Buddhist Historical Narrative

[Apech]

Ok.  I am in the middle of a process of going through some of the history of early Buddhism and so on and have a few ideas to put out here which I should really provide proper evidence for - but being lazy and also still in the process I'd prefer to just say broadly what I'm thinking in the hope that I'll get a few replies.

 

The Buddhism that came West in 19th and 20th centuries was dominated by a brand of rational and dualist thinking.  In fact it was presented to the Western mind in a way that responded to Western rationalism - and even some schools of practice were made up for this very reason e.g. Goenka's vipassana.  What backed this up was the following narrative.

 

Buddha's 'original' teachings (sparse, scholastic, mono - as represented by a certain reading of the Pali Canon sutras)

 

Early Buddhism = wandering ascetic monks in the forest

 

Monastic Buddhism - supported by Ashoka and then various kings, becomes major religion

 

Mahayana formed through schism - Buddhism splits North/South and travels to China etc.  Mahayana brings in 'contamination' of Hindu ideas about self = buddha-nature etc., Greek philosophy and so on.

 

Vajrayana arises through more contamination from Kaula Tantric practices and at the same time Buddhism declines in India until it eventually dies out.

 

This kind of historical narrative appears to be supported by vajrayana's own division of dharma into Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana - as a temporal series.

 

I would suggest an alternative narrative which is broadly as follows:

 

Buddhas original teaching - very broad 84,000 dharmas - every style of teaching that was to follow - completely open reflecting the needs of his various students and audiences.

 

Early Buddhism - small sanghas living and worshipping in close relation to laity but with a scholarly sub-set who preserved the vinaya rules for monks.

 

Monastic sangha grew as support from laity in the form of alms was replaced by royal land grants which allowed monasteries to produce their own food and accumulate wealth.  As this happened an ideal of wandering Forest monks grew up but was not widely practiced.

 

No schism for Mahayana which was always present as a style of practice - at first a minority and then growing in popularity until the majority.  All schisms in Buddhism were around the vinaya and not about 'emptiness', the stress on compassionate activity, or the rate of travel to awakening.  The reason for the different development North /South was just geographic isolation.

 

The vajrayana Mahasiddhis were present from the beginning but again a very small minority but in the period 600 - 1200 AD this style of practice grew in popularity because of the circumstances of the times. (A&P has pointed out this is misleading - what I meant was that some kind of approach equivalent to them was around from the beginning - i'll discuss it later when I get a chance)

 

There were outside philosophical and cultural influences - Greek philosophy, reformed Hinduism, Chinese 'religions' - and these played a part in some of the way things developed which need to be taken into account.

 

Any views on this broad picture???

[Taoist Texts]

11 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Any views on this broad picture???

Pinpointing the timeline and the reasons for the watershed moment of practice-to-religion transformation would be useful.

When and why Gauthama has become a god to be worshiped?

 

Did Gauthama invent his new teaching or passed  on an ancient one?

 

These 2 key moments are overlooked by the official history.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Taoist Texts said:

Pinpointing the timeline and the reasons for the watershed moment of practice-to-religion transformation would be useful.

When and why Gauthama has become a god to be worshiped?

 

Did Gauthama invent his new teaching or passed  on an ancient one?

 

These 2 key moments are overlooked by the official history.

 

 

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.

[Bud Jetsun]

Perhaps Sumerian philosophy persisted to become the foundational source of Vedic philosophy, which decayed over a millennia of becoming intricately ritualized.  The emergence and development of new Vedic Upanishads started started fresh with accurate basics to help beings discover the nature of reality through acetic simplicity and self-discovery.  Gautama and a few pals adventured to various scholars and sages for some period of years of being hungry and dirty sleeping sleeping outside during this period.

 

Like countless beings before him, one day Gautama chose to mindfully commit to drop all delusion, confusion, misperception, belief, and understanding, and instead appreciated the real of Now.  When he told his ascetic pals it turns out life is as beautiful as one chooses to make it, and to go find food and prepare a meal for their malnourished bodies, they abandon him in disgust for his loss of dedication to worshiping being hungry and filthy. 

