Mahayana sutras origin discussion

last SG · 2011-10-11T23:42:45+00:00

you shouldnt even have concept of Mahayana's aspiration. if you aspire to be a Buddha, there shouldnt be any differentiation of great or lesser vehicle. you...

An Eternal Now SG

Sorry I am not being difficult here. I disagreed.

The Buddha has said he has not hidden or have not taught all the dhamma. whatever need to be expounded, he has taught it in his 45 years of expounding the dhamma. so this sound like contradiction to what the Buddha said actually. I am wondering which masters actually attributed the mahayana sutras to that of the Buddha.

On the contrary, he said "O bhikkhus, what I have taught is comparable to the leaves in my hand. What I have not taught is comparable to the amount of leaves in the forest."

Basically, the Buddha only taught Sravaka teachings aimed at attaining Arhatship, since the people of his times only asked for such dharmas. Teachings of the Mahayana vehicle is few and not elucidated in details.

An Eternal Now SG

thats the problem. there is no one to verify on the visions of these enlightened master, if they are mara masquerading as masters? by the way who are these masters?

Buddha did said mara will infiltrate the sangha in future ages.

You also cannot verify that Theravadin texts may be true. Some may very well be later editions - at least certain part of the canon.

You just need to discern with wisdom.

Rooney9 SG

You also cannot verify that Theravadin texts may be true. Some may very well be later editions - at least certain part of the canon.

You just need to discern with wisdom.

I see, yes agreed. that was why Buddha taught, do not accept anything that were based on the holy book, tradition or even your teacher etc.

I understand the theravada are quite strict on the pali canon. whatever was not taught by the Buddha, they will reject it, so I am sure later editions will be termed as commentaries and not sutra.

but can you tell me who were the masters who received pure visions? any names provided?

whylikethatah SG

Be wary but also be open minded.

Here's what happened when Buddha met the First person after his awakening and proclaimed his enlightenment (but the person didn't believe it and left) - an opportunity for dharma to be learnt and possibly his first awakened student, becomes lost:

http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/244/miscommunication

Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”
When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:

All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?
I have no teacher,
and one like me can’t be found.
In the world with its devas,
I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
I, the unexcelled teacher.
I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
Cooled am I,unbound.
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
I go to the city of Kasi.
In a world become blind,
I beat the drum of the Deathless.
[…]
When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.

ahh...some things which cannot be verified now but i am open-minded to, like karma and Pureland(no offence intended). But because they cannot be verified, i'm leaving them open, but until i know for myself that they both are real, i'm not gonna dwell or believe plainly in them. Open-mindedness doesn't necessarily mean i gotta believe

One can speak about his experiences and teach and share, and definitely it's gonna be scrutinised by everyone since it's made available in the public domain of the net. So yeah.

Rooney9 SG

in my opinion, the dhamma expounded by the Buddha is already enough for us to attain enlightenment.

If you wish to attain cessation of suffering, follow the Noble Eightfold path.

If you wish to strive for Buddhahood for the sake of sentient beings, you need to follow the path of bodhisattva, but first you need to practise your all perfections until you are ready to be a Buddha.

I have grave doubts that if you have attained Nirvana, you can be aroused by Buddha and strive for Buddhahood. I am sure this is not in the pali canon. As far as I understand, once you attained enlightenment, this is your last life and there will be no more rebirth.

The best of truths is the 4 Noble Truths. The best of paths is the Noble Eightfold path.

Rooney9 SG

On the contrary, he said "O bhikkhus, what I have taught is comparable to the leaves in my hand. What I have not taught is comparable to the amount of leaves in the forest."

in the pali canon, Buddha did expound the path of a bodhisattva. he need to practise the perfections before he is ready to be a Buddha. I dun think he use terms like lesser or greater vehicle to illustrate. in the ultimate reality, there is no Buddha, there is no teaching, how can have lesser or greater vehicle exists?

Rooney9 SG

Hi Rooney

In Scholar Buddhist study, it is generally recognise that certain incident in Buddhist sutra is historical and certain events is purely symbolic in nature. Example, the schism of Devadatta is historical. As mentioned by Gene Reeves, The Lotus Sutra as Radically World Affirming, "certain supernatural scene in Lotus Sutra is symbolical. The function is primarily to open up the reader's life to affirm certain value and practice as a Bodhisattva in this world."

Certain Sutra such as Amitabha was look upon as literal figure especially Chinese society, due to our heritage. As in the past, the Chinese monastery was as a academic university recognise by the Chinese court. However, as world civilisation advance more scholarly work was needed. The western scholar were the first to carry out studies based on archaelogy finding, historical value, language, culture and influence on the society. Subsequently, the Japanese Buddhist scholar follow the western methodology in verifying the Sutra instead of taking thing literally as it is. Master Sheng Yen, foresee that such studies was necessary therefore he was one of the pioneer to travel to Japan university to study. In the end, he together with the pioneers brought back this method to Taiwan.

