[Sx1qBli0]

Something interesting came up in a thread a little bit ago with a fellow forum member/moderator here about a difference between Mahayana and Theravada and what Shakyamuni is known to have taught in Theravada as to what may or may not have been taught by him in later Mahayana. It is something I myself have an opinion on that may seem quite pleasing to Theravada practitioners and perhaps insulting to Mahayana Practitioners, though I hope not as I love the Mahayana and Theravada equally and would like to see them, along with Vajrayana, fuse one day to become an Ekayana or one BIG vehicle school of Buddha Dharma. Anyway, here goes.

It is my opinion that Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach much of what is known as Mahayana Buddhism, but that these later revelations were written by later enlightened individuals (Buddhas/Arahants) and ascribed to Shakyamuni as a form of skillful means to lend credibility to the techniques and concepts developed within them. People are always skeptical when someone comes along and claims enlightenment or Buddha-hood, (accept in regard to Shakyamuni Buddha, people don't seem to question him much), so it seems reasonable that enlightened beings later on in Buddhist history may have discovered new paths or skillful means to help others more clearly understand the spirit of what the historical Buddha taught, and written it in his name in order to be taken seriously.

I know in Mahayana it is stated that these later teachings came from Shakyamuni and that they were kept in celestial realms, or realms of the Naga's etc. because the people were not ready for them yet, but Buddha himself is recorded as saying that he held nothing back in his teachings in the pali canon, and so, unless this is a later addition to the Theravada canon (not likely because of their rigid tradition rules) there were no secret teachings until they were invented by later Buddhas, clarifying in the Buddhist spirit, the teachings of the historical Buddha, and spreading practices for enlightenment to lay folk/new types of monks.

This shouldn't really bother Mahayana practitioners though, because they believe in the Dharmakaya or the Vairocana Buddha, and the universality of Buddha nature within each sentient being. A Buddha is a Buddha is a Buddha, so to speak. So, as long as a teaching keeps in the spirit of the Buddha dharma, it shouldnt matter if it came from Shakyamuni Buddha or any other Buddha or Arahant or Bodhisattva. To use myth or even to disguise ones writing as the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha shouldn't be an issue so long as the one doing so is also truly a Buddha, and is using skillful means to deliver the message.

So too, I would invite Theravada practitioners to examine the Mahayana scriptures and see if they keep the spirit of what Shakyamuni taught. If they keep the spirit of what he taught, then perhaps they should be accepted as lessons from other enlightened beings. For only an enlightened being could teach a path that leads to enlightenment, and if something agrees with what Shakyamuni Buddha taught in essence and can lead to enlightenment, in turn, it must have come from an enlightened being. Surely no Theravadin would reject teachings from an Arahant?

Anyway, enough of my rambling, I apologize in advance if anything I have written has angered anyone and I ask that you be forgiving and not treat me too harshly. Thank you for taking time to read my opinion and discuss it with me.

[Sliliashdes]

Hi,

You've asked a question which could spur pages and pages of debates, multiple threads, even entire books...I'd say this is one of the two or three hottest points of contention on Buddhist discussion boards, along with karma and rebirth and a couple of others.

It's a little hard to come up with a definite answer because the origins of Mahayana remain mysterious to a great degree. From what I've seen and read, my own take at the moment is that Mahayana teachings fall into four basic categories, as follows:

a) Some are extensions of material found in the Nikayas (Pali Canon). For example, some scholars have noted a link between Madhyamaka (Nagarjuna's "Middle Way") and certain texts in the Sutta Nipata, which may be a very early part of the Canon. The devotional aspect of Mahayana can be traced to these and other suttas as well, and to stories found in the Jakata tales.

b) Some are the result of deep meditation (samadhi) experiences during which the meditators received -- or believed they received -- teachings from Buddha. These visions were then transmitted and eventually written down in the form of new sutras.

c) Some are the result of doctrinal debates during the first centuries of the common era (CE). For example, some consider parts of the Heart Sutra to be a response to a school known as the Sarvastivada. Likewise, the doctrine of "alaya vijnana" (storehouse consciousness) originated with a school known as Yogacara -- it was put forward as a solution to a logical problem found in the Abidharma.

d) Some reflect developments that occurred within a particular cultural context as Buddhism was introduced. Certain aspects of Chinese Buddhism, for instance, are distinctive to China. Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism basically originate with the Chinese model, so you will see the differences transmitted to those countries as well.

