Buddhist Historical Narrative

[Apech]

49 minutes ago, C T said:

I wandered a bit into the ether forest and came back with this.. quite informative too. 

 

A COMPARISON OF SHAIVA AND BUDDHIST TANTRA 

 

http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis

 

I dug out some interesting quotes from this:

 

The idea that Tantra is a practice approach which goes beyond religious context.

 

Quote

We noted above that with very minor exceptions, all of the criteria that Buddhist scholars identified with Buddhist Tantra apply equally to Śaiva Tantra. This is perhaps because Tantra is fundamentally a way of viewing reality and a modality of practice that became unmoored from the specific religious context it evolved in, making it malleable, protean, and exportable. It is a form, not so much a content, and is therefore adaptable and adoptable. Without denying any of the elements in the useful polythetic lists given above, my ostensive (non-polythetic) and non-sectarian definition of Tantra, partially following David White, is: an Indian interreligious movement driven by a ritual practice presupposing initiation, oral instruction from a guru, and micro-meso-macrocosmic[19] correlations, and utilizing mantras, meditative visualizations, and sometimes antinomian means to access and experientially assimilate the divine energy of the (variously conceived) Godhead, in order to achieve power, pleasures, and liberation. This definition, while dense, seems to encompass as much that is essential of what we would like to call Tantra as possible. [20]

 

Saiva Tantra predates Buddha Tantra (although only just) - and I think we need to bear in mind that Buddhism was entering a long period of decline and as the Vajrayana was embedded in Mahayana already had a fully developed world view - Hinduism was being rejuvenated and reformed - so they were in very different places in this historical period.

 

Quote

Śaiva and Bauddha Tantra are nearly coeval and closely parallel in the structure of their canons. Tantric Buddhism as defined above began in the sixth century. This is also the era of the earliest scripture of Tantric Śaivism, the Niśvāsatattva-saṃhitā, the bulk of which was composed by 550 ce (Goodall and Isaacson 2007; Sanderson 2006: 152-55). There is a key difference, however: the Niśvāsa represents the irruption into the textual record of a tradition that must have been developing orally for some time, for the text is a vast (4,500 verses approx.) and complex work, treating not only ritual but theology, cosmogony, and cosmology. Therefore it seems very likely that Śaiva Tantra predates Bauddha Tantra, for the contemporaneous Bauddha Tantric texts show none of this complexity, sophistication, and nuance, even if we were to date the Niśvāsa nearly a century later. Sufficient evidence of this to convince the scholarly community has only recently become available, with the publication last year of an edition of the oldest portions of the Niśvāsa (ed. Dominic Goodall et. al., IFP/EFEO, 2015).

 

Quote

 

The development of the two canons is parallel, with the exception that the Śaiva texts of the Mantramārga are very much concerned with doctrine ( jñāna) for they are largely unconnected from any earlier textual strata[21] compared to the Bauddha scriptures of the Mantrayāna, which as we have seen are relatively unconcerned with doctrine, for all necessary doctrine had already been enunciated by the Mahāyāna.

 

 

 

 

Nice!  If the goal and highest aspect is recognised as beyond conceptualisation then differences at any other level become less significant.

 

Quote

Sferra states, “Although the concepts relating to the true nature of the self are very different, the underlying belief is the same.” (2003: 67) This might seem a surprising and even an intellectually careless claim, yet scriptural passages can be cited to support it. A number of Śaiva texts describe Śiva, the highest aspect of reality, as a stainless void, a clear transcendent space of pure awareness.[27] And Sferra’s statement above simply means that both traditions assert that our inner being or true nature “lies behind adventitious maculations” (ibid.) and that experiencing it, through whatever means, is the goal. He wonders if there is any real difference between the concept of śūnyatā and the Śaiva one of sarvaṃ sarvātmakam (a question taking us out of philology and into philosophy, which I think Indologists could stand to do more often). He notes that a verse expressing this sentiment, of unknown provenance (though Abhinavagupta attributes it to the arhats), is found in a number of Bauddha, Śaiva, and Vaiṣṇava works (2003: 69, fn 25, 26): eko bhāvas tattvato yena dṛṣṭaḥ sarve bhāvās tattvatas tena dṛṣṭaḥ | eko bhāvaḥ sarvabhāva-svabhāvaḥ sarve bhāvā ekabhāva-svabhāvāḥ || “One who sees one entity as it really is sees all entities as they really are. One entity has the (same) innate nature as all entities, and all entities have the same innate nature as any single entity.” (Or, if you like, replace 'entity' [bhāva] with 'being'.)

 

[Apech]

The academics tend to use the term ‘tantra’ to refer to the texts. This has some limitations because there are texts with tantric content which are not called tantras and not all tantra contain the same elements. Practitioners would probably say its not the texts but the form of practice which differentiate tantra from other Mahayana methods. So it is probably useful to look at the main features of tantric practice in Buddhism to see what tantra actually means.

 

In ‘Buddhist Thought’ by Paul Williams (and others) he gives the following characteristics of Buddhist Tantra practice.

