Buddhist Historical Narrative

[Apech]

6 hours ago, dmattwads said:

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.

 

Hi,

 

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

 

Cheers.

[silent thunder]

Really appreciate the thread guys... thanks for the informative chat.

[Apech]

3^rd Buddhist Council

 

There is some dispute over whether this council actually happened as there are some things about it that don’t make immediate sense, such as the Emperor Ashoka personally interviewing monks about their views. It only occurs in the Pail texts so there is no support from other sources. However it seems likely that some process like this did happen and the story is illustrative of that.

 

The background is that in the 200 odd years since the Buddha India (or most of it) had gone from being divided into 16 main kingdoms to unity under the Mauryan Empire, founded by the grandfather of King Ashoka, who is well known as a great Buddhist king. He introduced writing (the Brahmic Script) and built pillars and stupas to hold relics of the Buddha and promoted the Dharma (while still supporting or allowing other traditions like Vedanta and Jainism). Royal patronage is great in the sense of subsidy and support but can be a two edged sword – because it brings with it politics and imperial ambition. Religion as a tool of state. In 236 BC one of Ashoka’s ministers had taken to beheading monks who refused to join a unified congregation – and had to be restrained.

 

Unlike the two previous Councils, which were about the Vinaya rules, this one was convened to address the doctrinal disputes which had caused the monks to reject the unified teachings. They wanted to weed out ‘heretics’.

 

Quote

On the seventh day the king went to the ABokiriimo and gathered the whole assembly of bhiksus around him. Seated with Moggaliputtatissa behind a curtain, he questioned each of the monks of the various tendencies in turn on the teaching of the Blessed One. They attributed to the latter the sixty-two heretical theories which are described and condemned in the Brahamajilasurranra : radical eternalism (sasvatavada), partial eternalism (ekatyasasvata), scepticism (amariviksepa), etc. ASoka, who had just brushed up his knowledge, immediately realized that the supporters of these theories were not authentic bhiksus but quite simply heretics. In conformity with his decision which he promulgated in the Kaugmbi edict, he reclothed them in the white robe of the laity and expelled them from the community. The heretics were 60,000 in number.

 

Some might suggest that these ‘heresies’ originated due to contamination of the pure stream of Buddhist doctrine from other traditions. And this might be partly true. But I would suggest that it is more likely that these non-Buddhist views actually arose from within Buddha-dharma itself. The teaching of dependent origination is highly nuanced and subtle. It is very easy to fall into both mistaken belief about it and also mistaken criticism of the view. Even the Buddha himself made this point when Ananda claimed to understand it.

 

Quote

 

DN 15 PTS: D ii 55

Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse

 

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Kurus. Now, the Kurus have a town named Kammasadhamma. There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."

 

[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

 

 

The Buddha reprimands Ananda for saying dependent origination is clear to him! Not only that, he says that this whole generation is in a mess because no-one understands it. Its not easy or clear at all – it is profound, subtle and deep.

 

When you come across yourself it you might think that to say that everything is dependent on causes and conditions and does not exist indepenently of everything else – like a sort of cosmic ecology – is actually straightforward. A tree depends on seed, soil, water and sun, time to grow and so on. Even mountains move and are slowly erode given enough time. Its hard to contradict the idea that everything is impermanent and subject to change, that things are made of parts and do not stand alone and eternally separate from everything else. But still as we experience reality as real – we also think, well that is all true but surely there must be some real cause or some real underlying substance which makes it so. And this real cause or substance must be eternal surely. And so we posit eternalism.

 

Alternately we say well, life is ephemeral, the universe is just a big random mess of energy, there is no ‘self’ at all and thus the things we peceive do not really exist. There is nothing.

 

And so with remarkable ease we slip into the two main mistakes – eternalism and nihilism. Its easy to do. Much easier that striving to awaken to real understanding of dependent origination. Especially as true understanding would involve becoming a Buddha ourselves. So it is not surprising that some of the sangha – in fact about half of the sangha (60,000 out of 120,000) had slipped into one of these views.