 

Gautama's wisdom was complete, so various folks who possessed the eyes and ears to hear wisdom recognized he was an unbounded source and some traveled with him on adventures. 

 

The Gautama was very clear not to let disciples write his words, not to make a book, and not to make a name for living in compassion appreciating reality, as it would eventually mean either killing in the name of it or being killed in the name of it, and worshiping the constructed phrases and rituals would replace awareness of one's inherent living Buddha-mind.  Gautama died, and afterwards it became trendy for clubs to label themselves in the name of the Buddha while and drifting further from his example, with various confused beings clinging to and worshiping his image, name, and words as idolatry, eventually some making massive size gold plated idols and increasingly elaborate rituals and repetitive chanting.

 

Buddha's wisdom was perfect and complete, then generations of role-playing attempts progressed into various clubs and communes squabbling over which flavors of life-consuming practices were the best alternatives to replace appreciating Now.  These groups divided and re-labeled as they saw fit, and still today combining or forking remains common.  Some of Gautama's expressions of wisdom become re-discovered throughout history by those who seek out it's beautiful clear diamonds of wisdom to cut through their unnecessary and volentary self-bonding with resolve and commitment to appreciate Now.  This cycle of intra-sect forking over clinging to confusions trends in common with many flavors of things ending in 'ism.

 

Though many, if not all 'ism's if carried out with complete resolve may offer the same re-linking to the real, Gautama sermonized with uncommonly direct and clear language expressions in compassion for all beings liberation, where alternatives often hid profound wisdom in code or obfuscate meaning with poetry or metaphor.  

 

When beings choose to live in compassion towards themselves and others, and enjoy the unbounded Now without fear, Gautama's lifestyle example continues in genuine form.  Requiring no books, no dogma, no traditions, no clubs, no labels, no elaborate buildings, no gold or painted idols, and no pre-contrived and scheduled activities to sacrifice club members life-force upon year after year.

 

Awareness of this One fleeting moment remains with beautiful and unbreakable indifference, when it's appreciated this is honoring oneself as well as living the continuation of the Buddha's action towards all beings liberation. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

Edited January 21, 2018 by Bud Jetsun

[C T]

some links for references for the history buffs - 

https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/9209369/The_Historical_Authenticity_of_Early_Buddhist_Literature_A_Critical_Evaluation

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/the-1000-year-old-manuscript-and-the-stories-it-tells

 

 

 

As an aside, I think how the narratives are basically derived and presented would depend on which camp one belongs to - either one of religious sceptics, or the other, of austere traditionalists. Anyway, this is not a subject i find particularly fascinating cos history has never piqued my interest even as a young student. 

[doc benway]

Here's a short and poignant parable from one of my favorite spiritual guides, Anthony Demello.

Bud's beautiful post inspired me to share.

I apologize for the momentary detour...

 

Where’s the Fire?
There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire: they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn’t concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being. He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there too, a bit too interested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

Where’s the fire? Where’s the love? Where’s the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don’t we? This is what Jesus Christ [Buddha] is all about. But we overemphasized the “Lord, Lord,” didn’t we? Where’s the fire? And if worship isn’t leading to the fire, if adoration isn’t leading to love, if the liturgy isn’t leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn’t leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. And love is generated through awareness and through no other way, no other way. Understand the obstructions you are putting in the way of love, freedom, and happiness and they will drop. Turn on the light of awareness and the darkness will disappear.

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

I am a bit confused at the mention that the mahasiddhas were there from the start. Even the Dalai Lama says that Tibetan Buddhism/ Vajrayana is rather squarely a product of Indian tantricism:

There were the scholars from Nalanda---but the rise to prominence (of Vajrayana) was connected with a magician (i.e. the well known Indian magician Padmasambhava, who has a number of direct and indirect connections to the Vamachara sect) who was summoned to the Tibetan Court. Pretty much all of the Vajrayana sects either directly connect to Padmasambhava or they connect to the climate that was created after Padmasambhava's ideas were introduced.

 

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.