 

Use of mantras.

Visualization and identification with the ‘deity’

Mandalas

Sadhanas

 

I’m not sure if this is a complete list but it will do. Tsong-khapa said that Tantra meant specifically identification with a Buddha or Bodhisattva (the deity) – but not all the texts include this so the broader set of practices is better.

 

Mantras

 

The Vajrayana is sometimes called the Mantrayana and so the use of mantras is central. Mantras in Vedic tradition are based on the idea that Sanskrit is not an ordinary language but in fact the very sounds which are the vibrational power that makes the universe. And so this language is divine in and of itself. The utterance of mantras in particular is to evoke the creational divine powers. In Buddhism this idea does not exist. In fact the Buddha was not keen that Sanskrit be used at all for Dharma as it was part of this Vedic view which he rejected. However Buddhadharma does use both mantra to convey the activity of Buddhas and so on and also the idea of ‘seed syllables’ which generate the buddha image. So how does this work? In Buddhism the stress is on the ‘empowerment’ (abhisheka) which the teacher gives to the pupil. So in the initiation ceremony the lama evokes the specific deity/meditation object and communicates this to the student together with the mantra – which the student should repeat in the same form as given – which is fortunate given the Tibetan tendency to distort the original Sanskrit e.g. Benza or even Pancha for Vajra and so on. Having received the empowerment the student can then practice on their own – which explains in part the reliance in Buddha-tantra on the relationship with the guru who is the treasury of the oral instructions.

 

Mantras are thought of as ‘effective’ that means they have the power to bring about change and have a kind of magical effect beyond ordinary words.

 

Visualization and identification with the deity

 

Like the use of Mantras this is central. But again there are variations from the Hindu/Vedic view. In Buddhism the meditation deity is an aspect of Buddha nature and the purpose of deity worship is specifically to actualize buddha-nature in yourself. So for instance the compassion or wisdom which emerges naturally from the awakened mind can be a focus in the form of Chenrezig or Manjushri. Modern readers have to be careful not to confuse this with thinking the deities are ‘imaginary’ although imagination is used to evoke them. To say for instance they are aspects of ‘mind’ is not the same as saying they are ‘all in the mind’. In fact it would be true to say that relative what we usually think of being our selves they are more real, being pure emanations of reality ‘as it is’. But the key here is to understand that in reality you are the deity and thus imagining this is helpful and empowering. But like everything their nature is ‘empty’ and so having self identified you have the power to dissolve everything back to emptiness just as they have. In Mahayana you develop compassion (and the six perfections of course) in Vajrayana you assume your compassionate nature through the yidam (meditation deity).

 

Mandalas

 

Most deities do not appear in isolation, they have a context, or realm or circle. In this are various attendant deities and other symbols. In some cases these are Hindu gods like Rudra or Indra which are placed subordinate to the central ‘Buddha’. Some writers say this is modelled on the Medieval Indian Royal Court. The king in the middle and his courtiers around him, his domain is his chakra or ‘circle' and his court is the mandala. In fact sometimes a palace is visualized with gateways and so on, usually aligned to the compass points. This may well be the case as this period is the origin of the iconography. The best way to understand it, I think, is that as everything arises through dependent origination, when you evoke one power then the ripple of cause and effect induces other related powers to arise. Nothing exists independently. It also has the value of setting in place the meditation deity.

 

Sadhanas

 

These are the way in which deity practice is performed. They have various stages, a preparation stage, a development stage when the visualization is practiced – followed by mantra recitation – the completion stage where the deity is dissolved back into emptiness – usually followed by statements of intent to continue the practice and so on. Different traditions handle these slightly differently but essentially they are the same. The more elaborate and group Sadhanas can be called ‘pujas’. It might seem like a detail but even having had the empowerment, the form of practice is important because it seals the ‘energy’ in the right form and sets it within the ‘view’ - that is the dharmic view of the nature of reality – it grounds the deity in the person of the student and in their life.

 

 

Note: written more or less off the top of my head - so any errors - sorry 'bout that

[9th]

19 hours ago, Apech said:

 what tantra actually means

 

The earliest definitions and expositions on Tantra come from the ancient texts of Panini, Patanjali and the literature of the language-focussed, ritual-oriented Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy.

 

The 5th-century BCE scholar Panini in his Sutra 1.4.54–55 of Sanskrit grammar, cryptically explains tantra through the example of "Sva-tantra" (Sanskrit: स्वतन्त्र), which he states means "independent" or a person who is his own "warp, cloth, weaver, promoter, karta (actor)".

 

Patanjali in his Mahābhāṣya quotes and accepts Panini's definition, then discusses or mentions it at a greater length, in 18 instances, stating that its metaphorical definition of "warp (weaving), extended cloth" is relevant to many contexts.

 

The word tantra, states Patanjali, means "principal, main". He uses the same example of svatantra as a composite word of "sva" (self) and tantra, then stating "svatantra" means "one who is self-dependent, one who is his own master, the principal thing for whom is himself", thereby interpreting the definition of tantra.