 

 

Quote

 

The king then summoned the other bhiksus and asked them which doctrine the Buddha had professed. They answered him that it was the doctrine of the Vibhajyavida or of Distinguishing. Having been assured by the Thera Tissa that this was the case, ASoka happily concluded that the assembly was purified (hddha) and proposed that it celebrate the uposatha; after which, he returned to the town. The orthodox monks were 60,000 in number according to the Dipavutpa (VII, 50) and the Chinese version of the Samantaprasadiki (p. 6846 9), 6,000,000 according

299 to the Pali recension of the same text (p. 61, lines 11-12).

 

 

Six million seems unlikely – so I think we can accept 60,000 – which means the sangha was split in half over this. So having expunged the heretics the sangha then reformulates the doctrine.

 

Quote

The Thera Moggaliputtatissa selected from among them 1,000 bhiksus who were versed in the Tripitaka. and proposed that they undertake a new compilation of the true Law (saddharmasatpgraha). According to the Pali sources, in the middle of the council he produced the Pali Kathapatthuppakarana in order to refute the heretical doctrines but this important detail is deliberately omitted from the Chinese recension of the SamantapcSsddiki, which merely says that he refuted the heretical views (p. 6846 10). After which, following the example of MahHkiiSyapa at the council of RHjagrha, and of Y a k s Kiikandakaputra (Sonaka in the Chinese version) at the council of VaiGli, the Thera Tissa and his colleagues proceeded with the third compilation of the Dharma and Vinaya in the course of the sessions, which lasted for nine months.

 

 

 

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

 

Some might suggest that these ‘heresies’ originated due to contamination of the pure stream of Buddhist doctrine from other traditions. And this might be partly true. But I would suggest that it is more likely that these non-Buddhist views actually arose from within Buddha-dharma itself. The teaching of dependent origination is highly nuanced and subtle. It is very easy to fall into both mistaken belief about it and also mistaken criticism of the view. Even the Buddha himself made this point when Ananda claimed to understand it.

 

 

The Buddha reprimands Ananda for saying dependent origination is clear to him! Not only that, he says that this whole generation is in a mess because no-one understands it. Its not easy or clear at all – it is profound, subtle and deep.

 

 

 

 

My girlfriend between the two of us is the more skeptical pragmatic one. Often I will be talking about something the Buddha said or taught and she will say "but how do you know that it is true" or "how do you know the Buddha was correct". About half the time I will respond by saying that what ever it was he said that we were talking about makes sense and seems logical, but the other half of the time I often have to admit that "I don't know". It makes sense that if there was confusion about these things even in the time the Buddha was alive that 2,500 years later it would be even more so. 

[Creation]

Most Mahayana Sutras could not have been taught by the physical historical Buddha due to the content of the texts themselves.  Granting that visionary encounters and teachings in other realms are possible (as most in this thread would grant, I think), it makes much more sense to see the Mahayana sutras are accounts of such.  For instance, if Maitreya, Avalokiteshvara, or Manjurshri is present as interlocutor, or there are lengthy descriptions of the appearances of celestial mansions and details of the ornaments of all the Bodhisttvas present.  There is just no way these things were orally transmitted records of teachings in the physical realm like the Pali sutras.  If it was, some Pali text somewhere would have mentioned these other teachings, at least in passing.

 

To add to this, Mahayana sutras sometimes speak about the merit of possessing a written copy of the sutra, which of course makes no sense if they were originally transmitted by oral recitation. 

 

Similarly for Vajrayana Tantras.  I see Mahayana Buddhism as a religion of continuing revelation, from the Sutras to Dzogchen termas.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Creation

[Creation]

About Madhyamaka and Yogacara, briefly:

 

Yogacara, being the school of Yoga practitioners, introduces something like Abhidharma for the Mahayana: detailed maps of explaining how one goes from a sentient being all the way to Buddhahood.  So eight consciousnesses on one side and five wisdoms and three kayas on the other, and how the former become the latter across the Bhumis.  None of this is present in Madhyamaka, and all of it is compatible with Madhyamaka: it can be viewed as a sort of addendum.

