Apech

human sacrifice to the great beast demon of everlasting fire

protocol

3rd Buddhist Council There is some dispute over whether this council actually happened as there are some things about it that don’t make immediate sense, such as the Emperor Ashoka personally interviewing monks about their views. It only occurs in the Pail texts so there is no support from other sources. However it seems likely that some process like this did happen and the story is illustrative of that. The background is that in the 200 odd years since the Buddha India (or most of it) had gone from being divided into 16 main kingdoms to unity under the Mauryan Empire, founded by the grandfather of King Ashoka, who is well known as a great Buddhist king. He introduced writing (the Brahmic Script) and built pillars and stupas to hold relics of the Buddha and promoted the Dharma (while still supporting or allowing other traditions like Vedanta and Jainism). Royal patronage is great in the sense of subsidy and support but can be a two edged sword – because it brings with it politics and imperial ambition. Religion as a tool of state. In 236 BC one of Ashoka’s ministers had taken to beheading monks who refused to join a unified congregation – and had to be restrained. Unlike the two previous Councils, which were about the Vinaya rules, this one was convened to address the doctrinal disputes which had caused the monks to reject the unified teachings. They wanted to weed out ‘heretics’. Some might suggest that these ‘heresies’ originated due to contamination of the pure stream of Buddhist doctrine from other traditions. And this might be partly true. But I would suggest that it is more likely that these non-Buddhist views actually arose from within Buddha-dharma itself. The teaching of dependent origination is highly nuanced and subtle. It is very easy to fall into both mistaken belief about it and also mistaken criticism of the view. Even the Buddha himself made this point when Ananda claimed to understand it. The Buddha reprimands Ananda for saying dependent origination is clear to him! Not only that, he says that this whole generation is in a mess because no-one understands it. Its not easy or clear at all – it is profound, subtle and deep. When you come across yourself it you might think that to say that everything is dependent on causes and conditions and does not exist indepenently of everything else – like a sort of cosmic ecology – is actually straightforward. A tree depends on seed, soil, water and sun, time to grow and so on. Even mountains move and are slowly erode given enough time. Its hard to contradict the idea that everything is impermanent and subject to change, that things are made of parts and do not stand alone and eternally separate from everything else. But still as we experience reality as real – we also think, well that is all true but surely there must be some real cause or some real underlying substance which makes it so. And this real cause or substance must be eternal surely. And so we posit eternalism. Alternately we say well, life is ephemeral, the universe is just a big random mess of energy, there is no ‘self’ at all and thus the things we peceive do not really exist. There is nothing. And so with remarkable ease we slip into the two main mistakes – eternalism and nihilism. Its easy to do. Much easier that striving to awaken to real understanding of dependent origination. Especially as true understanding would involve becoming a Buddha ourselves. So it is not surprising that some of the sangha – in fact about half of the sangha (60,000 out of 120,000) had slipped into one of these views. Six million seems unlikely – so I think we can accept 60,000 – which means the sangha was split in half over this. So having expunged the heretics the sangha then reformulates the doctrine.

Hi, I'm not presenting myself as an expert in this - its just that I am reading up on early Buddhism at the moment and thought I would write about it. I'm going to deal with the 3rd and 4th Buddhist Council first and then probably the growth of the mahayana after. Cheers.

I was going to come to this later - if I have the stamina I don't know anything about Huayan but from a brief google it looks superficially at least quite Yogacara - and has links to Ch'an which definitely is.

No I know that sex is out for monks - I just phrased it badly. I'm writing these things quite quickly so I apologise for any confusion.

