify as Mahayanists. The Theravada nikaya, or more properly group of nikayas, seems first to have come into existence as a self-conscious group in Sri Lanka around the second or third century CE, claiming, like all Buddhist nikayas, to faithfully transmit the original traditions of Buddhism. The Mah ay ana came into existence before this. It seems that early Theravadins accepted Mahayana teachings and that it was not until the tenth century that a reform movement led the lineage to become fixedly anti-Mahayana (Cousins 2001; Walters 1997). Many people during this period were thus simultaneously Mahayanists and Theravadins. In addition, before the disappearance of Buddhism in India, there were several nikayas other than the Theravada, many members of which rejected Mah ay ana texts. Until this point there were thus monastics who were neither Theravadins nor Mahayanists.

 

The Mahayana⁄Hinayana division was popular when scholars understood the term Hinayana to refer collectively to the various nikayas. Scholars who adopted this basic taxonomy often used it with the disclaimer that Hinayana is a pejorative term developed by Mahayanists. In order to avoid using a pejorative term, some scholars used terms such as Nikaya Buddhism or Sectarian Buddhism. Since it is now clear that Mahayanists did not use the term Hinayana to refer to the nikayas, and were not against the nik ayas per se, none of these terms are now considered appropriate designations for non-Mahayana.

 

 

elsewhere he suggests that the Mahayana sutras (or the earliest ones) pre-date the writing down of the nikayas.

 

So I think we can confidently ditch the idea of Mahayana produced by schism, a new schools or order of monks and even the overlap between the Theravada and Mahayana.

 

[steve]

I just want to say how impressed with this thread.

I'm not much of a history buff myself but it is important and cudos to your knowledge and commitment, Apech.

_/\_

[Maddie]

This raises a question I have as coming from a mostly Theravada background. Is there much study of the Pali Canon in Mahayana? Theravadan's from what I've seen tend to reject Mahayana sutras outright. Most of my personal study has been of and from the Pali texts and though I enjoy reading them I'm not entirely convinced that all the Pali Canon is the original and accurate words of the Buddha. 

[C T]

Im not too bothered as long as the central tenets are by and large consistent among all the authentic schools.

One of the Dzogchen books i was reading just last night mentioned the importance of insight into the 4 truths. 

 

Btw, I share Steve's sentiments - thanks Apech! Wonderful thread. 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

This raises a question I have as coming from a mostly Theravada background. Is there much study of the Pali Canon in Mahayana? Theravadan's from what I've seen tend to reject Mahayana sutras outright. Most of my personal study has been of and from the Pali texts and though I enjoy reading them I'm not entirely convinced that all the Pali Canon is the original and accurate words of the Buddha. 

 

 

the Mahayana upholds 4 Noble Truths, dependent origination and no-self (as part of emptiness) so actually they are not rejecting the contents of the nikayas - Theravada denies the authenticity of Mahayana sutras - but then I have seen Thai/Sri Lankan monks attend lectures by Sakya Trizin and DL - so maybe not that far apart in some ways

[Apech]

2 hours ago, steve said:

I just want to say how impressed with this thread.

I'm not much of a history buff myself but it is important and cudos to your knowledge and commitment, Apech.

_/\_

 

 

Thanks.  the quotes are accurate but anything I've said is just me rapping ... so take with big pinch of salt

[Astral Monk]

Just thought I'd add this selection from a passage in the book The Healing Buddha (1979), since I just read it, and it speaks to our topic:

 

"The composition of these Mahayana texts seems to have occurred four to seven centuries after the death of Sakyamuni, yet the texts purport to record his spoken teachings. From a Mahayana viewpoint, there are a number of ways to deal with this problem.

 

...[T]hese teachings were safeguarded by the great Bodhisattvas in various secret places, such as the palace of the king of the gandharvas, and the palace of the king of the nagas. These teachings were later released when mankind was ready to receive them.

 

Another point of view which could be taken is that the assemblies took place in spirit realms and are essentially ahistorical.

 

...A third point of view is that these texts were composed by various Buddhist teachers, who expressed their insights and inspiration by writing in the traditional sutra form."