Therefore, is Mahanyana scripture valid, we need to use the above scholar premises to look at it. Secondly, is the positive experience people derive from it.

As Joseph Campbell has said, "Every religion is true one way or another. It is truen when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble."

For further reading, pls get hold of 聖嚴法師-基督教之研究 from Evergreen Bookshop. This book touch on how Taiwanese pastor has run down on Buddhist and how to defence it. One of the topic was Rooney question on Mahayana sutra validity.

I have no issue with symbolism but I have problem with unknown masters having vision and attributed it sutra as being taught by the Buddha and inserted Thus I have heard. If they put it as symbolism and commentary to augment the dhamma, I have no issue with it. As discussed previously who can verify these masters visions from the 8th bhumi and then say the sutra was expounded by the Buddha, when in fact it was not.

Because I clearly remembered the words of the Buddha on the dhamma before his passing away in 3 months at Kusinagara. He said he was old and have taught and expounded dhamma in his 45 years of teaching and he did not with hold back any dhamma that need to be taught.

then 1 century or so later after the passing away of the Buddha, visions of masters arose and then attributed it to the Buddha when it was not.

Aik TC SG

One can speak about his experiences and teach and share, and definitely it's gonna be scrutinised by everyone since it's made available in the public domain of the net. So yeah.

//some things which cannot be verified now but i am open-minded to, like karma//

What is your interpretation of ‘Karma’ by the way? Is it as a ‘physical action’ in the typical Brahmin tradition or ‘intent’ which is abstract and not an external act, the Buddhist definition?

whylikethatah SG

//some things which cannot be verified now but i am open-minded to, like karma//

the fruitioning of kamma-vipaka. y'know like when everyone goes, "oh, he's suffering now because he's a bad person in the past, for all the evil he had done blah blah, so this is his karma."

Aik TC SG

the fruitioning of kamma-vipaka. y'know like when everyone goes, "oh, he's suffering now because he's a bad person in the past, for all the evil he had done blah blah, so this is his karma."

Oh, I see you are looking more at the likely ‘fruits’ resulting from one’s intents and actions. What you stated as ‘it is his karma’, basically mean his fate. Things can only become so-called ‘fated’ due to one’s ignorance of the causes or when one refuse to take any action to correct what is coming our way. If it is considered as a Buddhist term, it is certainly a complete misused of the term.

realization SG

Just furthering your point.

~ from http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm#2

There are some who criticise thus: "So, you Buddhists, too, administer capitalistic opium to the people, saying: "You are born poor in this life on account of your past evil karma. He is born rich on account of his good Karma. So, be satisfied with your humble lot; but do good to be rich in your next life. You are being oppressed now because of your past evil Karma. There is your destiny. Be humble and bear your sufferings patiently. Do good now. You can be certain of a better and happier life after death."

The Buddhist doctrine of Karma does not expound such ridiculous fatalistic views. Nor does it vindicate a postmortem justice. The All-Merciful Buddha, who had no ulterior selfish motives, did not teach this law of Karma to protect the rich and comfort the poor by promising illusory happiness in an after-life.

While we are born to a state created by ourselves, yet by our own self-directed efforts there is every possibility for us to create new, favourable environments even here and now. Not only individually, but also, collectively, we are at liberty to create fresh Karma that leads either towards our progress or downfall in this very life.

According to the Buddhist doctrine of Karma, one is not always compelled by an ‘iron necessity’, for Karma is neither fate, nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one’s own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of one’s Karma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.

Is one bound to reap all that one has sown in just proportion?

The Buddha provides an answer:

"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow." (Anguttara Nikaya)

Although it is stated in the Dhammapada that "not in the sky, nor in mid-ocean, or entering a mountain cave is found that place on earth where one may escape from (the consequences of) an evil deed", yet one is not bound to pay all the past arrears of one’s Karma. If such were the case emancipation would be impossibility. Eternal recurrence would be the unfortunate result.

Rooney9 SG

so does followers of mahayana all strive for Buddhahood?

so even if one attain enlightenment, one has to seek rebirth to practise perfections?

An Eternal Now SG

so does followers of mahayana all strive for Buddhahood?

so even if one attain enlightenment, one has to seek rebirth to practise perfections?

It depends on your vows.

To your 2nd question, Dzogchen and Vajrayanist practitioners claim to be able to attain Buddhahood in one life instead of practising paramitas for great number of lives, but realistically speaking I haven't met anyone who has attained Buddhahood in one life (have heard of, but I'm not sure).

