Theravada and Mahayana

[Apech]

 

...

The party known as the Mahasamghika, or “Great Community,” was the predecessor of the Mahayana tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of North and East Asia.

...

 

I have read that there is little evidence for this as the Mahayana split is not about vinaya disputes but about a different way in which Buddhahood is conceived.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Apech

[RongzomFan]

He said Mahasamghika, not Mahayana. Although the two are associated.

[Apech]

He said Mahasamghika, not Mahayana. Although the two are associated.

 

 

He said "Mahasamghika, or “Great Community,” was the predecessor of the Mahayana tradition" this was what I was disputing ... or rather authors I have read have disputed.

[RongzomFan]

What he said was pretty basic. A bunch of old dudes wanted to add rules to the original Vinaya. They thus broke off from the majority Mahasamghika.

 

See A Concise History of Buddhism by Skilton

[RongzomFan]

He said "Mahasamghika, or “Great Community,” was the predecessor of the Mahayana tradition" this was what I was disputing ... or rather authors I have read have disputed.

 

He should of said the Mahasamghika developed the Mahayana.

[Apech]

What he said was pretty basic. A bunch of old dudes wanted to add rules to the original Vinaya. They thus broke off from the majority Mahasamghika.

 

See A Concise History of Buddhism by Skilton

 

 

It might be pretty basic BUT the point I was making is that this account is now disputed by some experts in the field of Buddhist studies ... OK?

[RongzomFan]

It might be pretty basic BUT the point I was making is that this account is now disputed by some experts in the field of Buddhist studies ... OK?

 

Do you have a reference?

[Apech]

Do you have a reference?

 

"Buddhist Thought" chapter 3 page 74. ISBN 978-0-415-57179-1

[Cheshire Cat]

I have read that there is little evidence for this as the Mahayana split is not about vinaya disputes but about a different way in which Buddhahood is conceived.

 

Unless, we accept that mahayana is the direct teaching of the Buddha delivered to a special secret assembly of bodhisattvas (faith)... there's much space here for all kind of speculation.

 

All theories are welcome.

[RongzomFan]

I don't believe in that bullshit, and yet I still believe in Mahayana.

 

Mahayana is merely a reaction against Abhidharma. Nothing mystical about it.

[Apech]

Unless, we accept that mahayana is the direct teaching of the Buddha delivered to a special secret assembly of bodhisattvas (faith)... there's much space here for all kind of speculation.

 

All theories are welcome.

 

 

The point(s) being made in that book I quoted above in reply to Alwayson are these:

 

1) the schisms which occurred in 'early' Buddhist schools were about divergence in monastic rules.

 

2) when Chinese monks visited India at this time and commented on monastic life they remarked that different monks of the same monastic rule would be practicing Hinayana and Mahayana side by side with tolerance.

 

3) it seemed that the minority Mahayana view at that time in ancient India was regarded as a slightly eccentric but harmless variant ... i.e. there was no major schism.

 

4) the difference between Hinayana and Mahayana is seen as one of motivation i.e. seeking to liberate self or seeking to liberate self and all sentient beings and not rules and so on.

 

5) given 4) it is perfectly possible and likely to have occurred that there could be Thervadans which hold a Mahayana view (though it would be discouraged by those institutions.

 

6) since the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana has nothing to do with vinaya rules which were the basis of schism it is highly unlikely that the Mahayana grew out of one of the schools that divided off. It is more likely that individuals in all schools held the Mahayana view but that it grew in popularity over time in certain places because of the changing social and political climate - to compare see the book Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement which makes a similar case for the growth of tantric Buddhism - to become a majority view in the North and a minority view in the South.

 

7) that the comparison made between the Hinayana and Mahayana and say Protestant and Catholic Christianity is false and unhelpful in properly understanding the history of Buddhism.

 

There you have it.

[Creation]

Hello all,

 

Here is a great article on the development of the Mahayana, from it's beginnings as a stupendously difficult path for the very few, through the initial ideas regarding Buddhas presiding over other realms, to the version of Mahayana exemplified by the Pure Land and "One Vehicle" ideas taken as normative in China.

