A Historical-Metaphorical Approach to Buddhist Scriptures

If Bhikkhu Bodhi writes that the Dhamma is “The cosmic principle of truth, lawfulness, and virtue discovered, fathomed, and taught by the Buddha,” which is what Mahayana Buddhists believe about the Dharmakaya, I wonder where he gets this idea of such a cosmic principle. I would guess he arrives at this concept from his knowledge of the early Buddhist texts.

…which is part of the early Buddhist texts.

I personally don’t care much where he gets ideas from, I care about how he backs them up. I’m not a ‘Bhikkhu Bodhist’. And he writes about Dhamma, not Dhammakaya. Where he gets ‘cosmic principle’ from I don’t know.

First of all it doesn’t belong to the earliest strata of texts. So again you are assuming instead of being interested to investigate. Secondly, what does one mention in all of the extended older texts mean? If I would create a religion from everything that is mentioned once in the texts it would surely not be Buddhism

I think you might misunderstand or be uninformed about the Mahayana concept of the Dharmakaya.

“The cosmic principle of truth, lawfulness, and virtue discovered, fathomed, and taught by the Buddha” happens to be what Mahayana Buddhists believe about the Dharmakaya.

Though Bhikkhu Bodhi might not use the term “Dharmakaya,” I am not interested in having a semantic argument. It’s the basic concepts that matter.

It probably doesn’t mean much to you, but it does mean a great deal in Mahayana Buddhism, which speaks extensively of there being 84,000 paths to enlightenment.

On the other hand, you appear to be biased against Mahayana Buddhism as a legitimate expression of Buddhism.

It would be against my beliefs as a Mahayana Buddhist to attempt to convert Theravadins to Mahayana Buddhism. In the Lotus Sutra, for example, the Buddha says that all those who’ve attained arahantship will ultimately attain Buddhahood, whether they realize it yet or not. That would necessarily include Theravadins as ultimately destined for Buddhahood.

I’m absolutely against mahayanist propaganda on an EBT research forum.
I’d love it if you made source-critical Mahayana contributions, but I can read wikipedia articles on Mahayana on my own

2 Likes

Do these look like Wikipedia articles to you?

If you are interested in the topic of Buddhist hermeneutics, rather than simply disparaging Mahayana Buddhism, I’d recommend addressing the content of the above articles, which are based on the Buddha’s teaching in the Nikayas.

The above articles are specifically about the Buddha’s distinction between relative truth and ultimate truth in the Nikayas, which just so happens to also be a major theme in Mahayana Buddhism, especially in the analogy of a finger pointing at the moon:

A common example of the distinction between relative truth and ultimate truth is the Mahayana concept of the Pure Land:

Occasionally Shinran employed the symbolism of the Pure Land to console grieving disciples with the hope of reunion in the Pure Land. Such statements imply a more concrete or literal understanding of the Pure Land.

However, in his major scholarly text “Kyogyoshinsho” Shinran describes birth into the Pure Land as the birth of non-birth or nirvana, which is beyond conceivability…

We should note that there is no necessary contradiction between the literal, personalistic expressions and the more abstract, philosophical concepts. It is instead a question of context.

Religious expressions are commonly adjusted to the need of the listener and the strong, otherworldly cast of traditional Shin Buddhism is the result of its popularization and institutionalization within feudalistic society. Similar developments may be seen in other traditions.
http://www.dharmanet.org/Shin_Bloom_Tricycle.htm

While on the level of relative truth, the Pure Land might seem like a Buddhist heaven, on the level of ultimate truth, it is the formless realm of Nirvana. It’s simply a matter of adjusting the message to the needs of the listener, just as the Buddha did in the Nikayas:

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.6b_Neyyattha_Nitattha_S_a2.3.5-6_piya.pdf

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/30.8-Upaya-Skillful-means.-piya.pdf

Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu understood the Buddha’s teachings better than perhaps anyone living today, and they endorsed Pure Land practice as the easy path for lay people to attain Buddhahood, who are unable to devote their lives to monastic austerities.