My understanding of the above points is far from perfect, though...you may want to do some reading around. "Mahayana Buddhism: the doctrinal foundations" by Paul Williams is not a bad place to start.

[flielagit]

Good post, rlp.

It is my opinion that Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach much of what is known as Mahayana Buddhism, but that these later revelations were written by later enlightened individuals (Buddhas/Arahants) and ascribed to Shakyamuni as a form of skillful means to lend credibility to the techniques and concepts developed within them. And most scholars would agree with you. However, he certainly didn't teach Theravada either.

This shouldn't really bother Mahayana practitioners though, because they believe in the Dharmakaya or the Vairocana Buddha, and the universality of Buddha nature within each sentient being. A Buddha is a Buddha is a Buddha, so to speak. So, as long as a teaching keeps in the spirit of the Buddha dharma, it shouldnt matter if it came from Shakyamuni Buddha or any other Buddha or Arahant or Bodhisattva. To use myth or even to disguise ones writing as the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha shouldn't be an issue so long as the one doing so is also truly a Buddha, and is using skillful means to deliver the message. I basically agree. Many traditions focus a lot more on buddhahood than on the actual teachings of the historical Buddha -- which I happen to think is a very good thing. However, about a billion problems would get solved if people would just call what they're doing post-Buddhism instead. Buddhism was founded by a historical individual who set up a number of very specific doctrines, rules, etc. It was his sangha. So calling what's not "true" Buddhism post-Buddhism makes a lot of sense to me. It's very hard to explain to people why some Tibetans say tantric sex is the only way to full enlightenment when the Buddha himself was celibate.

[Tilmbeinymn]

How do you know for sure only arahants added in all the later additions to Buddhism?

Personally, I prefer to follow translations of the pali suttas carefully and take everything else with a grain of salt. We still have the Pali literature as the earliest available teachings of the Buddha. Although a few suttas have dodgy places which seem like additions/alterations, overall they seem fine and verifiable imo.

[chuecalovers]

There's a sutta in the Pali Canon which might be relevant in this thread.


SN 20.7 Ani Sutta: The Peg


Staying at Savatthi.

"Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.

They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.

But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.'

That's how you should train yourselves."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....007.than.html

.

[brandiweb]

The Buddha taught neither Mahayana nor Theravada. Those are later forms of teaching that are grouped in what is called a tradition.

What the Buddha taught comes in Pali and what he said is grouped -mainly- in the Nikayas.

For some people, included myself, this are the nearest teachings to his spoken Dhamma and the departure from where traditions, later on, added particular issues not taught in the Nikayas.

[oscilsoda]

Personally, I prefer to follow translations of the pali suttas carefully and take everything else with a grain of salt. We still have the Pali literature as the earliest available teachings of the Buddha. Although a few suttas have dodgy places which seem like additions/alterations, overall they seem fine and verifiable imo.

Good point Deshy,

[abouthotels]

How do you know for sure only arahants added in all the later additions to Buddhism?

Personally, I prefer to follow translations of the pali suttas carefully and take everything else with a grain of salt. We still have the Pali literature as the earliest available teachings of the Buddha. Although a few suttas have dodgy places which seem like additions/alterations, overall they seem fine and verifiable imo.

My experience is that the Dhamma ( Dharma ) is best practiced in whatever way we can best embody it into our lives.

[Futfwrca]

Hi,

You've asked a question which could spur pages and pages of debates, multiple threads, even entire books...I'd say this is one of the two or three hottest points of contention on Buddhist discussion boards, along with karma and rebirth and a couple of others.