 

The place where they conflict is Yogacara claimed the interpretation emptiness espoused by Madhyamaka was too nihilistic, basically that you had to leave something un-negated to not be nihilism.  Madhyamaka says even non-dual conciousness is empty like everything else, Yogacara says it is not empty in the same way as defilement are, but is like the ocean and defilement are like waves on the ocean.  In Chinese Buddhism, almost everyone was Yogacarin.  The only Madhyamikas were early Tiantai, Sanlun (which only lasted a couple centuries before dying out), and maybe one or two subschools of Chan mentioned by Zongmi which have not survived to the present day.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Creation

[Astral Monk]

5 hours ago, Creation said:

 

To add to this, Mahayana sutras sometimes speak about the merit of possessing a written copy of the sutra, which of course makes no sense if they were originally transmitted by oral recitation. 

 

 

Great point. Hadnt occured to me before, but seeing as was mentioned that writing didnt exist in India till after Buddha...its very interesting!

 

I'll grant mystical visions, but not give them credence, bc theyre no better than todays 'channelings'. 

 

8)

[Apech]

6 hours ago, Creation said:

Most Mahayana Sutras could not have been taught by the physical historical Buddha due to the content of the texts themselves.  Granting that visionary encounters and teachings in other realms are possible (as most in this thread would grant, I think), it makes much more sense to see the Mahayana sutras are accounts of such.  For instance, if Maitreya, Avalokiteshvara, or Manjurshri is present as interlocutor, or there are lengthy descriptions of the appearances of celestial mansions and details of the ornaments of all the Bodhisttvas present.  There is just no way these things were orally transmitted records of teachings in the physical realm like the Pali sutras.  If it was, some Pali text somewhere would have mentioned these other teachings, at least in passing.

 

To add to this, Mahayana sutras sometimes speak about the merit of possessing a written copy of the sutra, which of course makes no sense if they were originally transmitted by oral recitation. 

 

Similarly for Vajrayana Tantras.  I see Mahayana Buddhism as a religion of continuing revelation, from the Sutras to Dzogchen termas.

 

 

 

 

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

[Apech]

6 hours ago, Creation said:

About Madhyamaka and Yogacara, briefly:

 

Yogacara, being the school of Yoga practitioners, introduces something like Abhidharma for the Mahayana: detailed maps of explaining how one goes from a sentient being all the way to Buddhahood.  So eight consciousnesses on one side and five wisdoms and three kayas on the other, and how the former become the latter across the Bhumis.  None of this is present in Madhyamaka, and all of it is compatible with Madhyamaka: it can be viewed as a sort of addendum.

 

The place where they conflict is Yogacara claimed the interpretation emptiness espoused by Madhyamaka was too nihilistic, basically that you had to leave something un-negated to not be nihilism.  Madhyamaka says even non-dual conciousness is empty like everything else, Yogacara says it is not empty in the same way as defilement are, but is like the ocean and defilement are like waves on the ocean.  In Chinese Buddhism, almost everyone was Yogacarin.  The only Madhyamikas were early Tiantai, Sanlun (which only lasted a couple centuries before dying out), and maybe one or two subschools of Chan mentioned by Zongmi which have not survived to the present day.

 

 

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

[Apech]

5 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

Thanks.

 

It looks like a rather complicated subject in the course of Buddhist history.

 

I was approaching the issue from a large scale to try and understand the small scale of things I was finding when reading the Lankavatara Sutra. Madhyamaka and Yogacara, though there could be superficial things that related to the issue that was sticking out to me, don't relate directly to the issue I was contesting.

 

It's the Lankavatara's take ideas about Alaya-Vijnana and tathagatagarbha that I'm not vibing with. But that's possibly from my primarily non-buddhist understandings of things.

 

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

[Apech]

I think I'm going to skip over the 4th Buddhist Council as this was simply where the Pali Canon was committed to writing, after famine had killed off many monks and the oral tradition was threatened.  As a side note, this is quite a common feature of all ancient texts - things were not written down until they were threatened with extinction.  While traditions were active and culturally embedded there was more confidence in the oral tradition - but when under some kind threat then writing things down was understood as a method of preservation.  The other thing to note is that this happened in the first century BC when Buddhism was almost 400 years old.  Many scholars now believe that the Pali Canon while clearly containing some authentic words of the Buddha - also reflects the general attitudes which had developed by that time.  So it is not a simple task to extract the Early Buddhism contained in it from the Buddhism current in say 29 BC (one of the suggested dates).  Imagine for instance that Shakespeare had not been written down but just memorised by generations of actors - would you expect the result to be the perfect words of the Bard????