[Apech]

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.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

NARRATION OF EVENTS. - Among the numerous accounts devoted to the first two councils, we will summarize here that of the Pali Vinaya (11, pp. 284-308). Not because it is superior in value to that of the others, but because, it has been authenticated by the learned body of Sinhalese intellectuals, and presents the events in a reasonable external guise.

 

In this Vinaya, the account of the council of Rajagrha begins abruptly, without any preliminary introduction. Kasyapa, who is addressing the bhiksus, informs them that, while he was travelling from Pava to Kusinagara in the company of 500 monks, an Ajivika told him of the decease of the Buddha, which had occurred seven days previously. Among his companions, some grieved while others, who were wiser, resigned themselves to the inevitable. However, the monk Subhaddha (Skt. Subhadra) openly rejoiced at the loss of the Buddha who exasperated the monks with his observations; he proposed that the bhiksus, now free of all restraint, should live as they liked.

In order to ensure that indiscipline would not infiltrate the order, Kasyapa proposed that the monks perform a joint recitation of the Law (dharma) and discipline (vinaya). He chose 499 Arhats but, at their request, also convoked Ananda who, although he was not an Arhat, was best acquainted with the Buddha's teaching.

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

After a joint deliberation, it was decided that the 500 bhiksus should go to Rajagrha for the rainy season, to give there a joint recitation of the Dharmavinaya. The assembly therefore went to the capital of Magadha and devoted the first month of the season to preparatory work.

 

The very morning of the conclave, Ananda, undergoing sudden enlightenment, reached Arhatship. The session then opened.

 

Kasyapa questioned Upali on the Vinaya and made him state where, to whom and concerning what, the Buddha had promulgated the instructions for drawing up the rules for bhiksus and bhiksunis. It was then Ananda's turn to inform his colleagues in what place, to which person and with regard to what subject the Master had expounded the sutras contained in the five canonical Nikiiyas.

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

Ananda then told his colleagues that, before dying, the Buddha had authorized the community to abolish the minor and least important precepts, but that he, Ananda, had not asked him to specify what he meant by those precepts. Since the assembly was unable to reach an agreement concerning their significance, Kasyapa proposed that all the precepts promulgated by the Buddha should be retained without distinction. The motion was accepted.

 

 

The elders at the council then addressed Ananda with a series of reproaches : he had neglected to question the Buddha about the minor and least important precepts, he had put his foot on his raincloak, he had allowed his body to be defiled by women's tears, he had not asked him to prolong his stay in this world and, finally, he had pleaded for the entry of women into the order. Even though he felt perfectly innocent, Ananda confessed those faults out of regard for the community.

 

 

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.

[Apech]

3 hours ago, C T said:

some links for references for the history buffs - 

https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/9209369/The_Historical_Authenticity_of_Early_Buddhist_Literature_A_Critical_Evaluation

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/the-1000-year-old-manuscript-and-the-stories-it-tells

 

 

 

As an aside, I think how the narratives are basically derived and presented would depend on which camp one belongs to - either one of religious sceptics, or the other, of austere traditionalists. Anyway, this is not a subject i find particularly fascinating cos history has never piqued my interest even as a young student. 

 

 

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

[Apech]

18 minutes ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Interesting... Where is the information about Ananda saying that the minor precepts could be done away with from?

 

In general, my opinion is biased based on physiology and ontology of the mind. So I have only recently been expanding my knowledge of history. But, in any case, there are only a handful of sutras that stick out in my mind as being absolutely central to Buddhism. The Surangama sutra is one of them. It doesn't match with the image presented of Ananda and it also doesn't really match with the idea that precepts could be thrown away.

 

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama2.asp

 

Granted, its history (earlier than the year 700) is cloudy, but the practical contents of the sutra are second to none (except maybe the heart 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

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Interesting... Where is the information about Ananda saying that the minor precepts could be done away with from?

 

In general, my opinion is biased based on physiology and ontology of the mind. So I have only recently been expanding my knowledge of history. But, in any case, there are only a handful of sutras that stick out in my mind as being absolutely central to Buddhism. The Surangama sutra is one of them. It doesn't match with the image presented of Ananda and it also doesn't really match with the idea that precepts could be thrown away.