 

Patanjali also offers a semantic definition of Tantra, stating that it is structural rules, standard procedures, centralized guide or knowledge in any field that applies to many elements.

 

The ancient Mimamsa school of Hinduism uses the term tantra extensively, and its scholars offer various definitions. For example:

When an action or a thing, once complete, becomes beneficial in several matters to one person, or to many people, that is known as Tantra. For example, a lamp placed amidst many priests. In contrast, that which benefits by its repetition is called Āvāpa, such as massaging with oil. (...)

— Sabara, 6th century, 

 

Medieval texts present their own definitions of Tantra. Kāmikā-tantra, for example, gives the following explanation of the term tantra:

Because it elaborates (tan) copious and profound matters, especially relating to the principles of reality (tattva) and sacred mantras, and because it provides liberation (tra), it is called a tantra.

[Apech]

@9th

 

Thanks that's a good summary of the grammarian and yoga derivation.  But it doesn't really explain what tantra is as a practice.

 

 

[C T]

Due to its historical facets and the heavy symbolisms involved being so closely woven together belabours the task of accurate definitions by conventional means. We have some idea that tantra originated primarily through vision and revelatory explorations rather than textual ones. 

 

In all the buddhist tantric sadhanas theres always mention of the origins of each specific tantra - without exception, the birth of any tantra is preceded by a highly accomplished meditation adept (could be a yogi, dakini, siddha or a ngakpa/ngakma), man or woman, having experienced a vision (or visions) of a certain deity, then set out to formulate a practice (sadhana) with the aim of enabling in others the necessary 'tools' should they choose to pursue same, the caveat being that it cannot be undertaken successfully, and not only that, it could even be precarious without first securing a 'safe' passage through establishing a steady foundation in the preliminaries followed by specific empowerments (transmissions). This cannot be emphasised often enough. In Tibet and other places in the Himalayas 'tantra' also connotes the idea of a thread-like continuity where the belief is that all the inherent purity, power and sublime qualities (both of the sadhana and the deity) have to be guarded with extreme care to prevent contamination from negative forces, in order that these can be safely and faithfully transmitted to sadhakas without the possibility of 'leaks' as it passes from master to novice. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by C T

[Apech]

Something to chew over while I work on more stuff to resurrect this thread:

Quote

 

There are other early Mahayana sutras, however, that speak not of books appearing in the hands, or being found in caves, or receiving direct teachings from a Buddha seen in a vision, but rather of deities, supernatural beings (including, not inappropriately for a forest meditator, tree spirits), visiting the forest-dwelling hermit meditator and giving them significant revelations. These supernatural beings are found throughout Buddhism, and characteristically often visit at night, frequently just before dawn. Their visits and ‘admonishment’ are generally viewed positively by the tradition, and Harrison points out that even the Mainstream Buddhist canons have in them teachings preached by deities under such circumstances and accepted as the authentic ‘word of the Buddha’.

 

From:  Mahayana Buddhism - the doctrinal foundations (2nd Ed.)

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahayana-Buddhism-Doctrinal-Foundations-Religious/dp/0415356539/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519912491&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=Mahayana+Buddhism+-+the+doctrinal+foundations+(2nd+Ed.)

 

 

[Apech]

Quote

 

In approaching the Mahayana setras we immediately confront presuppositions concerning the nature of the book which these texts put into question. The sutra is not one object among others, but rather may be seen as a body of the Buddha, a focus of celebration and worship on the model of relic worship.1 The book is not a free-standing, self-explanatory item, but an entity embedded in religious practice, a product of and a guide to spiritual experience. Those of the modern westernized world expect a book, perhaps, to lead through systematic and clearly defined stages from a beginning through a middle to a con- clusion. Reading, we think, is a private, solitary affair, requiring peace, leisure, and silence. But the landscape of the Mahayana sutras is quite extraordinary, space and time expand and conflate, connections seem to be missed, we move abruptly from ideas so compressed and arcane as to verge on the meaningless, to page after page of repetition. If we approach books as a consumer, regarding texts as goods to be devoured one after the other from cover to cover, then all too often we find the Mahayana setras boring – about as boring as a board game for which we have only the rules, lacking pieces and the board.

 

In fact the study of a Buddhist setra was neither private nor peaceful. Certainly in classical times in India the text would be copied and read, but reading was perhaps closer to chanting out loud (widespread mastery of the art of silent reading is a relatively recent development in world culture). Each Buddhist monk would probably own no more than one or two sutras, which would rapidly be learnt by heart, not only through frequent repe- tition but because memory of the texts was demanded by the scholastic environment. Moreover the sutras and their exegetical treatises were sometimes guides to meditation.2 Meditation cannot be performed effectively through repeated glances at a series of written instructions. It is likely that Buddhist texts were intended as no more than mnemonic devices, scaffold- ing, the framework for textual exposition by a teacher in terms of his own experience and also the tradition, the transmission from his teachers, traced back to the Buddha himself, or to a Buddha, or to some other form of authorized spiritual revelation. This approach to, and treatment of, the sacred text in Buddhism is not only of historical interest. In traditional cultures dominated by Mahayana these texts are still used and studied in the age-old way. The scholar who would write a study of Buddhist practice or even doctrine without bearing this in mind is like an art historian who would study architecture by ignoring the building and looking only at the bricks.