 

I'm going to move on to the growth of the Mahayana and use two main sources:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Buddhist-Thought-Second-Paul-Williams/dp/0415571790/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516797523&sr=8-1&keywords=Buddhist+Thought

 

and 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Indian-Buddhism-Sakyamuni-Tradition/dp/8120809556/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516797669&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=A+History+of+Indian+Buddhism+From+Sakyamuni+to+Early+Mahayana+by+Hirasawa+Akira

 

 

[Maddie]

Have you ever listened to Brian Ruhe's talk about early Buddhism? It's very slanted towards Theravada and against Mahayana. It used to have more sway with me until Brian became a Nazi/Buddhist. I have to admit that may have affected his credibility in my view somewhat. 

 

 

[Apech]

33 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

Have you ever listened to Brian Ruhe's talk about early Buddhism? It's very slanted towards Theravada and against Mahayana. It used to have more sway with me until Brian became a Nazi/Buddhist. I have to admit that may have affected his credibility in my view somewhat. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

[Apech]

46 minutes ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

Well, on the one hand, there are some goods things. Some things along the lines of Lao Tzu's "The seven colors blind the eyes" and other things regarding the sense consciousnesses.

 

The main thing I would contest is the indication that there is something akin to a static or universal mind. This isn't true. The ultimate self has no self nature. It's difficult to describe but when Samadhi is emphasized  (and it should be), the dynamism and becomingness  of the ultimate layer of mind becomes apparent. It's like a feedback node of sorts.

 

And it also becomes apparent that mind is somewhat material. This, I think, correlates a bit to what the wiki article says about a "transformation of consciousness". 

 

It's more a critique from the perspective of practice instead of concepts.

 

 

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

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

It may be. I've just looked into other translations and I'm not opposed to them.

 

It's mainly just the first one I saw (this one) that's weird:

http://zen-ua.org/wp-content/uploads/lankavatara_sutra_english.pdf

(especially around chapter 5, pages 12, 14, and 15, and also chapter 7---well, the whole translation, actually... there's definitely good information, but the spirit of its presentation does not feel right)

 

 

That's the version that Malcolm for dharmawheel said is a joke.

 

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

[Jeff]

36 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

That's the version that Malcolm for dharmawheel said is a joke.

 

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

 

Oh no... The Malcolm worship disease... I should have known...  

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Oh no... The Malcolm worship disease... I should have known...  

 

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

[Creation]

15 hours ago, Astral Monk said:

I'll grant mystical visions, but not give them credence, bc theyre no better than todays 'channelings'. 

Whoever revealed the Mahyana sutras were definitely advanced Bodhisattvas, so is it not possible that they connected with Buddhas?  If you look into channeled material, it is clear that some of the information comes from more advanced beings than others, and the more advanced the consciousness of the channel the more advanced of a being they can connect to.  So there is a similarity.

 

14 hours ago, Apech said:

Substantially I would say that what the Mahayana sutras contain while perhaps being revealed to certain people at certain time - it was not a ) the product of schism and b ) a substantially new practice.  I'll go into why I think that when I get to it.

Right.  For Westerner scholars who don't grant the possibility of revelation, saying most Mahayana sutras can't date to the time of the Buddha is tantamount to saying someone just made it up and called it Buddhavacana.  But if you allow revelation, you can accept the findings of text criticism without negating the Mahayana as Buddhavacana. 

 

I will, however, say that Vajrayana, the basis of which is deity yoga, definitely was substantially new practice when it was introduced.  So you find the tantras reworking Shakyamuni's enlightenment narrative to justify the new practice: in lower tantra the new narrative is Shakyamuni receiving abhisheka and chanting a mantra under the Bodhi tree, and of course there is the even more radical reworking of the narrative in Higher Tantra with the milk maid.  But it was an outgrowth of things that developed in late Mahayana sutras, for instance in the Gandavyuha Sutra you have, IIRC, Vairocana grants Suddhana to see things with as he sees them, and Vasumitra the prostitute enlightening her customers through union.  So I guess I would say it is a formalization or systematization of things that had been developing in Maahyana for some centuries prior.