It's a little hard to come up with a definite answer because the origins of Mahayana remain mysterious to a great degree. From what I've seen and read, my own take at the moment is that Mahayana teachings fall into four basic categories, as follows:

a) Some are extensions of material found in the Nikayas (Pali Canon). For example, some scholars have noted a link between Madhyamaka (Nagarjuna's "Middle Way") and certain texts in the Sutta Nipata, which may be a very early part of the Canon. The devotional aspect of Mahayana can be traced to these and other suttas as well, and to stories found in the Jakata tales.

b) Some are the result of deep meditation (samadhi) experiences during which the meditators received -- or believed they received -- teachings from Buddha. These visions were then transmitted and eventually written down in the form of new sutras.

c) Some are the result of doctrinal debates during the first centuries of the common era (CE). For example, some consider parts of the Heart Sutra to be a response to a school known as the Sarvastivada. Likewise, the doctrine of "alaya vijnana" (storehouse consciousness) originated with a school known as Yogacara -- it was put forward as a solution to a logical problem found in the Abidharma.

d) Some reflect developments that occurred within a particular cultural context as Buddhism was introduced. Certain aspects of Chinese Buddhism, for instance, are distinctive to China. Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese Buddhism basically originate with the Chinese model, so you will see the differences transmitted to those countries as well.

My understanding of the above points is far from perfect, though...you may want to do some reading around. "Mahayana Buddhism: the doctrinal foundations" by Paul Williams is not a bad place to start.

I like all these options...especially option B, as buddha nature is buddha nature. Perhaps in very deep samadhi they did come into contact with a buddha...themselves...or maybe even Shakyamuni, who knows? Maybe its a mixture of all these things?

[Xewksghy]

How do you know for sure only arahants added in all the later additions to Buddhism?

Personally, I prefer to follow translations of the pali suttas carefully and take everything else with a grain of salt. We still have the Pali literature as the earliest available teachings of the Buddha. Although a few suttas have dodgy places which seem like additions/alterations, overall they seem fine and verifiable imo.

I would say examine the later additions with a critical eye and if, for you, they ring true to buddhist spirit then use them. If they dont right true for you, dont use them. Thats my only conclusion to that problem o_O

[Viafdrear]

I think in the context of this thread, its worth reading this article "The Myth of Hinayana " (a pejorative term when use by Mahayana/Vajrayana people to describe Theravada)



In the centuries around the birth of Christ there was a radical development going on in Buddhism. A new school was born, and its adherents called it Mahayana. How this new school differed from the earlier schools, can be found in any history of Buddhism. Here we will concentrate on one of the results of this schism: the term Hinayana.

The adherents of the older schools criticized the Mahayanists, especially for creating new sutras, forging the word of the Buddha. The Mahayanists on the other side reacted to that critique by accusing their opponents of not understanding the teaching of the Buddha at all and for beeing narrowminded egoists. The debate got heated, and accusations flowed from both sides. Then some brilliant person at the Mahayana side of the debate created the word pair Mahayana/Hinayana, and it stuck. They called their opponents Hinayana, and this word worked excellently as an insult – with a simplicity and a parallellity to Mahayana that any fool could grasp.

Hinayana, or, more correctly, hiinayaana, is a highly derogatory term. It does not simply mean "Lesser vehicle" as one often can see stated. The second element of hiina-yaana – that is yaana – means vehicle. But hiina very seldom has the simple meaning of "lesser" or "small". If that had been the case, the Pali (or Sanskrit) texts would have used it in other connections as an opposite of mahaa – big. But they don't. The opposite of mahaa is cuu.la, so this is the normal word for "small".

The term Hinayana is an echo of a debate long dead – or rather a debate where the one party is dead and the other one is shouting to the winds.

Continued:

http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm
.

