Apech

From one of the Drewes texts which CT linked to above: https://www.academia.edu/9226471/Early_Indian_Mahayana_Buddhism_II_New_perspectives 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.

waffles

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).

nothing - we destroyed the sky

The term Mahayana first appears in the 2nd 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.

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.

A talk by the author of one of the books CT linked to above:

Philip K. Dick

snake tree apple

The Mahayana Just to set the historical time frame this is an extract from Akira's book:

I just want to mention that I have omitted mention of Mahadeva - who in some accounts is a kind 'evil' influence who argued things like the idea that Arhats could have wet dreams. This is given in some texts as the grounds for the 2nd Buddhist council disputes - but is not supported by all sources and most scholars think it not historical but more a back projection for didactic purposes. So I'm not going to delve into it.

This book is very good at showing that Zen = Ch'an was still practiced in Tibet. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tibetan-Zen-Discovering-Lost-Tradition-ebook/dp/B015P5BEYA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516873255&sr=8-1&keywords=Tibetan+Zen I think the debate you quote - or the decisive win for Lam Rim is probably fictitious. the whole journey of Buddhism to China is very interesting also, particularly this account: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddhism-Acquired-Buddhist-Studies-Monographs/dp/1845539974/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1516873436&sr=8-1&keywords=Jungnok+Park the early 'schisms' in Buddhism were mostly either about Vinaya rules or a process of throwing out wrong think like eternalism - although it is true that debate over whether an Arhat could have a wet dream did feature.

I think I understood this differently (and possibly not correctly ) and certainly see the eightfold mind as a kind of unctional model which is not truly 'real' - while Buddha-nature/Dharmakaya are real. Developmentally both Yogacara and Madhyamaka would be an 'improvement' on the reality = streams of dharmas of the Sarvastivedans presumably.

Ha ha ... it's your fault for linking to that site

Golden Virginia

That's the version that Malcolm for dharmawheel said is a joke. I think generally that to study old texts you need the Sanskrit words - so you can check the context and how the term is applied. Either that or find a competent teacher to guide you through it if you can. Just reading them can be a bizarre experience.

There isn't a universal static mind in Buddhism - this is probably a bad translation. The Yogacara does talk about everything being mind - but they mean something like mind-stream or stream of perception perhaps - you have to find out which Sanskrit term they are using eg. citta, mana, vijnana to see what exactly they are saying. Also the alaya-vijnana although it is sometimes called substrate or storehouse consciousness its not a kind of universal substance - although in the sense that we all have it, it is universal - but words get tricky at this point.

three of a kind

commode

yes I watched this some time ago. he seems well within the camp which just dismisses the Mahayana.

I think I'm going to skip over the 4th Buddhist Council as this was simply where the Pali Canon was committed to writing, after famine had killed off many monks and the oral tradition was threatened. As a side note, this is quite a common feature of all ancient texts - things were not written down until they were threatened with extinction. While traditions were active and culturally embedded there was more confidence in the oral tradition - but when under some kind threat then writing things down was understood as a method of preservation. The other thing to note is that this happened in the first century BC when Buddhism was almost 400 years old. Many scholars now believe that the Pali Canon while clearly containing some authentic words of the Buddha - also reflects the general attitudes which had developed by that time. So it is not a simple task to extract the Early Buddhism contained in it from the Buddhism current in say 29 BC (one of the suggested dates). Imagine for instance that Shakespeare had not been written down but just memorised by generations of actors - would you expect the result to be the perfect words of the Bard???? I'm going to move on to the growth of the Mahayana and use two main sources: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddhist-Thought-Second-Paul-Williams/dp/0415571790/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516797523&sr=8-1&keywords=Buddhist+Thought and https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Indian-Buddhism-Sakyamuni-Tradition/dp/8120809556/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516797669&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=A+History+of+Indian+Buddhism+From+Sakyamuni+to+Early+Mahayana+by+Hirasawa+Akira

I have not studied this sutra but I note wiki (yes I know bad source) suggests an equation between alaya-vijnana and buddha-nature - which I think is wrong. can you explain a bit more what your issues are?

Thanks - in practice yes. But i don't think the positing of a fundamentally real mind-stream is compatible with Madhyamaka or is some kind of addendum. But in the end tantrika and yoga practitioners will admit mind-stream or buddha-nature as some kind of existent.

I agree in some sense with what you have written and your account is perhaps more standard. But then you have to look at the role of direct revelation in any religion and see how that works. Substantially I would say that what the Mahayana sutras contain while perhaps being revealed to certain people at certain time - it was not a ) the product of schism and b ) a substantially new practice. I'll go into why I think that when I get to it.

honey I'm home!