 

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama2.asp

 

Granted, its history (earlier than the year 700) is cloudy, but the practical contents of the sutra are second to none (except maybe the heart sutra).

 

 

This is a mahayana Yogacara sutra.

[Bud Jetsun]

A species or culture which imposes a no sex rule and obeys it is rewarded with extinction in a single generation. 

 

[Maddie]

50 minutes ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Yep. Like I said, I evaluated things based on the energy of the text, how it relates to human physiology, and the ontology that it uses. So, on an experiential basis, if something were to conflict with it, I would be suspicious.

 

But, in any case, my main issue was that you were suggesting that sexuality might have been something that could have been open for debate. But, looking at the structure of the rules, that would never have been the case. Sexuality of any kind would be on the Parajika level of rules and regulations (i.e. the level of rules where an infraction would get you kicked out of the Sangha) and it would never have been considered a minor rule. In fact, it is a reiterated rule number one in the three highest orders of the rules.

 

Wikipedia's not usually the greatest source, but it details the different layers of rules:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha#Patidesaniya

 

So my main beef was the suggestion that behaviors diametrically contrary to cultivation would be admitted---but that's not actually an issue---the structure of the rules reflects necessities for cultivation. Rule number one is necessary for cultivation as such and the rules that follow are for more generic karmic activities and social cohesion.

 

Haha (<cynical laugh>)...some sects would benefit from the reintroduction of Sanghadisesa...

 

I don't think he was implying that sex for monks was ok, rather I think he placed not killing and celibacy in the category of serious things, and making noise with your mouth while eating as minor stuff. 

 

I find this topic very interesting as it is something I have been pondering quite a bit as well. Aside from the Pali Vinaya another place it can be found where the Buddha said that the minor rules could be dropped was in the Pali Mahaparinabbana Sutta. The first time I read this sutta I was left wondering why so many of the minor rules that really don't seem to make much sense or be relevant were kept. I am not an Arahat and I feel pretty confident that rules that prohibit carrying salt or garlic are not really all that vital to the path of Nirvana. 

 

 I also feel bad for Ananda  that he received so much grief for wanting to include women into the Sanga. This would appear to make the Sanga of the Buddha's time appear a little more human than they came to be portrayed in latter Buddhist mythology. It brings to mind the excommunication of Ajahan Braham from his monastery in Thailand for fully ordaining nuns. 

[Maddie]

17 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

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.

 

I've also noticed as coming from a Buddhist point of view, but recently learning more about Hinduism that there are a lot of similarities and not everything that I thought was an original Buddhist concept is actually originally Buddhist. Though I do think that in addition to dependent origination that non-self is also distinctly Buddhist. 

[Apech]

6 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

I've also noticed as coming from a Buddhist point of view, but recently learning more about Hinduism that there are a lot of similarities and not everything that I thought was an original Buddhist concept is actually originally Buddhist. Though I do think that in addition to dependent origination that non-self is also distinctly Buddhist. 

 

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

[Apech]

8 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

I don't think he was implying that sex for monks was ok, rather I think he placed not killing and celibacy in the category of serious things, and making noise with your mouth while eating as minor stuff. 

 

I find this topic very interesting as it is something I have been pondering quite a bit as well. Aside from the Pali Vinaya another place it can be found where the Buddha said that the minor rules could be dropped was in the Pali Mahaparinabbana Sutta. The first time I read this sutta I was left wondering why so many of the minor rules that really don't seem to make much sense or be relevant were kept. I am not an Arahat and I feel pretty confident that rules that prohibit carrying salt or garlic are not really all that vital to the path of Nirvana. 

 

 I also feel bad for Ananda  that he received so much grief for wanting to include women into the Sanga. This would appear to make the Sanga of the Buddha's time appear a little more human than they came to be portrayed in latter Buddhist mythology. It brings to mind the excommunication of Ajahan Braham from his monastery in Thailand for fully ordaining nuns. 

 

 

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

 

 

[Apech]

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???