 

The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhavativyuha

Edited February 9, 2013 by Creation

[Apech]

Hello all,

 

Here is a great article on the development of the Mahayana, from it's beginnings as a stupendously difficult path for the very few, through the initial ideas regarding Buddhas presiding over other realms, to the version of Mahayana exemplified by the Pure Land and "One Vehicle" ideas taken as normative in China.

 

The Indian Roots of Pure Land Buddhism: Insights from the Oldest Chinese Versions of the Larger Sukhavativyuha

 

 

Thanks dowloaded and after a quick scan looks interesting

[Cheshire Cat]

5) given 4) it is perfectly possible and likely to have occurred that there could be Thervadans which hold a Mahayana view (though it would be discouraged by those institutions.

 

This could be likely.

For example, Woodward (translator of a famous and obscure buddhist yoga manual) mentions a Bikkhu, Doratiaveye, who lived in Ceylon. This monk learned by his guru the secret technique of this obscure yoga... but he never practiced it, because being a bodhisattva, he feared to reach Nirvana directly. This Bikkhu was alive in 1900.

It's not a 100% mahayana view... but it's neither a 100% theravada approach, imho.

 

 

 

 

6) since the difference between Mahayana and Hinayana has nothing to do with vinaya rules which were the basis of schism it is highly unlikely that the Mahayana grew out of one of the schools that divided off. It is more likely that individuals in all schools held the Mahayana view but that it grew in popularity over time in certain places because of the changing social and political climate - to compare see the book Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement which makes a similar case for the growth of tantric Buddhism - to become a majority view in the North and a minority view in the South.

 

The reasons of the schism is not clear at all.

We cannot say that it was for vinaya rules.

As I wrote, an account say that the controversy was caused by a scandalous monk, Mahadeva.

 

 

 

7) that the comparison made between the Hinayana and Mahayana and say Protestant and Catholic Christianity is false and unhelpful in properly understanding the history of Buddhism.

 

I never associated Hinayana with the "right" Dharma and mahayana with a corrupted one or something in this line.

I just wanted to point that the original movement was quite ascetic (middle way, but full of renunciations) without interest in deities, pujas and the like. The purpose was total and definitive extinction.

We know this by reading the early canons.

Then, in different phases, someone introduced deities as in catholicism someone introduced saints.

The last phases of "deities introduction" was made trough tantra.

 

In fact, theravadins have full and elaborate worship rituals.

 

Edited February 9, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Apech]

 

This could be likely.

For example, Woodward (translator of a famous and obscure buddhist yoga manual) mentions a Bikkhu, Doratiaveye, who lived in Ceylon. This monk learned by his guru the secret technique of this obscure yoga... but he never practiced it, because being a bodhisattva, he feared to reach Nirvana directly. This Bikkhu was alive in 1900.

It's not a 100% mahayana view... but it's neither a 100% theravada approach, imho.

 

 

 

 

 

The reasons of the schism is not clear at all.

We cannot say that it was for vinaya rules.

As I wrote, an account say that the controversy was caused by a scandalous monk, Mahadeva.

 

 

or even if there was a schism as we would understand the term ... that gave rise to Mahayana ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never associated Hinayana with the "right" Dharma and mahayana with a corrupted one or something in this line.

I just wanted to point that the original movement was quite ascetic (middle way, but full of renunciations) without interest in deities, pujas and the like. The purpose was total and definitive extinction.

We know this by reading the early canons.

Then, in different phases, someone introduced deities as in catholicism someone introduced saints.

The last phases of "deities introduction" was made trough tantra.

 

In fact, theravadins have full and elaborate worship rituals.

 

 

No but it is suggested in many western books on Buddhism that the schism was like Protestant/Catholic ... while now those in the field of study of the history of Buddhism are saying it is unlikely that Mahayana emerged in this kind of way.