 

 

another quote from the same book.

[Apech]

If anyone is interested in studying the history of Buddhism in some reasonable depth - not for dharma itself but to give the right cultural and historical background for dharma teachings these three books are in my view essential.  Obviously you must treat with some scepticism the views of academics but for accuracy and discussion which brings you to true understanding of the topic they are all exceptional.  No light reading though  so don't say I didn't warn you - they are all three quite 'heavy'.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahayana-Buddhism-Doctrinal-Foundations-Religious/dp/0415356539/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) Paperback – 11 Jul 2008

by Paul Williams 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theravada-Buddhism-History-Religious-Practices/dp/0415365090/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520262154&sr=1-1&keywords=Gombrich+theravada+social+history

Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) Paperback – 19 Jun 2006

by Richard F. Gombrich

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Yoga-Tantra-Religions-Thirteenth-ebook/dp/B009019WG8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520262215&sr=1-1&keywords=origins+of+yoga+and+tantra+samuel

 

The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

by Geoffrey Samuel 

[Apech]

Q.  Why does tantra use 'transgressive' activities as subject matter - i.e. sex, impure food and burial grounds - and even more why did the mahasiddhas deliberately break social taboos as part of their practice????

 

Notes:

 

The Ancient Indian attitude to sex is not the Judeo-Christian one.  It is not understood as a 'sin' or inherently evil in someway - but more that it is a loss - a loss of energy - and the adept who gives in to this is allowing their energy to run down.

 

Purity of diet was part of the Brahmin approach to spiritual purity - this was not about dietary fads and so on - but about what it was ok to eat before or as part of a sacred ritual act.

 

Burial grounds were thought of as inherently impure and scary places inhabited by negative spiritual entities and so on - to live there or perform spiritual acts there was normally thought to be harmful.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Apech

[Apech]

Quote

It is frequently said in textbooks that the compassion of the Bodhisattva is so great that he postpones nirvana, or turns back from nirvana, in order to place all other sentient beings in nirvana first. Such a teaching, however, appears prima facie to be incoherent, and con- tains a claim that somehow a Buddha must be deficient in compassion when compared with a Bodhisattva. Viewed logically, if all other beings must be placed in nirvana before a particular Bodhisattva attains nirvana himself there could obviously be only one Bodhisattva. Alternatively, we have the absurd spectacle of a series of Bodhisattvas each trying to hurry the others into nirvana in order to preserve his or her vow. Moreover if sentient beings are infinite, a widely-held view in the Mahayana, then the Bodhisattva is setting himself an impossible task, and no Bodhisattva could ever attain Buddhahood. I asked the late Kensur Pema Gyaltsen, a former head abbot of Drepung Monastery and one of the most learned Tibetan scholars, about this while he was on a visit to Britain. I explained that it was widely asserted in books available in the West that the Bodhisattva does not become enlightened until he has helped all other sentient beings to enlightenment. The eminent Lama seemed to find this most amusing since, as he put it, all those who had become Bodhisattvas would not become enlightened, while those who had not become Bodhisattvas would. He stated quite categorically that the final view is that this is not how Bodhisattvas behave. In Tibetan practice the merit from virtuous deeds is always directed towards obtaining full Buddhahood in order to be able to help beings most effectively. There is never any mention of really postponing or turning back from Buddhahood. Otherwise any Bodhisattva who did become a Buddha would be presumably either deficient in compassion or have broken his vow.

 

from : Mahayana - by Williams

Edited March 5, 2018 by Apech

[Jeff]

I think that the above quoted text is a very interesting point. But, I think that the point of “logically viewed there could only be one” shows a lack of understanding by the author of the primordial nature. To me, this Sūtra describes well the nature of it...

 

From the Avatamsaka Sutra...

 

Great bodhisattvas have no attachment to Buddha and do not develop attachments; 

they have no attachment to the teachings and do not develop attachments; they have 

no attachment to lands and do not develop attachments; they have no attachments 

to sentient beings and do not develop attachments. They do not see that there are 

sentient beings, yet they carry on educational activity, civilizing and teaching ways 

of liberation; they do not give up the practices of bodhisattvas with great compassion 

and great commitment. Seeing buddhas and hearing their teachings, they act accordingly; 

trusting the buddhas they plant roots of goodness, ceaselessly honoring and serving them. 

 

They are able to shake infinite worlds in the ten directions by spiritual powers; their minds are 

broad, being equal to the cosmos. They know various explanations of truth, they know how 

many sentient beings there are, they know the differences among sentient beings, they know 

the birth of suffering, they know the extinction of suffering; while knowing all acts are like reflected 

images, they carry out the deeds of bodhisattvas. They sever the root of all subjection to birth. 