[C T]

Not forgetting he also mentioned that each must seek his/her own salvation guided by what is true and aligned to one's personal experience. 

[Apech]

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.

 

Quote

 

One hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvina, the Vajjiputtaka (Skt. Vjiputraka) bhiksus of Vaihli promulgated ten practices as being licit : 1. [storing] salt in a horn (singilona), 2. two fingers (dvcuigula) [i.e. eating when the sun's shadow has passed two fingers' breadth beyond noon], 3. [going to] another village (gimantara) [after eating once], 4. [the holding of uposatha separately by monks] dwelling in the same district (ivisa), 5. approbation (anumat~')[of an act when the assembly is incomplete], 6. [following a teacher's] rule of conduct (icinna), 7. [partaking of] sour milk (amathita), 8. [drinking] new palm-wine (jalogi pitum), 9. [using] mats with fringes (adasakw nisidanam), 10. [handling] gold and silver

(jitarii~arajata).

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

At that moment, the venerable Yasa (Skt. Yaks, YaSoda), son of Kikandaka, arrived in VaiGli and noted that on the uposatha day the bhiksus of the area were placing a bowl in the middle of the assembly and were asking the laity to put gold and silver coins in it for the needs of the community. Yasa formally advised the laity against offering any more money, claiming that the monks could receive neither silver nor gold. Thereupon, the Vajjiputtakas imposed on him the act of reconciliation which consisted of begging the pardon of insulted persons, in this case the upisakas of VaiGli.

 

Yasa did so but, while apologizing to the laity for insulting them by his reproaches, he maintained and reaffirmed his point of view, namely that a bhiksu cannot accept gold or silver under any pretext whatever. The laity were convinced and looked upon the monks of VaiGli as bad religious.

 

 

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.

 

Quote

 

Considering themselves offended, the Vajjiputtakas then laid the act of suspension (ukkhepaniyakamma) on Yasa for having instructed without warrant. However, Yasa escaped from them and took refuge in KauSHmbi. From there he sent messages to the bhiksus of PBfheyya (Western India), Avanti and the Deccan, requesting them to undertake his defence and to maintain the good discipline which was threatened by the practices of the Vajjiputtakas.

 

Furthermore, Yasa went in person to the venerable Sambhiita Sina- visin (Skt. Sinavisa, Sinvisika, Sonavisin, Sambhoga) who lived on Mount Ahogariga (on the upper Ganges) and won him over to his point of view as well as 60 bhiksus from Pitheyya and 80 bhiksus from Avanti and the Deccan who had come to Ahogariga for the event.

 

 

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.

 

Quote

The complainants decided to rally to their cause the venerable Revata of Soreyya (a locality between Verafiji, east of Mathuri, and SBmki- Sya), but the latter, little desirous of intervening, did not wait for anyone to come and consult him. Those sent out to meet him missed him successively in Soreyya, Simkisya, Kanyikubja, Udumbara and Aggalapura, finally catching up with him in Sahajiti. Yasa questioned him on the lawfulness of the ten points and, after having had them explained to him at length, Revata formally condemned them and promised Yasa his support.

 

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.

 

Quote

Disturbed by the turn events were taking, the Vajjiputtakas of VaiSili sent a delegation to Revata in Sahajiti. At the same time, the venerable Silha (Skt. Sidha), who was living in solitude, was warned by a deity of the bad behaviour of the bhiksus from the east. However, the VaiGlians who had reached Revata tried to win him over with gifts, which Revata refused, all the while upholding his condemnation despite the intervention of his disciple Uttara, who had been corrupted.

 

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.

 

Quote

 

At the suggestion of Revata, the Samgha went to VaiGli to settle the question. The venerable Sabbaklmin (Skt. SarvakBma) who already lived there was visited by Revata, soon followed by Sambhiita. Before the latter, who explained to him the points under dispute, Sabbaklmin semi-officially acknowledged the wrongs of the monks from VaiSlli.