Which doctrinal differences do you mean?

pork you don't pine

panoply

a tissue

Second Buddhist Council I’m going to look through this – again the text is taken from Lamotte’s History of Buddhism in India – (copied under fair use) – because his account is very accurate and based on the original Sinhalese Pali texts. The Sanskrit and Pali names have been slightly mangled by this process so some of the spelling is wrong – but to correct would take a long time. Ok, so simlilarly to the First Council this is all about the Vinaya precepts. A certain sangha had decided to relax ten rules. As we will see of these relaxations one is seen as most important – and that is the handling of gold and silver i.e. money. But some of the other suggested relaxations are quite interesting. Storing salt in a horn – which is presumably how you kept salt in those days – well, this would seem harmless – but suggests a movement from receiving alms and immediate consumption to at least some level of culinary preparation – a distraction perhaps from meditation and study. Or even more perhaps a sign of a subtle change of lifestyle from complete dependence on the local community to some degree of independent living (?). So in a sense this second Buddhist Council was revisiting the same ground as the first. Was it ok to relax minor rules? And what are the implications of doing so? The accepting of money is the big deal. Is this because money is the root of all evil? Well there is nothing in Buddhism to say so. In fact Buddhists generally view wealthy people as evidence of good karma – that is good fortune arising from good acts in past lives. The Buddha himself was popular with the middle class merchants and producers. So money per se is not regarded as inherently ‘evil’. But for a monk it is slightly different because they are supposed to living outside the world including the world of commerce. But I think the significant thing here is the impact money will have on the sangha itself. Again, even more than salt in a horn, money in a purse indicates that the sangha can and will organise itself completely differently. Later (particularly under the Guptas) in Indian history the royal patrons of the sangha replaced alms with land grants. This allowed the monasteries to become centres of production and wealth to support themselves. This lead to more inward looking scholarly Buddhism to flourish although it continued to hold forest wandering as an ideal – most monks however lived in these closed communities. So upholding the precepts had major implications for the sangha beyond just individual ethics. So a senior monk from another community comes across this practice of accepting money and makes his objections. Interestingly while the local sangha are unconvinced the local laity accept what Yasa is saying – thus causing friction. So why are the laity more conservative than the monks themselves? It’s clear that the Buddhist monks command respect and reverence from the community who want them to maintain the highest standards – while the monks themselves are being more pragmatic – perhaps because this was perceived as necessary to maintain the sangha in some kind of good order. I don’t think we have to assume that they were merely being lax. There followed some escalation of the issue – the suspension of Yasa who then went to seek support. He was actively lobbying for his point of view and gaining numbers from the other sanghas. Revata, clearly an important figure, does his best to avoid getting involved. Blocking them on Twitter and junking their emails until they finally catch up with him and he comes down on the side of Yasa. Perhaps this indicates that the issue was not exactly cut and dried – or perhaps something that some leaders of the community did not want to get too excited by. Well! The venerable Silha was warned by a deity. So those Buddhist were not the atheists that modern secular Buddhist would have you believe. Deities always existed in the Buddhist world-view it’s just they were not worshiped as ways to liberation. I think the reference to the attempted bribery of Revata is probably propaganda, as offering gifts to a very senior member of the sangha would be normal in those (and indeed these) days. I doubt very much if they thought that this would influence him – but simply they went to see him to explain their point of view. The question was not cut and dried – it threatened to go on forever. So its seems the errant monks had some good arguments on their side. This wasn’t a simple rule break – but as I suggested above a pragmatic move by one sangha to organise themselves more sucessfully – even though clearly this did have some serious implications. So the decision of the Council was not to vary the rules. What happened after is by no means clear but it seems to have lead to schism between the Sthaviravada and the Mahasanghika (who were the majority). It is suggested that the Sthaviravada became the Theravedans but it is really not that simple – they did however represent the more conservative ‘elders’ - whereas the majority Mahasanghikas had fewer precepts (but not I think along the lines of the ten rules). There has been a tendency to suggest that the Mahasanghikas lead to the Mahayana but this is also not correct as the schism was about precepts and not doctrine and cannot account for the emergence of Mahayana views and is indeed not in the right time period. Just as a footnote I find it very sympathetic that the early Buddhists settled hotly debated disputes in this way, rather than the usual way of either violence or authority. They were remarkably democratic – going by majority decisions – and determined to stick to principles of non-violence. Its a shame that there isn’t more information but it certainly an interesting study in how dispute, dialogue and debate can resolve issues – as long as hate is removed. I wish that modern Buddhist politicians followed this example – though one wonders how long they would last.