 

They carry out practices of bodhisattvas for the sole purpose of saving sentient beings and yet 

do not practice anything. Conforming to the essential nature of all buddhas, they develop a mind 

like an immense mountain. They know all falsehood and delusion, and enter the door of omniscience. 

Their knowledge and wisdom are broad and vast and unshakable, due to the attainment of true enlightenment. This is the insight of practical knowledge of equally saving all sentient beings in the ocean of birth and death.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

I think that the above quoted text is a very interesting point. But, I think that the point of “logically viewed there could only be one” shows a lack of understanding by the author of the primordial nature. To me, this Sūtra describes well the nature of it...

 

From the Avatamsaka Sutra...

 

He's critiquing a misconception which is often repeated by western authors - he was showing that it was a logical fallacy as confirmed by the Tibetan master.

[Mark Foote]

On 1/25/2018 at 3:29 AM, Apech said:

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.

 

Do you have sources that dispute A. K. Warder's account in Indian Buddhism, pg 211?

We seem led to the conclusion that the two parties were less far apart than at first sight they appear to be, except on the first ground.  The Sthaviravada were categorical that an  arhant was by nature beyond the reach of any possible seduction;  the Mahasamgha allowed an arhant to be seduced in a dream.  Between these opinons no compromise could be found, in spite all the Buddha's injunctions (in the Vinaya) on the reconciliation of dissident views.  The majority of the assembly held that an involuntary happening was no indication of whether one was an arhant or not,  and thereby no doubt made it possible for more persons to be recognized as arhants.  The minority, which included, apparently, most of the elders, refused to countenance such a weakness, such an evident attachment to the world. 

 

No compromise having been reached, the two parties separated and became two schools of Buddhism.  Afterwards they gradually came to disagree on several more grounds, partly through working out the implications of their positions.  In particular the nature of the Buddha was reconsidered.  In the Tripitaka he is not apparently distinguished from any other arhant, except that he had the exceptional genius necessary to discover the truths unaided whilst the others were helped by his guidance.  The Sthaviravada remained closer to this conception, although they gradually attributed a higher status to the Buddha, eventually complete 'omniscience' (sarvajnata), especially in their more popular propaganda.  The Mahasamgha, on the other hand, having relaxed or at least not made more stringent the conditions for an arhant, found it desirable to make a clear distinction in the case of the Buddha:  he was a being of quite a different nature, far above other human beings or perhaps not really a human being at all...
 

 

A. K. Warder does go into his sources some, and apparently compared several extant versions of the Canon to the extent he was able, including Chinese, Tibetan, and Southeast Asian versions.  Not sure from where he drew the historical info, but he spent time in India, and was involved with the Pali Text Society.
 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

 

Do you have sources that dispute A. K. Warder's account in Indian Buddhism, pg 211?

We seem led to the conclusion that the two parties were less far apart than at first sight they appear to be, except on the first ground.  The Sthaviravada were categorical that an  arhant was by nature beyond the reach of any possible seduction;  the Mahasamgha allowed an arhant to be seduced in a dream.  Between these opinons no compromise could be found, in spite all the Buddha's injunctions (in the Vinaya) on the reconciliation of dissident views.  The majority of the assembly held that an involuntary happening was no indication of whether one was an arhant or not,  and thereby no doubt made it possible for more persons to be recognized as arhants.  The minority, which included, apparently, most of the elders, refused to countenance such a weakness, such an evident attachment to the world. 

 

No compromise having been reached, the two parties separated and became two schools of Buddhism.  Afterwards they gradually came to disagree on several more grounds, partly through working out the implications of their positions.  In particular the nature of the Buddha was reconsidered.  In the Tripitaka he is not apparently distinguished from any other arhant, except that he had the exceptional genius necessary to discover the truths unaided whilst the others were helped by his guidance.  The Sthaviravada remained closer to this conception, although they gradually attributed a higher status to the Buddha, eventually complete 'omniscience' (sarvajnata), especially in their more popular propaganda.  The Mahasamgha, on the other hand, having relaxed or at least not made more stringent the conditions for an arhant, found it desirable to make a clear distinction in the case of the Buddha:  he was a being of quite a different nature, far above other human beings or perhaps not really a human being at all...
 

 

A. K. Warder does go into his sources some, and apparently compared several extant versions of the Canon to the extent he was able, including Chinese, Tibetan, and Southeast Asian versions.  Not sure from where he drew the historical info, but he spent time in India, and was involved with the Pali Text Society.
 

 

 

I think there are variant accounts of the role and purpose of the second Buddhist Council - I have no idea which is correct.  But the book I am using - Lamotte - seems to follow the Pali version.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I think there are variant accounts of the role and purpose of the second Buddhist Council - I have no idea which is correct.  But the book I am using - Lamotte - seems to follow the Pali version.

