[immelawealecy]

About the Mahasanghikas:

The Mahāsāṃghikas advocated the transcendental and supramundane nature of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the fallibility of arhats.[14] They held that the teachings of the Buddha were to be understood as having two principle levels of truth: a relative or conventional (Skt. saṃvṛti) truth, and the absolute or ultimate (Skt. paramārtha) truth.[14] For the Mahāsaṃghika branch of Buddhism, the final and ultimate meaning of the Buddha's teachings was "beyond words", and words were merely the conventional exposition of the Dharma.[15]

A doctrine ascribed to the Mahāsāṃghikas is, "The power of the tathāgatas is unlimited, and the life of the buddhas is unlimited."[16] According to Guang Xing, two main aspects of the Buddha can be seen in Mahāsāṃghika teachings: the true Buddha who is omniscient and omnipotent, and the manifested forms through which he liberates sentient beings through skillful means.[17] For the Mahāsaṃghikas, the historical Gautama Buddha was one of these transformation bodies (Skt. nirmāṇakāya), while the essential real Buddha is equated with the Dharmakāya.[18]

This is hardly an "orthodox view", and hardly in line with the Buddha's teachings. As Guang Xing points out though, the origin of these Mahāsaṃghika doctrines can be traced to various passages in the nikayas -- and particularly suttas such as MN 123 and Snp 3.11, which clearly present the Buddha as a world-transcending, magical being. Not to mention numerous references in the suttas to supranormal powers and conversations with gods and devas, and the assertion in DN 16 that the Buddha could extend his lifetime to last an entire kalpa.

All these pieces of evidence suggest that the Mahasanghikas were a group of followers with resolute faith. According to Vasumitra’s treatise, the Mahasanghikas asserted that every word spoken by the Buddha is the preaching of the Dharma. This seems to be a clear indication that they took every word in the Nikayas and the Agamas as true sayings of the Buddha himself. This belief led them to develop a transcendental concept of the Buddha on the basis of the superhuman qualities attributed to him in the early sutras. If anything, it appears the Mahasaṃghika were too orthodox, in that they took all kinds of mythological material found in the scriptures literally. We can see that the tension between the "rational" and "religious" aspects of Buddhism goes back very far. So do many of the doctrinal differences that we still argue about today.

The proto-mahayana "mahasanghika" are hardly an unbiased source. And neither are the Theravada and Sarvastivadin texts from which we get the story about the Mahasaṃghikas having precipitated the schism at the Second Buddhist Council.

[fiettariaps]

Hardly. As other Amazon.com readers have pointed out, Eric Van Horn misquotes and misrepresents Skilton's work.

Five mahayanists putting up five stars. Yeah.

Here is what Skilton actually wrote about the Brahma Viharas:

"The Theravadin School developed a rather austere orthodoxy, epitomized in the works of the 5th century scholastic Buddhagohosa, especially in his Visuddhi-magga, which on a theoretical level tends to exclude doctrines and practices incompatible with its preferred preoccupations. An example of this exclusion might be the meditational practices called the brahma-viharas, which in its Abhidamma and commentarial literature are relegated to an ancillary function only, whereas its own canon records instances which substantially refute this role. Canonical passages frequently contain editorial additions "demoting" the brahma-viharas but, where parallel texts survive from the Mahasanghika canon, it is interesting to note that the latter did not feel any need to qualify such practices in that way."


Also, Skilton is not (or was not, at the time the book was published) a Mahayana Buddhist -- he was until recently part of FWBO/Triratna, which is ecumenical in its approach. Hardly evidence to your assertion.

[klubneras]

As Guang Xing points out though, the origin of these Mahāsaṃghika doctrines can be traced to various passages in the nikayas -- and particularly suttas such as MN 123 and Snp 3.11, which clearly present the Buddha as a world-transcending, magical being. Not to mention numerous references in the suttas to supranormal powers and conversations with gods and devas, and the assertion in DN 16 that the Buddha could extend his lifetime to last an entire kalpa.

Um, Lazy, the Buddha did not speak MN123. Not a word of it. Snp 3.11 is clearly mythic poetry, i.e., flowery nonsense that the Buddha did not teach. Again you and your source are cherry-picking and using mythical interpretations and the works of poets, disciples and outsiders to justify outright bastardizations of the Buddha's teachings. No surprise here.


If anything, it appears the Mahasaṃghika were too orthodox, in that they took all kinds of mythological material found in the scriptures literally. That is not "orthodoxy". That is presumptuous misrepresentation.

We can see that the tension between the "rational" and "religious" aspects of Buddhism goes back very far. So do many of the doctrinal differences that we still argue about today .

It does, but the Buddha fell on the other side of the rational/empirical vs. religious/superstitious argument from you.

And neither are the Theravada and Sarvastivadin texts from which we get the story about the Mahasaṃghikas having precipitated the schism at the Second Buddhist Council. But the schism occurred there. And the mahasamghikas clearly fall on the wrong side of the Four Great References.

