[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

[DagoIgnog]

Note - I'm moving this topic to the Beyond Belief forum.

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.

Yes, I'd be interested in someone giving their views on this too.


This excerpt from a biography of Nagarjuna is notable for its emphasis on magic and the supernatural and tells of the Prajnaparamita text being in a Naga realm.


.....The alchemist, thinking that Nagarjuna was no longer able to leave the island taught him how to make gold. Then Nagarjuna, by means of the sandalwood leaf he had hidden in his sandal, returned to India. There he turned a lot of iron into gold and provided the whole Sangha with all their needs. Later Nagarjuna became abbot of Nalanda.

He repeatedly defeated all his opponents, both the heretics, such as Shankara, who ridiculed the Madhyamika view and the shravaka who asserted the invalidity of the Mahayana.

Some Nagas came to attend to Nagarjuna's teachings and requested him to visit the Land the Nagas. Having taught the Naga King and his subjects, Nagarjuna returned with the text of the Prajnaparamita in One Hundred Thousand Verses and its abbreviated form. With these scriptures he revived the Mahayana tradition.

He himself composed many treatises elucidating the view of the Madhyamika and setting a reference point to the whole Mahayana philosophy on relative and absolute truths.
In accordance with the prediction of Arya Tara, Nagarjuna went to leave and teach in South India. There, too, he composed many treatises. His teachings on Vinaya were equaled to Lord Buddha's First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, his teachings on emptiness to the Second Turning, and his Collection of Praises (such as the Praise to the Absolute Expanse) to the Third Turning.

Once a young prince, who coveted his father's kingdom, was told by his mother, "Your father's life is linked to that of Master Nagarjuna who himself attained eternal life. Therefore, you will never rule the kingdom." Later not bearing her son's unhappiness, the queen added, "Nagarjuna is a Bodhisattva, if you ask him for his head, he will give to you." The prince did accordingly, and Nagarjuna consented to give his head. But although the prince struck with his sword again and again, the master's neck could not be severed. Nagarjuna said, "Once when I was cutting kusha grass I cut off the head of an insect.

The karmic consequence of this act can still affect me and you can easily kill me with a blade of kusha grass." The prince tried and at the first stroke the masters' head fell on the ground. Milk, not blood, poured out and the severed head spoke: "I shall now go to Tushita heaven, but later I shall return in this very same body."

Afraid, the prince, threw the head far away. However both the head and body of Nagarjuna turned into stone and it is said that the head, slowly but surely, moves closer to its trunk and that eventually, when the two reunite, Nagarjuna will revive and perform vast deeds for the benefit of the Doctrine and beings.
http://www.rangjung.com/authors/Nagarjuna.htm


However, on the Zensite we have this article :

"The problem of the historical Nagarjuna revisited" :

"Claims about the life of Nagarjuna are often asserted as if the facts were known and secure, when they are not. Those who explore the evidence in quest of more secure facts come up with contradictory conclusions."


http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/..._Nagarjuna.htm

[Hammaduersnes]

Moving it to Beyond Belief, eh? I don't believe you...

But back to the topic, it seems that a lot of Mahayana doctrine is based on the belief in the supernatural. I'm not an expert in Mahayaha doctrine though, so that's why I'm asking for any Mahayanist/Tibetan (if they're considered to be separate), that is, non-Theravadan, input. I don't know of any rational justification for the belief that the Mahayana literature can be credibly attributed to the historical Gautama Buddha. If there is such credible, rational justification, please connect me to it.

[BrainTop]

it seems that a lot of Mahayana doctrine is based on the belief in the supernatural.

Hi FBM,

Not only supernatural... Mahayana is guided by an ideal, the one of the Bodhisattva, the biggest ad-on of Mahayana and that is not teached by the historical Buddha... so things have started wrong in accordance with what the historical Buddha taught. Idealism is a sort of delusional thought and distorts meditative skills and the attainment of Right View... the most necessarily condition to overcom dukkha. Bodhisattva idealism is quite similar to the Jesus Christ doctrine about becoming a redeemer of mankind sin.