[Creation]

On 1/24/2018 at 3:08 AM, Apech said:

 

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

 

There are a few different ways that Yogacarin authors relate alaya-vijnana and Buddha-jnana.

 

1.  Alaya-vijnana is the same as pure Buddha-jnana, manas is what contains all the defilement, destruction of manas is buddhahood

2.  Alaya-vijnana contains both pure and impure seeds, when only pure seeds remain you are a Buddha

3.  Alaya-vijnana is completely defiled, and Buddha-jnana is the pure mind underlying it.  Paramartha called this underlying pure mind amala-vijnana, in Mahamudra, Lamdre, and Dzogchen Semde (which were imported from India) it is called kungzhi (alaya-vijnana being kungzhi-namshe).

(There is a pattern here, and the next step would be to say kungzhi actually has a pure part and an impure part.  This is basically the step that Dzogche Mennagde takes with "One basis, two paths", they separate kungzhi and gzhi.  But this was not done by Yogacarins in India)

So in 1, alaya-vijnana is tathagatagarbha in the sense that it is the Buddha-jnana already being present underneath the defiled consciousness, in 2 alaya-vijnana is tathagatagarbha in the sense that it contains the potential to become Buddha-jnana, and in 3 alaya-vijnana is not tathagatagarbha, but amala-vijnana/kungzhi is.

 

That's my understanding at least...

Edited January 27, 2018 by Creation

[Creation]

15 hours ago, Apech said:

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

Right, that's the one thing I said they disagree on.  It's the rest of the Yogacara teachings that are not incompatible with Madhyamaka.  For instance, a Madhyamika can use the eight consciousness model, just not claim that the alaya-vijnana exists ultimately.  As for tantra, that is a tricky issue because the tantras seem to admit true existence of Buddha-jnana, but commentators such as Tsongkhapa who are committed to Madhayamaka are very careful to not to do so in their exegesis.  Speaking of Tsongkhapa, he went as far as to say the ultimate Prasangika system does not admit the use of any Yogacara concepts such as alaya-vijnana, but others (Mipham for instance) do not agree.

 

6 hours ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

The main thing I would contest is the indication that there is something akin to a static or universal mind. This isn't true. The ultimate self has no self nature. It's difficult to describe but when Samadhi is emphasized  (and it should be), the dynamism and becomingness  of the ultimate layer of mind becomes apparent. It's like a feedback node of sorts.

 

And it also becomes apparent that mind is somewhat material. This, I think, correlates a bit to what the wiki article says about a "transformation of consciousness".

Actually, the Lanka says first you meditate on mind only, then you let go of the existence of mind.  Two tiered system was formalized as Yogacara-Madhyamaka by Shantarakshita and Kamalashila, who were the first Indian Panditas to teach in Tibet.

[Apech]

9 hours ago, Creation said:

 

There are a few different ways that Yogacarin authors relate alaya-vijnana and Buddha-jnana.

 

1.  Alaya-vijnana is the same as pure Buddha-jnana, Manas is what contains all the defilement, destruction of Manas is Buddhahood

2.  Alaya-vijnana contains both pure and impure seeds, when only pure seeds remain you are a Buddha

3.  Alaya-vijnana is completely defiled, and Buddha-jnana is the pure mind underlying it.  Paramartha called this underlying pure mind amala-vijnana, in Mahamudra, Lamdre, and Dzogchen Semde (which were imported from India) it is called Kungzhi (alaya-vijnana being Kungzhi-namshe).

(There is a pattern here, and the next step would be to say Kungzhi actually has a pure part and an impure part.  This is basically the step that Dzogche Mennagde takes with "One basis, two paths", they separate Kungzhi and Gzhi.  But this was not done by Yogacarins in India)

So in 1, alaya vijnana is Tathagatagarbha in the sense that it is the Buddha-jnana already being present underneath the defiled conciousness, in 2 alaya vijnana is Tathagatagarbha in the sense that it contains the potential to become Buddha-jnana, and in 3 alaya vijnana is not Tathagatagarbha, but amala-vijnana/Alaya is.