[WhileKelf]

Hi Aloka-D , may I ask what about this article you think adds to the context and discussion? Thanks, A

[LeviBrawn]

Hi Aloka-D , may I ask what about this article you think adds to the context and discussion? Thanks, A

Hiya Andy,

It is relevant to early Mahayana and the development of a mistaken attitude towards Theravada Buddhism which still exists today with some.

It is an inaccurate term when used to describe Theravada and therefore as website manager I felt that its definately worthwhile me popping a brief note into this 'Mahayana and Theravada' thread for the benefit of newcomers to Buddhism who may get the wrong impression about it.

OK, Back to the main topic again, thanks....

[iiilizium]

Thanks for the clarification

[Reftsheette]

Don't both Mahayana and Theravada taught sunyata, nidanas, anicca and anatta? Aren't the differences 1. what the implications are, 2. how to go about realizing these and 3. what they emphasize.

The fact that these are different is probably due to cultural differences. I don't think it is a surprises that these different schools are regional/culture based. And why not, the goal is the same, the path is different because we have different facilities.

Plus, Buddha himself was probably teaching to an audience of Indians from 2500 years ago, so he probably choose words and concepts that were easy for those Indians to understand. If Buddha is alive today, he might use different words. Some oft used words, like Dukkha, might have a different twist to those Indians than what we can possible comprehend, after all, we don't live in the same space and time.

For example, when an average people 2500 years from now read "Vulcan", "Use the force", or "Beam me up", do you think they would understand the pop-culture reference, or come up with some really off the wall explanations for these terms?

[fotochicaes]

I would say examine the later additions with a critical eye and if, for you, they ring true to buddhist spirit then use them. If they dont right true for you, dont use them. Thats my only conclusion to that problem o_O

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by buddhist spirit?

[JosephNF]

My experience is that the Dhamma ( Dharma ) is best practiced in whatever way we can best embody it into our lives.

If I remember right, the OP was not asking about how to practice Dhamma. He was talking about the credibility of later texts. Thus, the reply.

[Yyaqyped]

Hi Deshy, It seems possible and accurate to me to sum up one aspect of what the question and OP is about in the way you have above - whether later texts are credible. My comment was not in deference or in relation to yours, as I recall.
I am getting more and pragmatic as I get older and it is all about practice to me - ending suffering and thus I tend to focus on the putting into practice aspect.
In saying this I am not saying that others do not also focus on application or that one interpretation, one way and one culture is better than an other - I really do not see the need to believe all can not exist equally.

[teentodiefows]

It is my opinion that Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach much of what is known as Mahayana Buddhism.........

This is what Ajahn Sujato, abbot of a monastery in Australia has to say:



Is the Lotus Sutra authentic?

"One of our commenters asked about whether the Lotus Sutra was considered authentic according to the Theravadin view.

To answer this from the traditional Theravadin point of view, all the Mahayana Sutras are inauthentic in the sense that they were not spoken by the Buddha. Historically, Theravada has tended to take a dim view of Mahayana, regarding it as a mere degeneration of the pure teachings.

That the Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana Sutras were not spoken by the Buddha is unanimously supported by modern scholarship. I don’t know of a single academic in the last 150 years who has argued otherwise. The basic historical background is given in Wikipedia. The upshot is that the Lotus Sutra was composed over a period of time, or in a number of stages. The oldest sources probably stem from a little before the common era, and it was finalized around 200 CE. This makes it one of the earliest Mahayana Sutras (and it is even argued that the earliest form of the sutra may not have even been Mahayana).

So there is no doubt that the Lotus Suta and other Mahayana sutras are historically late, dating from many centuries after the Buddha."


Continued at the link below:

http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/10/...tra-authentic/

.

[gettoblaster]

I do not think there is any valid basis to dispute that Mahayana Sutras are inauthentic in the sense that they were not spoken by the Buddha in the Pali Canon.
And on this basis historically, Theravada has tended toregard Mahayana practice as a mere degeneration of the pure teachings. This is a given, is it not? The past is what it is.