I am also not an expert in Mahayana issues so, maybe I am making a wrong consideration and help is needed.

About Buddha Nature concept: In some Soto schools we have the oeuvre of Dogen Zenji called the Shobogenzo. This is a huge collection of Koans expressed quite difficult and intricate. Dogen talks about Buddha Nature in two of them: The Genjo Koan and the Bendowa. This are a core teaching for an skillful zazen. In this particular case Buddha Nature means two things for some Soto schools. As a kind of natural capability to develop skillful means for zazen and the development of Right View in accordance with what is meant in the Eightfold Noble Path and in the understanding of the first and second Noble Truths. Dogen do not use "luminous mind" but has the same meaning... luminous v.s a darkened mind. The luminous one is the one that has developed Right View. But I have found some Soto schools that understand this Buddha Nature and Luminous Mind completely different, as a realm or a place to abide or as an absolute entity to be with. This is the case for some Soto schools that have followed entirely the doctine of Taisen Deshimaru Roshi. But it is not the case for other Soto Schools that withstand in what the historical Buddha taught.

[exsmoker]

I don't know of any rational justification for the belief that the Mahayana literature can be credibly attributed to the historical Gautama Buddha. If there is such credible, rational justification, please connect me to it.

Perhaps some of our Tibetan Buddhist or other Mahayana practitioners would like to comment ?

[Intory]

Hello y'all:
FBM:
There's two ways I would answer your question. The first is the Four Reliances:

“Do not rely on individuals, rely on the teachings.
Do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning.
Do not rely on the adapted meaning, rely on the ultimate meaning.
Do not rely on intellectual knowledge, rely on wisdom.”

The other factor is how you define the relationship between historicity and truth. If a particular Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra is proven to be written after the time of the Buddha, do the Buddhist teachings contained within the sutra become automatically invalid? Can the teachings still be useful, valuable, as a part of the continuum of Buddhist thought? Here's an interesting article I ran across the other day:

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/budd...-practitioners

Good luck to you, FBM, on your inquiries.
Metta to all,
Bill

[VemyhemiHef]

Do not rely on the adapted meaning, rely on the ultimate meaning.

Hello Bill,

Your post made me thought about the four reliance. Of them, the one I quoted can give some insight about the importance to rely as much as possible over the original teachings of the historical Buddha. Being into a tradition, I have found that looking at the original teachings can give you much more freedom and a better understanding about what the historical Buddha taught so the practice and the result of it.

I have come to see that some traditions are the case of this particular reliance... adapted meanings and not ultimate meaning.

Namaste,

[maxsobq]

If a particular Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra is proven to be written after the time of the Buddha, do the Buddhist teachings contained within the sutra become automatically invalid? Can the teachings still be useful, valuable, as a part of the continuum of Buddhist thought

Hi Bill, thanks for contributing, its lovely to hear from you,

I'm wondering about them being classified as actually being Buddhism, if 'Buddhism' is meant to describe the teachings of the historical Buddha and their study and practice though ?

If they are supposed to be spoken by a deity, or some lineage teacher was said to have been to a heavenly realm to collect them, or they were recorded as being previously hidden in a dragon realm... then that doesn't seem like a natural continuum of Buddhist thought to me, seems more like the present day New-Age pick and mix. Additionally, if later teachings differ radically from what the Buddha actually taught himself, then again, my first point is valid.

As a one time Tibetan Buddhist practitioner myself, I can think of many things that students become involved with in the tradition that aren't really connected to anything that the historical Buddha taught other than by a huge leap of the imagination.

Rita Gross who wrote the 'tricycle' article you mentioned is a herself a Tibetan Buddhism practitioner, by the way.


I'm definately not meaning to offend anyone, I'm just voicing my own doubts, so I hope Mahayana practitioners will understand.

[Si8jy8HN]

There is that. If one accepts the latter teachings - or the later traditions based on latter disciples' interpretations of the teachings (consider alternative motivations wrt hijacking the Buddha's name/fame in order to bolster one's own appeal)- that contradict the teachings that are most reliably connected to the historical Gautama's words, how is one to reasonably claim to be a Buddhist?