 

Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha (1979), pg.52-3

 

It is possible, following on the last suggestion, to view Mahayana texts as a kind of skillful means to break through intractable concepts and viewpoints. However, it seems a rather perilous way, as if many of these texts are taken literally, they might just as easily lead ppl astray. Pure Land practice, for instance, seems antithetical to the spirit of Buddhism, however, many interpret Pure Land in terms relevant to this life and this practice, which may make it a useful modality.

 

Now I'll have a look back at the recent posts!

 

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Astral Monk

[Apech]

If anyone is interested in Early Buddhism this (apart from books (!)) is the best thing to watch.

 

 

if you have several hours to spare

[Apech]

11 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

Just thought I'd add this selection from a passage in the book The Healing Buddha (1979), since I just read it, and it speaks to our topic:

 

"The composition of these Mahayana texts seems to have occurred four to seven centuries after the death of Sakyamuni, yet the texts purport to record his spoken teachings. From a Mahayana viewpoint, there are a number of ways to deal with this problem.

 

...[T]hese teachings were safeguarded by the great Bodhisattvas in various secret places, such as the palace of the king of the gandharvas, and the palace of the king of the nagas. These teachings were later released when mankind was ready to receive them.

 

Another point of view which could be taken is that the assemblies took place in spirit realms and are essentially ahistorical.

 

...A third point of view is that these texts were composed by various Buddhist teachers, who expressed their insights and inspiration by writing in the traditional sutra form."

 

Birnbaum, The Healing Buddha (1979), pg.52-3

 

It is possible, following on the last suggestion, to view Mahayana texts as a kind of skillful means to break through intractable concepts and viewpoints. However, it seems a rather perilous way, as if many of these texts are taken literally, they might just as easily lead ppl astray. Pure Land practice, for instance, seems antithetical to the spirit of Buddhism, however, many interpret Pure Land in terms relevant to this life and this practice, which may make it a useful modality.

 

Now I'll have a look back at the recent posts!

 

 

 

 

Why do you think Pure Land Buddhism is antithetical to the spirit of Buddhism?  I'm not saying that it isn't but would just like to know your reasons.

[Apech]

Growth of Mahayana - conclusions?

 

As you know from my OP my contention is that the Mahayana style practice came from the Buddha himself but was a minority (or possibly esoteric practice) for the first 300+ years and 'broke out' into the mainstream when the historical conditions demanded it or allowed it.  I haven't managed to prove this - but current academic thinking does support some of this and also refutes most of the misconceptions which built up since Buddhism came west.

 

The papers linked by CT contain a number of ideas based on current textual evidence - that the term Mahayana probably derives from Mahajnana (colloquialized  into Mahajana) - thus meaning 'great wisdom' and first occurs in written form in the 1st century CE but derived from the first century BC - which interestingly makes them contemporary with the Pali Canon.  But more and more appear in the first few centuries CE.  That this was not a separate school but a different form of practice which occurred within existing Buddhist monasteries - sometimes alongside Hinayana - but still a minority in say 400 - 600 CE - and did not really become totally distinct until after Buddhism died out in India - whence the Sri Lankans threw out the Mahayana which was practice there and the Chinese/Tibetans and so on retained it.

 

The Mahayana practice focused on the sutras themselves which were taught by 'dharmabhanakas' - they recited the texts, taught its meaning and guided the students in memorising it.  In fact hearing, memorising and chanting the text were the practice.  What these texts introduced was the 'world' or eternal, comic Buddhas such as Maitreya (the future Buddha), Amitabha and also Bodhisattvas like Avolokiteshvara - who embodies compassion.  

 

I think it is important to understand that idea of a text is not like a western one.  It comes from an oral teaching of course where transmission would be by memorising and repeating and not just reading (of course).  The Mahayanists regarded the dharmabhanakas who gave the text as being 'like Buddhas' - so there was something supra-mundane going on in the sense that receiving, learning, memorising and chanting the text was more like a meditational practice than a passive reading one.  And engagement with this may be, in my mind why they call Hinayanists shravakas 'listeners' as that is what the audience for a nikaya text would do.  But the Mahayana process would be more like the Vajrayana 'lung' transmission - to which I can attest is not a mere passive reading.