After thoughts on First Buddhist Council I've been thinking about the difference between individual values and community values - and that once you have a community and not just a group of individuals then you have both rules and a hierarchy and that it is important to preserve those things if you don't want the community to disintegrate. But I think there is always a debate about a rule based community versus a 'person' or perhaps heart based one - which might be what this is all about. Also the Buddha was being permissive and not prescriptive - he said you can relax the minor rules if you see fit - not you 'must'. But then again if it wasn't important why mention it at all on your deathbed???

FFS

Yes let's be clear - having sex would be a major breach and lead to being thrown out of the sangha. Minor precepts are things like 'making a noise with your mouth when eating' and 'teaching the dharma to someone who is holding an umbrella'. Here is a list: http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

yes you are right - anatman and the five skandhas are Buddhist - but I see both of those as being based on dependent origination - thanks.

This is a mahayana Yogacara sutra.

Its from the Pali Vinaya. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8722/where-did-the-buddha-say-that-the-minor-rules-for-monks-could-be-ignored

testes

creme brulée

Thanks I've read the first one and downloaded the second. very useful.

This is account of the First Buddhist Council taken from Ettienne Lamotte’s History of Buddhism in India: It gives an account taken from the Pali Vinaya – and so the whole context in which the story is framed is the confirmation and affirmation of the rules for monks. The Buddha had just died (sorry passed into paranirvana) and so there was an immediate worry that the whole ‘project’ of Buddhadharma would slide. I think it is significant that the convener of the council learned of the Buddha’s death not from another Buddhist but from an Ajiveka. The Buddha lived at a time of proliferation of new teachers and ‘ways’. Buddhadharma was not standing alone in this period but was part of a general movement to explore new ways to enlightenment. The Avijekas died out but other movements like the Jains survived and prospered. Even though the First Council was about both the sutras and the vinaya – it is the vinaya which stands out as important to the community that Buddha left behind. So what was the condition of the sangha at this time? Well it is important to remember there wasn’t really such a thing as Buddhism yet and that now with the teacher no longer present to act as a focal point and of course, to give teachings, the monks needed to rely on something to make them cohere. The Buddha had invented the role of the monk to free people up from the onerous life of a householder. Being householder at this time was not as it is now. There was no free time or leisure. It was a 24/7 job of running and supporting a whole community, an extended family through several generations, workers, servants and slaves, as well as a demanding round of social and religious commitments. The Buddha wanted those who followed him to be able to spend their time studying, meditating and remaining ethically pure. So he created this role to provide that. The rules developed over time with some core values like harmlessness and honesty, together with a host of increasingly proscriptive rules. This was because monks strayed and he wanted to keep them on track. But as we will see later on his deathbed he said they could relax the minor rules as he obviously thought there were too many. But it didn’t work out that way. If you have rules that release people to follow the path - then why make those rules into the path? You can see already in this account that most of the monks, with a few exceptions were doing exactly that. Not to say that for the right person it is not a great achievement to live a life devoted to the dharma and under a strict regime. But will following a set of rules produce liberation? No, not really. The monk Subhaddha was one of the last, if not the last to be taught by the Buddha and here he is probably being used as a representative of a number of monks who reacted as he did. He thought – ‘no Buddha no rules’ – that he could return to be being a freelance mystic in the forest (a kind DaoBum of his day), that he had had instruction from the Buddha and it was up to him how to apply it. I doubt very much that he ‘rejoiced at the loss of the Buddha’ - I think that’s a way of making him seem bad. The Buddha did not impose a hierarchy on the monks, although there was a level of seniority in older more experienced monks and he did not appoint a successor. Ananda who was closest to the Buddha was perhaps a natural successor but he was not until shortly later an arhat, so it is unlikely he would have commanded respect. But if you are setting about to organise a religious entity you do need a hierarchy and here Kasyapa takes the lead. At this stage there was no writing in India. It was still pre-literate until the Mauryan Empire of Ashoka around 150 -200 years later and so it was a question of producing both the vinaya and sutras in a form that could be memorised and chanted. As luck would have it Ananda was not only present at most of Buddha’s teachings but had perfect recall. So he was to recite the sutras and Upali the vinaya. This was a mammoth undertaking and made all the more legitimate by Ananda becoming an arhat that morning. The cynical side of me finds this a very convenient way of adding authenticity to the sutras. After all you will see later that Ananda is punished – which should not happen to an arhat. The precision of these two pieces of work, the sutras and vinayas is impressive, as is the categorisation by place, subject and audience. It shows the extraordinary effort involved to get both accuracy and authenticity. A monumental achievement. So it was not without a great deal of care and consciensciousness that this work was undertaken. Really it was the first turning point where Buddhadharma emerged from being one of many sects to being a distinct path. You can imagine what would have happened to the purity of the message had they all gone their separate ways into the forest to meditate. So going back to the precepts, the rules by which the monks lived, which had been a burden for some free spirits but was now becoming central – Ananda drops a bit of a bombshell. The Buddha had said that they could do away with the minor ones. This put the sangha into a bit of a quandary and you can see that actually they didn’t want to do this. So instead of taking this as an instruction they turn it round into a criticism of Ananda. He hadn’t checked which the minor ones were! How could a congregation of 500 great and learned monks possibly distinguish between major and minor rules. Between say, not killing or having sex and not making a noise with your mouth when eating. So instead of sitting down and deciding which was which, they blame the hapless Ananda for not asking the dying Buddha to list them. To Ananda’s crimes they add a few purity issues and the awful offense of allowing women into the sangha. And he, despite feeling innocent, confesses these faults and is penalized. He is stuck in the middle between those establishing an orthodoxy and the free spirits. He is concerned with the sutras and not the vinaya. He is open to women getting involved and perhaps not obsessively careful about purity rules. That he has been ‘defiled by women’s tears’ is not surprising when you imagine the scenes at Buddhas death. He stepped on his raincoat ... this is what is important!?! There’s something about how Ananda was treated that is so inconsistent and unfair – that it rings true. On the one hand you have a group of people who are unable to decide what is minor precept and what is a major one, who punish a man unjustly using those very rules but who preside over a monumental work of extraordinary precision. On the other we have some free spirits who while students of the Buddha accepted the rules and now want to drop them. And Ananda in the middle. I’ll go on to discuss the second Council to show how these tensions persisted.