Rooney9 SG

It depends on your vows.

how can that be? it goes against what the Buddha has taught. how can one practise all the perfections in one lifetime? is it pacceka Buddha or Samma sam Buddha?

whats why I say, are these people following what the Buddha has taught? who are they to say this? are they masters who have received pure vision? who are to verify what they said is real?

An Eternal Now SG

how can that be? it goes against what the Buddha has taught. how can one practise all the perfections in one lifetime? is it pacceka Buddha or Samma sam Buddha?

whats why I say, are these people following what the Buddha has taught? who are they to say this? are they masters who have received pure vision? who are to verify what they said is real?

My (Mahayana) Buddhist master says its not possible. Vajrayana masters however disagree.

Here's what Namdrol says:

I am simply reporting what Garab Dorje, Padmasambhava, Shri Singha et al actually say. I don't need to interpret anything.

In Hīnayāna, Shakyamuni taught arhatship as buddhahood. In Mahāyana, he taught that arhatship was not buddhahood, and was inferior to buddhahood. And that in fact, after attaining arhatship, arhats would be roused from their nirodhasamapatti at some point and then they must traverse the paths of stages of Mahāyāna. So, was the Buddha lying in Hināyāna when he told his followers that arhatship was it?

In Vajrayāna, in the Samputa tantra it is clarified that there are three stages of Buddhahood. Two stages of Buddhas who do not recognize all phenomena as being the display of their own wisdom and the thireenth bhumi, Vajradhara, where all phenomena are so recognized. Does this make the Buddha a liar about Mahāyāna?

In Dzochen, there are enumerated another three stages, three more stages of those who dwell within wisdom, rendering the thirteenth bhumi a lower stage of buddhahood. Does this make the Buddha a liar about Vajrayāna?

In any event, this notion of "Buddhahood that reverts to the basis [gzhi, not kun gzhi]" as an inferior buddhahood that is not complete is well attested in Dzogchen. It has to be the case because as Garab Dorje points out, all sentient beings in the previous eon attain buddhahood by the end of the eon. This is explicitly stated by Garab Dorje in the commentary I mentioned to above.

But to illustrate my point further, the Drikung view is Dzogchen is definitely subordinated. For example, Jigten Sumgon states in Gongcik: “The supreme realization is not touched by the three great ones.” This is echoe of a statement by Gampopoa to his nephew, Gomchung.

But I don't during Jigten Sumgon's time Nyingthig was wide spread. At this point in history Nyingma was very much on the decline.

Nobody can truly verify these things (unless you become very wise or enlightened yourself), in the same way that nobody can verify Buddha who lived 2500 years ago, or even verify pali canon, etc. This is religion that we are speaking of. You decide for yourself. Discern with your own wisdom.

I'm sure when you start practising, all these issues become side-issues. You will be able to see with much greater clarity what is true.

Also, when you start to experience the truth of what a tradition says, you will have much greater faith.

An Eternal Now SG

Why don't you just focus to realize the nature of your mind first. Life is too short to waste, just practice like your head is on fire.

Note To Yogis: Like Your Head Was On Fire!

Rooney9 SG

sorry I do not follow the masters words. I only follow what the Buddha has taught. thats why I say, it is better to follow what the Buddha taught, you cant be wrong. if the masters teachings goes against what the Buddha has taught, then something is not right.

Nobody can truly verify these things (unless you become very wise or enlightened yourself), in the same way that nobody can verify Buddha who lived 2500 years ago, or even verify pali canon, etc.

you are wrong. when he first expounded the dhamma, there are people who are enlightened after he expounded the dhamma. thats the best verification the Buddha can get. as for pali canon, it was the preservation of the original words of the Buddha ie you dun amend, insert , omit or change any of the Buddha's teachings to suit your teachings or philosophy.

An Eternal Now SG

Then it depends on whether you believe in the validity of pure visions. In Mahayana, we do believe in pure visions, celestial Buddhas and bodhisattvas and so on. I can easily apply your same reason and say that many people were enlightened by Mahayana sutras. Authorship isn't such as issue to me as it is to you - wisdom is more important.

In any case, just keep an open mind and don't let doubt become an obstacle in your journey.

Rooney9 SG

arent the sutras taught by the Buddha enough?

important thing is your practise ie letting go, meditation, disciplined lifestyle, 5 precepts if you are a lay follower. when people insulted or hit you and you dun feel any anger towards the person, then you have succeeded.

2009novice SG

arent the sutras taught by the Buddha enough?

Let's put "pure visions" aside first...

I think we all know this...... If there is no Mahayana... will Buddhism flourished at other northern countries like China, Tibet etc...? Mahayana blended in the local cultures of a country to spread Dharma... I don't think it's something like twisted teachings from Buddhism... should be more on compassion and flexibility... Afterall Mahayana teachings does not deviate from 4 Noble Truths and Noble 8 fold Paths. It's just built on only.

« Previous Page Next Page »