 

 

[C T]

Found another link that might interest this thread's 'burgeoning' no. of participants lol 

 

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8709/2616

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, C T said:

Found another link that might interest this thread's 'burgeoning' no. of participants lol 

 

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8709/2616

 

 

 

Thanks - a good read - Drewes quotes Harrison extensively.

 

I'm not sure if we are done with the growth of the Mahayana - for which we can confidently discount the usual narrative - with the slight caveat that what the academics are discounting are the rather casual conclusions of previous academics and not the teachings of Buddhism itself.

 

It's very revealing that while we tend to think we can look at eastern religions objectively - they have already been (since the 19 th. century) 'contaminated' by Western rationality and misapprehension especially the projection of Judeo-Christian values onto them.  I think this is true of Daoism also - especially Philosophical and New Age Daoism which probably bears no, or little relation to the original Daoism but is a reflection of our views and sometimes fantasies.

 

 

[C T]

It might be more interesting to delve deeper into possible emic contaminations, if any, and any behavioural data of the early Mahayanists. Some scholars argue that it is not appropriate (for euro-centric minds) to view splits in Eastern religious reform movements that involved the production of new texts with the same lens as when one probes Christian reformation. In the context of any significant Christian reforms, schisms were the norm, but some Eastern scholars say this assumption does not apply in India generally. As one scholar noted, "Buddhist India was far more pluralistic than Christian Europe". 

 

Whats worthy of consideration is also the theory put forth by some quarters that Mahayana grew gradually and without conflict along the institutionalised framework of mainstream Buddhism (i assume by mainstream what that signifies is the predominant movement of that period) - the eventual divergence was more as a result of mainstream Buddhism offering up resistance to the emergence of what they deemed to be internal sects forming, whereby the aim, according to the mainstream elders, was to direct effort at reworking existing sutras. This was of course met with some strong, biased resistance from those same elders at that time. 

[Astral Monk]

On 1/28/2018 at 1:20 AM, Apech said:

Why do you think Pure Land Buddhism is antithetical to the spirit of Buddhism?  I'm not saying that it isn't but would just like to know your reasons.

 

My understanding is that Buddha achieved insight through his own efforts, and encouraged everyone after to do the same. The revolutionary idea being that individuals could attain the highest awakening in this present life. 

Then we have the Amitabha sutra where suddenly Buddha suggests that if this is too hard for you, no worries, it just so happens you dont need to do any of that hard personal work I myself demonstrated. Instead, just earnestly invoke Amitabha 10 times before death and at the time of death youll go to a magical land where continuing on the path is super easy and results pretty much garuanteed.

And Amitabha is eternal, never ending, illuminates the universe and so on.

Aside from evoking some western ideas of saviours and heaven, it basically says forget whatever other teaching, this one here is really a shortcut. All the super-Buddha invokation and mantra practices are like this. Not saying mantras cant be a useful tool, but, reading literally it just seems way off.

If awakening leads to nirvana and exiting the realm of becoming, and the goal of Buddhas is to lead this liberation, why are some Buddhas building eternal magic lands that basically perpetuate the realm of becoming further? Seems weird. And awfully convenient. 

So I guess I have an issue with the idea of 'other power' and thats why it feels like Pure Land is a deviation.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

18 hours ago, C T said:

Found another link that might interest this thread's 'burgeoning' no. of participants lol 

 

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8709/2616

 

 

Some interesting points, including subtle gender differences to earlier teachings and lack of cultish appearances. I also wonder how we can extend origin of so many texts to India when there are no copies of the originals. How do we know some texts werent simply composed in Chinese?

 

This seems like an important point:

 

"...the early adherents of the Bodhisattvayana—who were probably very much in the minority—were prepared to go to great lengths to uphold their ideal against what they conceived to be the traditional goal of Buddhist practice, namely arhatship or nirvana for oneself alone..." (pg.84)

 

It seems the vow of universal compassion and service was emerging as having greater worth. But it is puzzling--if Buddha himself didnt take the bodhisattva type path, isnt this suggesting that bodhisattvas have more compassion than Buddha? Yet they aspire to become buddhas. And later we have great bodhisattvas basically making themselves eternal in order to continue serving their vow, even when Buddha himself completed his mission and went to parinirvana.