 

 

Warder, from Wikipedia:

Anthony Kennedy Warder (September 8, 1924 - January 8, 2013) was a scholar of Indology, mostly in Buddhist studies and related fields, such as the Pāḷi and Sanskrit languages. He wrote 15 books and numerous articles. He held the title of Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit in the School of East Asian Studies in the University of Toronto.^[1]

Warder spent several years in India exploring manuscript libraries in connection with his work on Kavya, a literary style created by Ashvaghosha in the 2nd century AD. He also published on the subject of Indian Philosophy of all the religious schools in India.

Warder studied Sanskrit and Pali at the University of London (SOAS). His doctoral thesis, later published under the title Pali Metre: A Contribution to the History of Indian Literature (Pali Text Society, 1967), was supervised by John Brough. He was active for some years in the affairs of the Pali Text Society, which also published his first book, Introduction to Pali (1963; 3rd revised edition, 2005). In this textbook, Warder took the then revolutionary approach of treating Pali as an independent language, not just a derivative of Sanskrit.

Warder's first academic appointment was at the University of Edinburgh in 1955. He joined the University of Torontoin 1963, where he was to remain until his retirement in 1990. As Chairman of the Department of East Asian Studies he built up a programme in Sanskrit and South Asian Studies, which for some years existed as a separate Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies.

 

 

[Apech]

14 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Warder, from Wikipedia:

Anthony Kennedy Warder (September 8, 1924 - January 8, 2013) was a scholar of Indology, mostly in Buddhist studies and related fields, such as the Pāḷi and Sanskrit languages. He wrote 15 books and numerous articles. He held the title of Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit in the School of East Asian Studies in the University of Toronto.^[1]

Warder spent several years in India exploring manuscript libraries in connection with his work on Kavya, a literary style created by Ashvaghosha in the 2nd century AD. He also published on the subject of Indian Philosophy of all the religious schools in India.

Warder studied Sanskrit and Pali at the University of London (SOAS). His doctoral thesis, later published under the title Pali Metre: A Contribution to the History of Indian Literature (Pali Text Society, 1967), was supervised by John Brough. He was active for some years in the affairs of the Pali Text Society, which also published his first book, Introduction to Pali (1963; 3rd revised edition, 2005). In this textbook, Warder took the then revolutionary approach of treating Pali as an independent language, not just a derivative of Sanskrit.

Warder's first academic appointment was at the University of Edinburgh in 1955. He joined the University of Torontoin 1963, where he was to remain until his retirement in 1990. As Chairman of the Department of East Asian Studies he built up a programme in Sanskrit and South Asian Studies, which for some years existed as a separate Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies.

 

 

 

 

I've quickly read a very small part of Indian Buddhism by Warder and it seems to me it is a very scholarly work - but one that reflects the current understanding by academics when he was writing (originally in 1970's).  The problem with all of this is that research continually shifts opinion (for instance about the origin of the Mahayana - where he stresses 'schism' among the 18 schools as the origin) and academics make assumptions from outside Dharma (even tho' some of them are Buddhists) which turn out to be either false or perhaps only partly true.  I think for westerners interested in Buddhism it is important to read a wide range of this kind of material and to get a wide appreciation of this subject.  Of course this has only a secondary purpose to actual practice.  I don't think it is a good idea to look for some static entity which is Buddhism as it can be seen from history that while the dharma may remain true to core principles the way it develops in different cultures (for instance Zen in japan) has distinct themes and emphasis.  The most important factor for the individual is which tradition you have a connection to and has the potential for you, for liberation.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

On 1/27/2018 at 2:00 AM, Apech said:

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.

 

 

I did see the links for "Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism", "I" and "II" by Drewes.  From "I" (where Drewes attempts to refute association of Mahayana with a strict forest-dwelling tradition, pg 61):

 

The Aksobhyavuha and larger Sukhavativyuha sutras... each present very easy practices, such as merely listening to the sutra, or thinking of particular Buddhas, that they claim can enable one to be reborn in special, luxurious 'pure lands' where one will be able to make easy and rapid progress on the bodhisattva path and attain Buddhahood after as little as one lifetime.  In another passage, the Astasahasrika depicts the great  bodhisattva Dharmodgata as having 'skillful means' that enable him to maintain his moral purity even though he lives in a palace in the middle of a city and has sex with 6,800,000 women.  The Suramgamasamadhi Sutra also repeatedly makes the point that avoidance of sensual pleasures is not important for bodhisattvas.

 

(underlining mine)

 

I hear an echo in these passages of the first schism in the Buddhist order, over whether or not an arhant could be seduced by a succubus. 

 

Drewes argues that the writing and preaching of the first "Mahayana" texts was not a consequence of the original schism, not an off-shoot of the Mahasamghikas, in large part because he does not see the authors of the Mahayana texts and their followers as ever having disavowed the earlier teachings.   I think he has an argument that the sudden emergence, possibly as early as 1st century B.C., of texts and preachers basing their legitimacy on claims of possessing other-worldly, later revelations of the Buddha was a distinct phenomena, but I wonder if what A. K. Warder described as the logical consequences of the first schism among the Mahasamghikas didn't play a part.  