By irrationally attaching to the words/traditions of one's favorite "feel-good" source(s), or through uncompromising scrutiny? The former tends towards blind acceptance of dogma that the individual has not yet, and perhaps may never, experience. The latter tends towards taking immediate experience as authoritative, and leaving the words of this or that teacher as secondary, tertiary, etc, interpretations. Even the teachings in the Pali Canon are, at best, secondary sources.

The primary source is direct experience. If you haven't directly experienced a Pure Land or Buddha Nature, etc, then why believe in them? Belief is a refuge for those who have not seen, as far as I can tell. There's no shame in not having 'seen', but blind attachment to the teachings of this or that "master" or "teacher" (including the Buddha) seems to me to be an impediment, a roadblock to seeing things as they are. Of course, I may be wrong.

[Ztcgtqvb]

Belief is a refuge for those who have not seen, as far as I can tell.

True...

The primary source is direct experience.

This is why is so fundamental to rely on what the historical Buddha taught... the teachings compells us to practice... there is no other choice when we are at the source of his teachings... but just understanding, practice and result...

[Rexaviennatutr]

There's two ways I would answer your question. The first is the Four Reliances:

“Do not rely on individuals, rely on the teachings.
Do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning.
Do not rely on the adapted meaning, rely on the ultimate meaning.
Do not rely on intellectual knowledge, rely on wisdom.”

Interesting. The first one seems to comport with the Buddha's admonition to not rely on "the monk is our teacher", but I am looking at a discussion of these "four reliances" ( http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_reliances ), in which one Mipham Rinpoche says in "The Sword of Wisdom":

"When the teachings are well presented,
It does not matter what the speaker is like.
Even the bliss-gone buddhas themselves
Appear as butchers and such like to train disciples."

This seems to fail to comport with the Buddha's admonition to critically examine a teacher's conduct before deciding whether to take that teacher on.

The second seems to fail to take into account that the Buddha used words to illustrate his teachings, and admonished his followers to remember those very words. There is much repetition and rote learning portrayed in the suttas among the monks and from the Buddha himself. Words are used to convey meaning, of course, and the meaning, knowledge and understanding that is intended is indeed the important part, but words are necessary and sufficient to convey that meaning.

The third is a circular reference to the idea of "provisional vs. ultimate truth" that the Buddha did not teach. It might work for one who holds such a view, but such an idea is based in mere speculative view. This view is also based in the self-serving sectarian assumption that the Buddha's teachings are inferior to the tibetan religion's doctrines (again form "Sword of Wisdom):

"The omniscient one himself in all his wisdom,
Taught according to students’ capacities and intentions,
Presenting vehicles of various levels
Just like the rungs of a ladder."

This assumption is further illustrated by what follows:

"Wisely, he spoke with certain intentions in mind,
As with the eight kinds of implied and indirect teachings.
If these were to be taken literally they might be invalidated,
But they were taught for specific reasons."


There is a hotlink in this article to an explanation of the "eight kinds of implied and indirect teachings". What are these? Let us examine one or two of them:

"The indirect teachings aimed at introducing people to the path are those given to shravakas in order to introduce them to the path in a gradual way. They are taught in view of what is true on a relative level only. This includes, for example, teaching that there is no self of the individual, but that the phenomena of form and so on do exist."

And just who are these poor shravakas who the Buddha taught a supposed inferior, introductory set of teaching by virtue of their inferior capacities and intentions? There is a link provided, and it goes to this explanation:

"Shravaka (Skt. śrāvaka; Tib. nyenthö; Wyl. nyan thos) — a follower of the basic vehicle who strives to attain the level of an arhat. "

And what is this "basic vehicle"? Follow the link and we discover that it is a euphemism for our old friend, the denigration of the Buddha's own liberative teachings as being inferior "Hinayana":

"Basic Vehicle (Skt. Hīnayāna; Wyl. theg dman) — literally the 'Lesser Vehicle', but perhaps more accurately understood as 'Vehicle of Lesser Result'. What principally distinguishes followers of the Hinayana from those of the Great Vehicle (Skt. Mahayana; Wyl. theg chen) is their motivation. They aspire for the personal liberation of nirvana, and lack the courage to pursue the greater fruition of the Mahayana—this being the enlightenment of all sentient beings."

