[steevyjeors]

Scholarly views on historicity


Some scholars take an agnostic view and consider the Mahāyāna sutras as an anonymous literature, since it can not be determined by whom they were written, and only can be dated firmly to the date when they were translated into another language.[11] Others such as A. K. Warder have argued that the Mahāyāna sutras are not historical.[12] Andrew Skilton summarizes a common prevailing view of the Mahāyāna sutras:[13]

“ These texts are considered by Mahāyāna tradition to be buddhavacana, and therefore the legitimate word of the historical Buddha. The śrāvaka tradition, according to some Mahāyāna sutras themselves, rejected these texts as authentic buddhavacana, saying that they were merely inventions, the product of the religious imagination of the Mahāyānist monks who were their fellows. Western scholarship does not go so far as to impugn the religious authority of Mahāyāna sutras, but it tends to assume that they are not the literal word of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha. Unlike the śrāvaka critics just cited, we have no possibility of knowing just who composed and compiled these texts, and for us, removed from the time of their authors by up to two millenia, they are effectively an anonymous literature. It is widely accepted that Mahāyāna sutras constitute a body of literature that began to appear from as early as the 1st century BCE, although the evidence for this date is circumstantial. The concrete evidence for dating any part of this literature is to be found in dated Chinese translations, amongst which we find a body of ten Mahāyāna sutras translated by Lokaksema before 186 C.E. – and these constitute our earliest objectively dated Mahāyāna texts. This picture may be qualified by the analysis of very early manuscripts recently coming out of Afghanistan, but for the meantime this is speculation. In effect we have a vast body of anonymous but relatively coherent literature, of which individual items can only be dated firmly when they were translated into another language at a known date. ”

John W. Pettit, while stating, "Mahayana has not got a strong historical claim for representing the explicit teachings of the historical Buddha", also argues that the basic concepts of Mahāyāna do occur in the Pāli canon and that this suggests that Mahāyāna is "not simply an accretion of fabricated doctrines" but "has a strong connection with the teachings of Buddha himself".[14]

It should be noted that however weak claim to historicity that the Mahāyāna sutras hold, this does not mean that all scholars believe that the Pāli Canon is historical; some scholars believe that it is not.[15][16][17]

Still others such as D.T. Suzuki have stated that it doesn't matter if the Mahāyāna sutras can be historically linked to the Buddha or not, since Mahāyāna is a living tradition and its teachings are followed by millions of people.[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_sutras

On the one hand, I have no interest in disparaging others' beliefs and/or practices, but on the other, there's this:

In the Mahaparinibanna Sutta (DN 16) the Buddha is quoted as saying:

“ There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: 'In the Blessed One's presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One's presence have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.' His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas (discourses) and tally them against the Vinaya (monastic rules). If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don't stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it' — and you should reject it. But if... they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.'" The Mahayana traditions include a number of adaptations to the teachings found in the Pali Canon that don't actually tally with them. Vegetarianism is one such (minor) point. Larger points include the existence of an eternal 'True Self', Buddha-mind, Buddha-nature, Pure Abodes, etc, insofar as those things are taught to be outside the realm of dhammas that are marked with the three signs (anicca, anatta, dukkha).

There are plenty of wise, insightful teachings to be found in the Mahayana suttas and other literature, but does anyone actually believe that the Buddha wrote those suttas down (though he didn't/couldn't write) and somehow magically stored them "in the land of the nagas" until he somehow, after his death, decided that the time was right to reveal them? If there is anyone here who believes this, please explain how/why you do so.

Peace.




Edited by D. to correct font in title