 

Buddhism and dharma is incredibly adaptive ... because it is not stuck in an entrenched deity worship view. For instance if you look at the history of Buddhist art you can see it change and absorb the culture in which it found itself. In the same way the style of practice can adapt to the needs of the people living in that time or place ... provided the core features (for instance the Four Seals) are preserved. Tibetan Buddhism is a prime example having absorbed Bon and the tantra of the mahasiddhis. In fact Thervavada is probably not the same as the ancient schools itself.

[Cheshire Cat]

or even if there was a schism as we would understand the term ... that gave rise to Mahayana ...

 

There was a schism between Sthaviravada and Mahasamghika and this is generally accepted as an historical fact.

Although some valid hypothesis (that I'm not aware of) may exists which proves that this schism never happened... since historical proofs are quite rare here.

As for the exact origins of Mahayana, there are different theories also.

Personally, I think that it was a form of silent schism... people not directly involved where not concerned about it.

 

But considering the Lotus Sutra and the story of the burning house

 

 

One day, a fire broke out in the house of a wealthy man who had many children. The wealthy man shouted at his children inside the burning house to flee. But, the children were absorbed in their games and did not heed his warning, though the house was being consumed by flames.

Then, the wealthy man devised a practical way to lure the children from the burning house. Knowing that the children were fond of interesting playthings, he called out to them, "Listen! Outside the gate are the carts that you have always wanted: carts pulled by goats, carts pulled by deer, and carts pulled by oxen. Why don't you come out and play with them?" The wealthy man knew that these things would be irresistible to his children.

The children, eager to play with these new toys rushed out of the house but, instead of the carts that he had promised, the father gave them a cart much better than any he has described - a cart draped with precious stones and pulled by white bullocks. The important thing being that the children were saved from the dangers of the house on fire.

In this parable the father, of course, is the Buddha and sentient beings are the children trapped in the burning house. The Burning House represents the world burning with the fires of old age, sickness and death. The teachings of the Buddha are like the father getting the boys to leave their pleasures for a greater pleasure, Nirvana.

(from http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism/parable_burning_house.html)

We may suppose that Mahayana was born in a place where many dharmas were already present. Mahayana didn't deny them, but plainly said that his Dharma was superior. And this story of the superior teachings goes on today, applied in any new form of mahayana path...

But probably this was a common attitude among the various sects...

imho.

[RongzomFan]

Tibetan Buddhism is a prime example having absorbed Bon and the tantra of the mahasiddhis.

 

Weird statement. Indian universities such as Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. taught Vajrayana. All the root tantras are clearly Buddhist. Atisa etc. wrote all about Vajrayana. Its not something foreign to be absorbed into Buddhism.

 

We have many commentaries from professors at Vikramsila etc. on specific tantras.

Edited February 9, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

Unless, we accept that mahayana is the direct teaching of the Buddha delivered to a special secret assembly of bodhisattvas (faith)... there's much space here for all kind of speculation.

 

All theories are welcome.

There's been scholarly research done that has shown that the Prajnaparmita-Sutras and the 'third turning sutras,' came much later after the Buddha had passed away; also that they all weren't composed in India. Whether it was revealed to certain individuals through the Sambhogakaya level, a product of realization that was composed later, or as reaction to certain elements of those times: Still, I can appreciate and have faith in the Mahayana ideal (of the bodhisattvas.)

 

I remember, on Dharmawheel, the example of the Dzogchen tantras came up. Whether or not they were composed in India, didn't take anything away in the end: They were a product of realization (and have continued to lead others to that same realization.)

 

I think the history of what became Mahyana, is interesting to say the least. I don't think that takes away the meaning of what's being conveyed in the Mahayana sutras (obviously, we can see their influence in East Asian Buddhism.)

[Apech]

Weird statement. Indian universities such as Nalanda, Vikramsila, Odantapuri etc. taught Vajrayana. All the root tantras are clearly Buddhist. Atisa etc. wrote all about Vajrayana. Its not something foreign to be absorbed into Buddhism.