 

Sounds like "Mahayana" was largely the result of Buddhist revivalist preachers, who were willing to accept the claim of divine authorship with regard to a recent text or texts  (many of which texts advocated strongly for donations), and stump for the faith.  Makes me think of Luther and the Protestant church, and 500 years later the Book of Mormon.

 

What I like is the awareness that Yuanwu, author of the "Blue Cliff Record" in 12th century China, shows of the Pali sutta teachings--likewise the awareness that Rujing (Dogen's teacher) shows.  At the same time, they and the majority of Zen/Chan teachers are concerned to describe in the most immediate terms what it means to penetrate the suffocation response and experience involuntary, ongoing activity of the body and mind.

 

They don't mention Gautama's setting up of mindfulness, with its emphasis on in-breathing and out-breathing--why should they, that was old history (but Dogen evidently missed that part of the library).

 

Coincidentally, that same couple of centuries in China saw some of the first manuals of seated meditation, since Gautama--so I've read.  Dogen took one back to Japan, and his first work in Japan incorporated it (Fukanzazengi).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

 

I did see the links for "Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism", "I" and "II" by Drewes.  From "I" (where Drewes attempts to refute association of Mahayana with a strict forest-dwelling tradition, pg 61):

 

The Aksobhyavuha and larger Sukhavativyuha sutras... each present very easy practices, such as merely listening to the sutra, or thinking of particular Buddhas, that they claim can enable one to be reborn in special, luxurious 'pure lands' where one will be able to make easy and rapid progress on the bodhisattva path and attain Buddhahood after as little as one lifetime.  In another passage, the Astasahasrika depicts the great  bodhisattva Dharmodgata as having 'skillful means' that enable him to maintain his moral purity even though he lives in a palace in the middle of a city and has sex with 6,800,000 women.  The Suramgamasamadhi Sutra also repeatedly makes the point that avoidance of sensual pleasures is not important for bodhisattvas.

 

(underlining mine)

 

I hear an echo in these passages of the first schism in the Buddhist order, over whether or not an arhant could be seduced by a succubus. 

 

Drewes argues that the writing and preaching of the first "Mahayana" texts was not a consequence of the original schism, not an off-shoot of the Mahasamghikas, in large part because he does not see the authors of the Mahayana texts and their followers as ever having disavowed the earlier teachings.   I think he has an argument that the sudden emergence, possibly as early as 1st century B.C., of texts and preachers basing their legitimacy on claims of possessing other-worldly, later revelations of the Buddha was a distinct phenomena, but I wonder if what A. K. Warder described as the logical consequences of the first schism among the Mahasamghikas didn't play a part.  

 

Sounds like "Mahayana" was largely the result of Buddhist revivalist preachers, who were willing to accept the claim of divine authorship with regard to a recent text or texts  (many of which texts advocated strongly for donations), and stump for the faith.  Makes me think of Luther and the Protestant church, and 500 years later the Book of Mormon.

 

What I like is the awareness that Yuanwu, author of the "Blue Cliff Record" in 12th century China, shows of the Pali sutta teachings--likewise the awareness that Rujing (Dogen's teacher) shows.  At the same time, they and the majority of Zen/Chan teachers are concerned to describe in the most immediate terms what it means to penetrate the suffocation response and experience involuntary, ongoing activity of the body and mind.

 

They don't mention Gautama's setting up of mindfulness, with its emphasis on in-breathing and out-breathing--why should they, that was old history (but Dogen evidently missed that part of the library).

 

Coincidentally, that same couple of centuries in China saw some of the first manuals of seated meditation, since Gautama--so I've read.  Dogen took one back to Japan, and his first work in Japan incorporated it (Fukanzazengi).

 

 

 

 

I think the argument is that splits in the Sangha were over Vinaya rules and that given that the Chinese monk who visited India found that monks of the same order practiced Hinayana style and Mahayana style in the same monastery and so the distinction was not a distinction centred on a sect but on a style or attitude to practice.  I think the crux of the difference is how you practice.  If you mainly 'listen' to the text as a 'shravaka' = 'hearer' then you are expecting that listening, learning, thinking about, meditating on the meaning and so on will bring you to arhatship.  If on the other hand you receive the text as a transmission, sound, image, state of consciousness and so on - learn it, repeat it, visualize it, 'embody' it then that is Mahayana style.  Something like that anyway

 

 

[Mark Foote]

So we have literally hundreds of Mahayana sutras but no school or sect to connect them to.  How can this be?  The answer is likely very simple.  There was probably simply not much to early Mahayana apart from these texts.  What the evidence collected over the last century and a half suggests is that early Indian Mahayana was primarily a textual movement, focused on the relevation, preaching, and dissemination of Mahayana sutras, that developed within, and never really departed from, traditional Buddhist social and institutional structures.