The fourth is based upon Advaitaist assumptions of dualism vs. non-dualism, rather than any teachings of the Buddha:

" When taking the definitive meaning into experience,
Do not rely upon the ordinary dualistic mind
That chases after words and concepts,
But rely upon non-dual wisdom itself.

That which operates with conceptual ideas
Is the ordinary mind, whose nature involves perceiver and perceived.
All that is conceived in this way is false
And will never touch upon the actual nature of reality."

Of course, the Buddha's teachings are not concerned with the nature of reality, rather on the causes of, and remedies for, suffering.

If a particular Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra is proven to be written after the time of the Buddha, do the Buddhist teachings contained within the sutra become automatically invalid?

The question appears invalid. If a particular teaching contradicts the teachings of the Buddha, and is shown to be not the words of the Buddha, it is obviously invalid. If a teaching comports with the Buddha's own liberative teachings, and explains the Buddhas liberative teaching(s) in a way that leads one to knowledge of the Buddha's teaching, it can be said to comport with the Buddha's teachings, though it cannot be said that it is a teaching of the Buddha, or that the Buddha spoke that teaching.

Can the teachings still be useful, valuable, as a part of the continuum of Buddhist thought?

They stand or fall depending on whether they comport with and convey the liberative teachings of the Buddha. At the same time, the liberative teachings of the Buddha stand on their own and are not in need of any expansion, and especially any embellishment.

Here's an interesting article I ran across the other day:

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/budd...-practitioners

Ms. Gross' propositions fail to take into account the practitioners who concern ourselves with the Buddha's own teachings, and who discard tangential and irrelevant teachings and methods regardless of from which school they are derived. It may provide solutions for some of the sectarian in-fighting between each of the "Yanas", but with very few exceptions, all three have departed from the Buddha's liberative teachings, and thus from the Buddha's liberative Path.

[Jeffery]

Hello y'all:
FBM:
There's two ways I would answer your question. The first is the Four Reliances:

“Do not rely on individuals, rely on the teachings.
Do not rely on the words, rely on the meaning.
Do not rely on the adapted meaning, rely on the ultimate meaning.
Do not rely on intellectual knowledge, rely on wisdom.”

Hmm. Why would the later writers put new words in the long-dead Buddha's mouth if it weren't to rely on his personal fame?

The other factor is how you define the relationship between historicity and truth. If a particular Mahayana/Vajrayana sutra is proven to be written after the time of the Buddha, do the Buddhist teachings contained within the sutra become automatically invalid? Can the teachings still be useful, valuable, as a part of the continuum of Buddhist thought? If I were to run across a new "sutta" that depicted the Buddha telling me, correctly, how to install some new software in my Samsung computer, then the part about installing the software may be true, but the part where the Buddha is claimed to have said it would be pretty suspect, wouldn't it? As far as the Mahayana/Vajrayana sutras go, that's pretty much what seems to be the case. In the Pali sutta, Nibbana Sutta, I think, the Buddha denies having held anything back from his followers (nothing in his clenched fist, more or less). However, the Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions teach that he did exactly that: held the most important teachings back (to be somehow magically revealed from the land of the nagas centuries later). Vajrayana is particularly esoteric.

When I look at that claim and compare it to what I read in the Pali suttas, I feel pretty sure that the later writings are fictions, with new and often (not always) contradictory concepts purported to come from the Buddha's mouth. Regardless of whether the teaching is true or not, I don't see any justification for promoting the obvious lie that the historical Buddha said those things. The tone, focus and major themes in the later writings are so divergent from those in the Pali suttas. They promote the concept that the Buddha was actually immortal and is now in some hidden realm somewhere, that Buddha Nature, Buddha Mind, True Self, etc, are eternal and literally true facets of "ultimate" reality, which directly contradicts the original concepts that are found in the Pali Canon, the most reliably traceable to the historical Gautama.