 

That's my understanding at least...

 

 

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

 

 

[Apech]

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.

[Apech]

The Mahayana

 

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

 

Quote

 

The archeological evidence concerning the development of the Buddhist order after the Mauryan Empire has been surveyed in the preceding pages. Modern scholars have been puzzled, however, by the absence of any inscriptions regarding the Early Mahayana order. Even though many inscriptions referring to donations to the schools of Nikaya Buddhism have been found, no similar inscriptions about the Early Mahayana orders have been discovered. Some scholars have argued that the absence of such archeological evidence indicates that Mahayana orders did not exist yet. Other scholars have suggested that Mahayana Buddhists were probably considered to be heretics and that Mahayana Buddhism most likely began as an underground movement suppressed by the more established forms of Buddhism. Consequently, open expression of support for Mahayana Buddhism, such as inscriptions, did not appear until later.

 

The term "Mahayana" does not appear in an inscription until the second or third century C.E. yet the dates at which Mahayana texts were translated into Chinese prove that Mahayana texts existed in North India during the dynasty. (These early texts are discussed in the next chapter.) Clearly, the absence of Mahayana inscrip- tions does not prove that Mahayana Buddhism did not exist during the first few centuries of the common era.

 

The Chinese pilgrim Fa-hsien, who left Ch'ang-an for India in 399, described three types of temples that he found on his journey: Hinayana temples, Mahayana temples, and temples in which both Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism were practiced. Later, Hsiian-tsang, who left China. for India in 629, described Indian Buddhism in more detail, mentioning the same three types of monasteries.4 Of the temples Hsiian-tsang visited, sixty percent were Hinayana, twenty-four percent were Mahayana, and fifteen percent were temples where both Hina- yana and Mahayana were practiced. Even if Hsiian-tsang's figures for both Mahayana and mixed (Hinayana and Mahayana) monasteries are combined, they total only forty percent. Although the Mahayana tradi- tion was not the dominant form of Buddhism in India at this time, then, it was clearly present. Since the descriptions of Indian Buddhism by both Fa-hsien and Hsiian-tsang generally agree, these accounts proba- bly accurately portray the state of Indian Buddhism for their respective periods. If a significant number of Mahayana temples existed by 400 C.E., when Fa-hsien visited India, it is likely that at least a few existed one or two centuries earlier. Thus, the absence of inscriptions concern- ing Mahayana orders from the second and third centuries is not suffi- cient evidence to argue that no Mahayana order existed at that time. Moreover, the doctrinal development of the Chinese translations of early Mahayana texts from the second century C.E. discussed in the next chapter indicates the existence of a Mahayana order.

 

 

 

[Astral Monk]

20 hours ago, Creation said:

Whoever revealed the Mahyana sutras were definitely advanced Bodhisattvas, so is it not possible that they connected with Buddhas?  If you look into channeled material, it is clear that some of the information comes from more advanced beings than others, and the more advanced the consciousness of the channel the more advanced of a being they can connect to.  So there is a similarity.

 

Right.  For Westerner scholars who don't grant the possibility of revelation, saying most Mahayana sutras can't date to the time of the Buddha is tantamount to saying someone just made it up and called it Buddhavacana.  

 

Thats basically how I see it. While I enjoy these sutras and mantras etc, I cant help feel they represent a decay or corruption of authetic Buddhism. If the goal of Buddhism is Buddhas, whats with all the crazy talk of rebirths and magical buddha lands? When a Buddha dies hes really and totally dead and gone and not coming back. Instead we have ideas of eternal Buddhas with infinite lifespans...which seems entirely contrary to the basic principles. I cant read the Amitabha sutra without thinking 'this is fake', even though I love the splendid character of Amitabha.

 

Original Buddha, supposedly, was not given a revelation by a being. Why should we accept such 'gifts' from dubious sources? I apply the same criticism to western religions.

 

But not to sidetrack too much, lets see how it could be that Mahayana existed from the beginning as Apech suggests...

 

8)

[Apech]

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