 

So we need to ask, what evidence is there for such an aspiration or teaching being present in the earliest form of Buddhism or in Buddhas earliest recorded teachings?

 

8)

[Apech]

On 1/29/2018 at 3:42 PM, Astral Monk said:

 

My understanding is that Buddha achieved insight through his own efforts, and encouraged everyone after to do the same. The revolutionary idea being that individuals could attain the highest awakening in this present life. 

Then we have the Amitabha sutra where suddenly Buddha suggests that if this is too hard for you, no worries, it just so happens you dont need to do any of that hard personal work I myself demonstrated. Instead, just earnestly invoke Amitabha 10 times before death and at the time of death youll go to a magical land where continuing on the path is super easy and results pretty much garuanteed.

And Amitabha is eternal, never ending, illuminates the universe and so on.

Aside from evoking some western ideas of saviours and heaven, it basically says forget whatever other teaching, this one here is really a shortcut. All the super-Buddha invokation and mantra practices are like this. Not saying mantras cant be a useful tool, but, reading literally it just seems way off.

If awakening leads to nirvana and exiting the realm of becoming, and the goal of Buddhas is to lead this liberation, why are some Buddhas building eternal magic lands that basically perpetuate the realm of becoming further? Seems weird. And awfully convenient. 

So I guess I have an issue with the idea of 'other power' and thats why it feels like Pure Land is a deviation.

 

8)

 

 

Interesting points, thanks.

 

Obviously we must all make up our own minds as to the value of these different ideas.  But I would make the following response.

 

Buddha-fields or Pure lands (of which there are many - in fact Ashobhya's is mentioned before Amitabhas) are explained by the idea that our experience of our environment is conditioned by our awareness.  So for instance a fish experience water as it's 'air' or total environment, we experience as something to drink or wash ourselves with and gods experience it as ambrosia (or so we are told).  So an enlightened being experiences the same universe as we do but as a pure land or Buddha field.  Amitabha specifically through his intent created a pure land where even beings with confused and afflicted minds could reside and receive teachings which hastened their path to realisation.

 

I don't think it is true that to access Dewachen/Sukhavati is effortless as one has to be pure intentioned etc. which does imply a certain moral effort on the part of the devotee.

 

Pure land Buddhism is particularly prevalent in China and Japan and the idea was that we are living in a third age in which it is very hard if not nearly impossible to achieve enlightenment by one's own effort and so a leg up was required.  So I don't think it is intended as a cosmic get out jail free card but more a devotional form of Buddhism which developed to suit the temperament of the Chinese and Japanese - or some of them.

 

But as I say it is up to each of us to form our own perspective and I would say I don't find Far Eastern Pure Land style very attractive - though whether this counts as a view or not I couldn't say.

[Maddie]

11 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

 

Some interesting points, including subtle gender differences to earlier teachings and lack of cultish appearances. I also wonder how we can extend origin of so many texts to India when there are no copies of the originals. How do we know some texts werent simply composed in Chinese?

 

This seems like an important point:

 

"...the early adherents of the Bodhisattvayana—who were probably very much in the minority—were prepared to go to great lengths to uphold their ideal against what they conceived to be the traditional goal of Buddhist practice, namely arhatship or nirvana for oneself alone..." (pg.84)

 

It seems the vow of universal compassion and service was emerging as having greater worth. But it is puzzling--if Buddha himself didnt take the bodhisattva type path, isnt this suggesting that bodhisattvas have more compassion than Buddha? Yet they aspire to become buddhas. And later we have great bodhisattvas basically making themselves eternal in order to continue serving their vow, even when Buddha himself completed his mission and went to parinirvana.

 

So we need to ask, what evidence is there for such an aspiration or teaching being present in the earliest form of Buddhism or in Buddhas earliest recorded teachings?

 

8)

 

Actually the Buddha did take a bodhisattva vow eons ago, this is how he eventually became the Buddha. This also illustrates the bodhisattva concept in Theravada, that a bodhisattva's end goal is to become a fully enlightened Buddha.