Good luck to you, FBM, on your inquiries.
Metta to all,
Bill
Thanks, Bill! Cheers!

[EmpokemyMok]

One of the major functions of most religions is to deal with the unbearable idea that we will one day cease to exist, by inventing lovely places where we can live after we depart this Earth. Theravada Buddhism, for example, does not dodge this idea by inventing an afterlife. In Theravada, when the Buddha died, he died forever. Nothing remained but his disintegrating corpse. In Mahayana, it seems, he is still sitting somewhere, able to intervene in human affairs. That makes me suspect that Mahayana is performing the abovementioned function, and thereby coddling its followers with a falsehood, rather than teaching them to deal with the awful truth. To me that means that this has been added and is not the word of the Buddha.

[Avaboormavoro]

That sounds pretty close to what I'm thinking, Snowmelt, except that I'm not convinced that death is such a bad thing, really. (^,^)

[Gymnfacymoota]

this being the enlightenment of all sentient beings."

This has been the epitome of Mahayana and has sounded very Christan since ever; it has nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. So I think that if one is compelled to become a redeemer of the world, the teachings of Jesus Christ are much more achievable.

At the same time, the liberative teachings of the Buddha stand on their own and are not in need of any expansion, and especially any embellishment.

Absolutely... This is not just because Stuka has written it... it is an experience that happens when one, honestly, sits down and tries to understand the Buddha Dhamma. The teachings are meant for practice not for philosophical elaborations and intellectual entanglements that have ended in what is called "Traditions". The sole reading of the original teachings compels us to practice not to entanglements. But it is needed a honest disposition for understanding.

[loolitoertego]

One of the major functions of most religions is to deal with the unbearable idea that we will one day cease to exist, by inventing lovely places where we can live after we depart this Earth.

I can share this... and also as FBM has posted, death is not necessarily a bad thing at least for some people...

[TCjwwhcY]

... it is an experience that happens when one, honestly, sits down and tries to understand the Buddha Dhamma. The teachings are meant for practice not for philosophical elaborations and intellectual entanglements that have ended in what is called "Traditions". The sole reading of the original teachings compels us to practice not to entanglements. But it is needed a honest disposition for understanding.

[adactthrd]

Originally Posted by stuka this being the enlightenment of all sentient beings."

This has been the epitome of Mahayana and has sounded very Christan since ever; it has nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught. So I think that if one is compelled to become a redeemer of the world, the teachings of Jesus Christ are much more achievable. I've come to consider the whole Bodhisatva Ideal as a bit of advertising. Meaningless ear-candy designed to paint its adherents as self-sacrificing saints. If one person could enlighten another and was infinitely compassionate, then the Buddha would've enlightened everybody when he was alive.

At the same time, the liberative teachings of the Buddha stand on their own and are not in need of any expansion, and especially any embellishment.

Absolutely... This is not just because Stuka has written it... it is an experience that happens when one, honestly, sits down and tries to understand the Buddha Dhamma. The teachings are meant for practice not for philosophical elaborations and intellectual entanglements that have ended in what is called "Traditions". The sole reading of the original teachings compels us to practice not to entanglements. But it is needed a honest disposition for understanding.

Yep, this thread may seem as if it's based on the insistence that the Pali suttas are the "true word of the Buddha" or some such, but it's not. It's not even based on the assumption that the "true word of the Buddha" would be true just because Gautama said it.

The thread is based on the observation that it's ludicrous (to me) to be so credulous as to believe that the stories that were written centuries after the Buddha's death, with words literally attributed to the Buddha that have such divergent focus and tone from that of the Pali suttas, and that are nonetheless defended as the "true teachings" that were withheld until mankind was ready.

Even the Abhidhamma Pitaka, as pointed out, shouldn't be taken as authoritative, as much of it is deeply concerned with cosmology and such that the Buddha as portrayed in the Sutta Pitaka repeatedly said wasn't worth investigating.

So the question remains, can anyone defend the claims of historicity (not the truth or potential training value) of the Mahayana suttas?