[career-builder]

Um, Lazy, the Buddha did not speak MN123. Not a word of it. Snp 3.11 is clearly mythic poetry, i.e., flowery nonsense that the Buddha did not teach. Again you and your source are cherry-picking and using mythical interpretations and the works of poets, disciples and outsiders to justify outright bastardizations of the Buddha's teachings. No surprise here.

Some of these assertions come from the Buddha himself -- for instance, in the Samaññaphala Sutta he describes the "six supranormal powers" in great detail, and in DN 16 he asserts his ability to remain in the world through an entire kalpa.

Your assessment notwithstanding, all the mythological passages I cited are from the Nikayas, and are thus canonical. However flowery they may be, no Buddhist school considers them "the work of poets, disciples and outsiders".

The Buddha fell on the other side of the rational/empirical vs. religious/superstitious argument from you. The Buddha I meet in the suttas presented his teachings in rational/empirical terms, but was ready and willing to frame them in religious/transcendental ones as well, depending on the point he sought to convey and the capabilities of his audience. Moreover, all schools of Buddhism, not just the Mahasamghikas and the later Mahayanists, accept the religious side to some extent. Mahayana may have taken it the farthest but it is present in Theravada as well. And indeed it is present in the suttas, as I have shown.

What Buddhists living today, in the scientific era, should make of this is a different question.

[BV6lwvXf]

Some of these assertions come from the Buddha himself -- for instance, in the Samaññaphala Sutta he describes the "six supranormal powers" in great detail, and in DN 16 he asserts his ability to remain in the world through an entire kalpa.

In the Samannnaphala Sutta, the Buddha is questioned about reincarnation beliefs by a reincarnation believer and the Buddha gives him answers from within that framework. The Buddha is not teachings Buddhadhamma. DN16 is a big sutta. If you are going to cite something, then cite it.

Your assessment notwithstanding, all the mythological passages I cited are from the Nikayas, and are thus canonical. However flowery they may be, no Buddhist school considers them "the work of poets, disciples and outsiders". They may be in "the Canon", but that does not make them the Buddha's teachings. The reference to "poets, disciples, and outsiders is part of the Buddha's admonishment to listen to the words of the Buddha.

The Buddha I meet in the suttas presented his teachings in rational/empirical terms, but was ready and willing to frame them in religious/transcendental ones as well, depending on the point he sought to convey and the capabilities of his audience. The Buddha's teachings were rational and empirical.
And he could frame them to make sense to a superstitious person, yes. That does not make his teachings superstitious or superstition-based.

Moreover, all schools of Buddhism, not just the Mahasamghikas and the later Mahayanists, accept the religious side to some extent. Mahayana may have taken it the farthest but it is present in Theravada as well. Argumentum ad Populum. You may say "all schools", and you would have to mean "Theravada, mahayana, and the tibetan religions" for that to be correct by any stretch. Plenty of sects and practitioners reject the superstitions, and rightly so. And the majority of the Theravada sects are steeped in so-called abhidhamma, which is of course superstition-based convolution that the Buddha did not teach, as well. The bottom line is that your claim that each of the major "schools" "accept" superstitions does not make them intrinsic to the Buddha's soteriology.

And indeed it is present in the suttas, as I have shown. And as I have shown, that does not make the superstitions the Buddha discussed intrinsic to his teachings, to his own soteriology. I have to discuss and dismantle your superstitions all the time here in order to get the point across, but that doesn't mean I believe them or endorse them. Same with the Buddha.



What Buddhists living today, in the scientific era, should make of this is a different question. They should make of the Buddha's teachings exactly what they are, rather than wallowing in superstitions the Buddha himself was trying to counter.

[Anavaralo]

I came across this 12 page booklet today, displayed on the Urban Dharma website and called "No Hinayana in Buddhism" by Chan Khoon San and Kare A. Lie



Preface

"For centuries, the reputation of the Conservative Buddhist schools had been stigmatized by the term “Hinayana”, used indiscriminately to label them. The Pali/Sanskrit word “Hinayana”means “low, undesirable, or despicable vehicle”. It is a contemptuous term coined by early Mahayanists to label all the early Conservative schools that did not subscribe to the Mahayana doctrine.

There is no Hinayana in Buddhism. There never was. Hinayana is a false derogatory term!
Today the law considers it as defamatory. Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, are strongly
advised to stop using it to describe any Buddhist school, whether existing or extinct. There is no legal or moral justification in using this libellous term anymore!

Gentle speech and courtesy are two Dhammas taught by Lord Buddha that lead to welfare and happiness. When gentle speech and courtesy are practised among the Buddhists, there is goodwill; then harmony and unity will prevail, irrespective of the school or vehicle they follow."


http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/NoHinayana.pdf

Comments relating to the content of the booklet are welcome.