 

("Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism II:  New perspectives", Drewes)

 

I have read that monasteries in China were open to adherents of any faith, but I have to say that in the traditional Buddhism of India and Southeast Asia, there were rules concerned with how to distinguish between what was the teaching and what was not.   The first schism was all about trying to reconcile what was the teaching and what was not.  

 

I wonder where exactly the Chinese monks of 2nd and 3rd centuries CE found adherents of the traditional sutra and vinaya living alongside adherents of the new sutras:

 

The practices that Mahayana sutras recommend most frequently and enthusiastically are creatively conceived methods that they depict as making it possible to attain Buddhahood quickly and easily.  Dozens of sutras, for instance, present easy practices, such as hearing the names of certain Buddhas or bodhisattvas, maintaining Buddhist precepts, and listening to, memorizing, and copying sutras, that they claim can enable rebirth in the pure lands Abhirati and Sukhavati, where it is said to be possible to easily acquire the merit and knowledge necessary to become a Buddha in as little as one lifetime.  ...The practices that Mahayana sutras recommend far and away more frequently than all the others, however, ... are ones involving the use of Mahayana sutras themselves.

 

(Ibid)

 

 

Makes the origins of Chan in China seem especially strange and wonderful.  Comes a man with a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra, who founds a school that claims the lotus posture as the seal of the authentic teaching, and sudden enlightenment as the way.     Where did the emphasis on these elements come from--are they anywhere to be found, in the Mahayana sutras?   Drewes points to a tendency of the Mahayana texts to claim a more immediate path to enlightenment, but that's still a long way from sudden enlightenment. 

 

Fuxi was a contemporary or predecessor of Bodhidharma, and a master respected by the emperor.  At least in his person, Chan/Zen was already in China,  but the robe and bowl and the genius of the fourth Patriach in working the land to provide for hundreds of monks apart from patronage secured a future for Zen (maybe?). 

 

Embodying a text--hear it, see it, gain it, something like that?

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

4 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

So we have literally hundreds of Mahayana sutras but no school or sect to connect them to.  How can this be?  The answer is likely very simple.  There was probably simply not much to early Mahayana apart from these texts.  What the evidence collected over the last century and a half suggests is that early Indian Mahayana was primarily a textual movement, focused on the relevation, preaching, and dissemination of Mahayana sutras, that developed within, and never really departed from, traditional Buddhist social and institutional structures.

 

("Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism II:  New perspectives", Drewes)

 

I have read that monasteries in China were open to adherents of any faith, but I have to say that in the traditional Buddhism of India and Southeast Asia, there were rules concerned with how to distinguish between what was the teaching and what was not.   The first schism was all about trying to reconcile what was the teaching and what was not.  

 

I wonder where exactly the Chinese monks of 2nd and 3rd centuries CE found adherents of the traditional sutra and vinaya living alongside adherents of the new sutras:

 

The practices that Mahayana sutras recommend most frequently and enthusiastically are creatively conceived methods that they depict as making it possible to attain Buddhahood quickly and easily.  Dozens of sutras, for instance, present easy practices, such as hearing the names of certain Buddhas or bodhisattvas, maintaining Buddhist precepts, and listening to, memorizing, and copying sutras, that they claim can enable rebirth in the pure lands Abhirati and Sukhavati, where it is said to be possible to easily acquire the merit and knowledge necessary to become a Buddha in as little as one lifetime.  ...The practices that Mahayana sutras recommend far and away more frequently than all the others, however, ... are ones involving the use of Mahayana sutras themselves.

 

(Ibid)

 

 

Makes the origins of Chan in China seem especially strange and wonderful.  Comes a man with a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra, who founds a school that claims the lotus posture as the seal of the authentic teaching, and sudden enlightenment as the way.     Where did the emphasis on these elements come from--are they anywhere to be found, in the Mahayana sutras?   Drewes points to a tendency of the Mahayana texts to claim a more immediate path to enlightenment, but that's still a long way from sudden enlightenment. 

 

Fuxi was a contemporary or predecessor of Bodhidharma, and a master respected by the emperor.  At least in his person, Chan/Zen was already in China,  but the robe and bowl and the genius of the fourth Patriach in working the land to provide for hundreds of monks apart from patronage secured a future for Zen (maybe?). 

 

Embodying a text--hear it, see it, gain it, something like that?

 

 

 

 

This is the best book to read:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahayana-Buddhism-Doctrinal-Foundations-Religious/dp/0415356539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520933771&sr=8-1&keywords=mahayana+williams

 

it gives an account of the development of Far Eastern, Chinese and Japanese Buddhism and talks about the Zen stress on immediacy and so on at some length.  It's such a vast subject that I am working my way through it slowly.  I think Zen is to understood as a particular development of Yogacara Buddhism where the relationship between the 'here/now' phenomenal and the presence of Buddha-mind are expressed through the 'natural' and so on.  This is just my way of putting it - so probably not that exact

[Apech]

https://www.livescience.com/20799-ancient-statue-reveals-prince-buddha.html#undefined.uxfs