Nagarjuna, like the Buddha, distinguished between relative truth and ultimate truth.

On the level of relative truth, Amida is a literal flesh and blood Buddha from ten kalpas ago. On the level of ultimate truth, Amida is Dharma-body itself, without beginning or end. The name Amida itself means “infinite life.”

Recollection or mindfulness of the Buddha goes back to the earliest phases of Buddhism, and falls under right mindfulness and right concentration in the Eightfold Path:
http://theanussati.blogspot.com/2014/12/buddhanussati-recollection-of-buddha.html

In Pure Land Buddhism, the emphasis is on Amida as the object of Buddha-recollection. The original meaning of the word Nembutsu is “mindfulness of the Buddha.”

Well, just because something is in the Pāli Canon, doesn’t an EBT make it necessarily. Take Abhidhamma for instance, that is in the Pāli Canon.

EBTs are substantiated with parallels. I’m sure there may have been a Chinese or Sanskrit text similar to the Theragāthā (as in: a book of the words/sayings of prominent Therā, ‘elders’, in a given sect) at one point, but as it stands presently, AFAIK, the Theragāthā is something of a book special to the Theravādins.

Is the line about there being 84,000 Dharma doors in the Agamas as well? If so, that would be multiple attestation.

@Kensho is shakubuku a thing in the Japanese Pure Land sect you are affiliated with?

AFAIK the closest thing to a parallel would be SN 22.96, with āgama-parallels in SA 264 & MA 61.

They all contain the number 84000, but not in the same context.

In short, they aren’t parallels to Thag 17.3 in a way that would be so convenient. But the number popping up again is something to note!

In the past, bhikkhu, I was a head-anointed khattiya king.
[…]
I had 84,000 palaces, the chief of which was the palace named Dhamma.
[…]
all those formations have passed, ceased, changed. So impermanent are formations, bhikkhu, so unstable, so unreliable. It is enough, bhikkhu, to feel revulsion towards all formations, enough to become dispassionate towards them, enough to be liberated from them.”

I’d have to second this.

WTF? Nichiren hated Pure Land Buddhism in all forms. Please don’t associate me with him. I have no incentive whatsoever for lying about my personal religious beliefs or intentions.

Did you even read the OP? It doesn’t even mention Mahayana Buddhism.

It instead goes into detail regarding the distinction between relative truth and ultimate truth which the Buddha made in the Nikayas:

Exactly. Thank you.

Well then obviously there’s one big f…ing problem with your whole 84,000-door idea. If the founder of the Lotus school (Nichiren) hated the Pure Land guy’s guts, then you guys never really believed in that “many doors” idea you keep preaching to others, did you?

2 Likes

Nichiren believed that the Lotus Sutra was the only valid Buddhist scripture for today, that all other scriptures had become obsolete. He was a historical anomaly, who hated all sects and schools not dedicated to the Lotus Sutra.

One note of correction, if I may be forgiven, the ‘Lotus school’ is Tiāntāi, of which Nichiren Buddhism is a Medieval Japanese offshoot.

1 Like

And the Lotus school guys would say the same thing about Pure Land guys. And to be frank, it’s not their fault. The root problem is that you guys were taught and keep quoting the words of your own founders: Nichiren, Shinran, Rinzai Gigen,… not the words of the founder of all those founders, the Buddha. If Shinran said one thing, and Nichiren said another, then obviously there’d be conflicts. I’m surprised this mistake keeps happening again and again while even Mahayana itself advocated the concept of Four Reliances, one of which was: “to rely on the Dhamma teaching, not on the teacher”. Theravada has its own issues, but at least its practitioners always quote the suttas, not any particular teacher. If Ajahn Chah said this while Ajanh Whatever said the opposite, then one can always look up the sources in the Dhamma and Vinaya and find out the truth for himself.

I wasn’t commenting on your OP but on your innumerable other posts reiterating your same exact position.