 

We have many commentaries from professors at Vikramsila etc. on specific tantras.

 

Yes of course you are right but Tibetan Buddhism has a number of strands ...and as a culture has the influences that I mentioned.

[RongzomFan]

Yes of course you are right but Tibetan Buddhism has a number of strands ...and as a culture has the influences that I mentioned.

 

You mention Bon. But Bon comes way after Buddhism.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=La1CWinaDR4C&pg=PA99&dq=Tibet+Sam+van+schaik+In,+fact+the+Bonpo+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JpQWUeW-No2v0AHL94H4Bg&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Tibet%20Sam%20van%20schaik%20In%2C%20fact%20the%20Bonpo%20religion&f=false

[Apech]

There's been scholarly research done that has shown that the Prajnaparmita-Sutras and the 'third turning sutras,' came much later after the Buddha had passed away; also that they all weren't composed in India. Whether it was revealed to certain individuals through the Sambhogakaya level, a product of realization that was composed later, or as reaction to certain elements of those times: Still, I can appreciate and have faith in the Mahayana ideal (of the bodhisattvas.)

 

I remember, on Dharmawheel, the example of the Dzogchen tantras came up. Whether or not they were composed in India, didn't take anything away in the end: They were a product of realization (and have continued to lead others to that same realization.)

 

I think the history of what became Mahyana, is interesting to say the least. I don't think that takes away the meaning of what's being conveyed in the Mahayana sutras (obviously, we can see their influence in East Asian Buddhism.)

 

 

i find the idea of direct teachings from the Sambhoga Kaya much more convincing than the idea that the Pali Canon is the whole story. Any system has to have renewal through realised teachers like Marpa, Milarepa, Gamopopa and the Karmapas. Without it, it becomes empty like Christianity has become empty (IMO). And i mean empty as in nothing not shunyata.

[Apech]

You mention Bon. But Bon comes way after Buddhism.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=La1CWinaDR4C&pg=PA99&dq=Tibet+Sam+van+schaik+In,+fact+the+Bonpo+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JpQWUeW-No2v0AHL94H4Bg&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Tibet%20Sam%20van%20schaik%20In%2C%20fact%20the%20Bonpo%20religion&f=false

 

 

What were the Tibetans practicing when Padma Sambhava arrived?

[RongzomFan]

What were the Tibetans practicing when Padma Sambhava arrived?

 

Noone really knows. Basically just some funerary rituals.

[Simple_Jack]

You mention Bon. But Bon comes way after Buddhism.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=La1CWinaDR4C&pg=PA99&dq=Tibet+Sam+van+schaik+In,+fact+the+Bonpo+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JpQWUeW-No2v0AHL94H4Bg&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Tibet%20Sam%20van%20schaik%20In%2C%20fact%20the%20Bonpo%20religion&f=false

Wait, hold on: What about ChNN's university lectures that were later published into books (Light of Kailash; Necklace of Zi; Dreung, Deu, Bon; Zhang Zhung: Images from a lost kingdom?)

 

Have you read them?

 

I haven't, but have been interested in buying them; that's why I'm asking.

 

*Actually, I don't think, all of them were from his lectures when he was teaching in Italy.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[Apech]

Noone really knows. Basically just some funerary rituals.

 

 

From Wiki:

 

 

 

 

 

The scholarly history of Bon is difficult to clearly ascertain because the earliest surviving documents referring to the religion come from the 9th and 10th centuries, well after Buddhistsbegan the suppression of indigenous beliefs and practices.^[3] Moreover, historian Per Kværne^[3]notes that "Bon" is used to describe three distinct traditions:

• the pre-Buddhist religious practices of Tibetans that are "imperfectly reconstructed [yet] essentially different from Buddhism" and were focused on the personage of a divine king;
• a syncretic religion that arose in Tibet during the 10th and 11th centuries, with strong shamanistic and animistic traditions, that is often regarded by scholars as "an unorthodox form of Buddhism;"
• "a vast and amorphous body of popular beliefs" including fortune telling.

 

my bold.