 

Finally, the Samgha assembled and the debate was opened. However, as it threatened to go on for ever, it was left to an arbitrating jury (ubbiihikiya) consisting of four western monks : Sabbakimin, Sllha, Khujjasobhita (Skt. Kubjita), Vbabhagimika, and of four eastern monks : Revata, Sambhiita Slnavisin, Yasa and Sumana, while a certain Ajita was entrusted with the seating arrangements.

 

 

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.

 

Quote

The bhiksus, who numbered 700, then went to the Viliklrima in VaiGli. In private, Revata explained the ten points under dispute to Sabbakimin who totally rejected them, each time referring to an article of the Pritimoksa. The interrogation was then taken up in public.

 

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.

[Maddie]

I find this thread very interesting. One question that I do have though is when did doctrinal differences based on the sutras begin and what was the cause of this? 

[Bud Jetsun]

21 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

And yet it, and others like it, have been around for thousands of years...

 

What a blessing for the disobedient and non-Buddhists passing on their genetics so we are now able to enjoy our human experiences.  

 

The Gautama, Christ, Milarepa, Padmasambhava, lived the example of anarchist lives of self-governance, clinging to no fixed rule, clinging to no fixed doctorine, clinging to no fixed dharmas, but instead living in harmony with the Dao which can never be rigid or defined.  

 

The Diamond sutra was given to monks as the meticulously and tediously clarified guidance not to become mindless bots obeying rigid programming, but to instead become self-aware embracing the continuously transient Now. 

 

 

21 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

 I also feel bad for Ananda  that he received so much grief for wanting to include women into the Sanga...

 

It was a blessing and fantastic gift to Ananda to save him from wasting his one moment in dealing with a club so broken and confused they couldn't see past a beings genitalia to recognize the presence of the same perfect Buddha nature inside every being.  If they had seen there own Buddha nature even for a glimpse, the physical differences would hold no significance, and never again would they cling to some constructed rule-book rather than living the Dao. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Apech]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

I find this thread very interesting. One question that I do have though is when did doctrinal differences based on the sutras begin and what was the cause of this? 

 

 

Which doctrinal differences do you mean?

[Apech]

23 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Yep---well, it is Mahayana (not a major one in yogacara...) but may have been Sautrantika**. Anyways, like I said, I evaluated things based on the energy of the text, how it relates to human physiology, and the ontology that it uses. So, on an experiential basis, if something were to conflict with it, I would be suspicious.

 

But, in any case, my main issue was that you made a passing suggestion that sexuality might have been something that could have been open for debate. But, looking at the structure of the rules, that would never have been the case. Sexuality of any kind would be on the Parajika level of rules and regulations (i.e. the level of rules where an infraction would get you kicked out of the Sangha) and it would never have been considered a minor rule. In fact, it is a reiterated rule number one in the three highest orders of the rules.

 

Wikipedia's not usually the greatest source, but it details the different layers of rules:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha#Patidesaniya

 

So my main beef was the suggestion that behaviors diametrically contrary to cultivation would be admitted---but that's not actually an issue---the structure of the rules reflects necessities for cultivation. Rule number one is necessary for cultivation as such and the rules that follow are for more generic karmic activities and social cohesion.

 

Haha (<cynical laugh>)...some sects would benefit from the reintroduction of Sanghadisesa...

 

**But this point would get into my own uncommon views of history. It may relate/mesh fairly well with the skepticism about Ananda's story, though..

 

 

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.

[Apech]

34 minutes ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Hmm... Well....

 

I would guess the Madhyamaka and Yogacara split. I don't know too much about it yet (I've only just looked into it because of what was posted about the Lankavatara). I am rather squarely in the Madhyamaka camp, though (with strong Huayan leanings). I would only pick up Yogacara materials if I were working in Shantarakshita's paradigm (considering Madhyamaka as an absolute truth and Yogacara as a convenient explanatory tool or a loosley-self-conscious form of literary skillful means).

 

It appears to have roots that go back to Indian Buddhism and Pali literature.

 

 

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.

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Which doctrinal differences do you mean?

Mainly the differences between Mahayana and Theravada. I found your premise that the division begin early interesting just wanting to know what the early differences of understanding what the differences of doctrine were.