Hi A&P, yes you picked me up on my vague English. The vajrayana is definitely based in medieval India - say 600 - 1300 AD and the iconography and the lives of the Mahasiddhas are all from this period. Tibetan Buddhism through Padmasambhava and Atisha (and many others) inherited and preserved this system. I am not saying this is not the case. What I am suggesting is that the Buddha taught 'something' - unrecorded or preserved which was practiced by some people and was equivalent in the basic approach. I can't prove this (as yet) but I can and will cite scholars who now say the the Mahayana far from being a new emergent was a minority school of practice which some monks adopted from the beginning. Its popularity grew later.

Well good questions. At the moment I would say the following. I don't think a watershed moment exists. I think that there would have always been Buddhists who were 'devotional' in practice and indeed 'bakhti' in practice. For instance on a frieze at the second century BC stupa at Sanchi there is depicted people playing musical instruments as a form of worship - and also naked female Yakshi figures - not exactly austere and monkish. Early Buddha 'representation' don't show a figure but just an empty space, an umbrella, a tree or a pair of sandals. This is usually taken as a prohibition rather as in Islam - but there is no such rule. So what were they expressing through this? Of the Buddha's actual teachings I think it would be fair to say that you could discern the Four Noble Truths in the early Upanishads and so on. So maybe that was not completely original - and many of the adherent ideas like karma and so on are not original either - although he did have his own way of looking at them (e.g. karma is intent ). Dependent origination perhaps is original. Otherwise I would say he is very much in the Indian spiritual tradition.

outfinity

I'm new to this thread and haven't read all of it ... so ... Didn't Jesus say something along the lines that he had come to fulfil the law and not destroy it?