Ancient Popularity of Pacceka Buddhas

According to the Pali tradition (e.g., the commentary to the Sn’s Khaggavisānasutta) their students don’t become enlightened. The paccekabuddhas’ lack of the full complement of Tathāgata powers, along with their tendency to give only brief and unsystematic teachings, mean that they can’t even lead anyone to stream-entry.

What they can do, and do do, is to preach ascetic virtues like solitude and contentment and provide the impetus for their disciples to set out on the path of paramī-development which in a later life will culminate in either sāvakabodhi or paccekabodhi.

A Dhamma taught only in brief. No enlightened disciples. No fourfold assembly.

As I understand it, the standard doctrine is that during the time when a buddhasāsanā exists nobody attains any of the ariyan paths or fruits outside of it, for according to the suttas only a sammāsambuddha can teach the complete comprehension (pariññā) and abandoning of attavādupādāna. Outside teachers can at most teach only pariññā of the other three types of upādāna.

Then, during the dark period when no buddhasāsanā exists, some beings can attain paccekabodhi, but to them neither ‘inside’ nor ‘outside’ is strictly applicable. They can’t be said to be inside the sāsanā when no sāsanā exists, but nor can they be said to be outside of it, for their attainment is dependent upon past life encounters with Buddhas and their sāsanās.

3 Likes

Interesting. That would mean that from the time the Buddha started teaching, no more paccekabuddha could arise, until Buddhism is totally gone. I even hesitate to entertain such thoughts since to me this all seems like blatant propaganda. But anyway, following this logic, the question arises, where did all those stupas come from that the Chinese pilgrims apparently encountered? Were they all supposed to be people who lived before the Buddha? That would seem to be the only option if the doctrine as you’ve explained it, is not contradicted.

I think he was referring to the revolutionary (or heretical, depending on your pov) Yogacara concept of apratistha nirvana, a nirvana which allows you to retain a kind of existence in the world in order to help all beings.

The sutras almost never use the term ‘Hinayana.’ This came from much later polemical commentaries and was certainly used as a pejorative. The sutras themselves always say ‘sravakayana’ or ‘pratyekayana’, and occasionally, ‘the Two Vehicles’. These terms often get translated into ‘Hinayana’ in English translation for some reason–I find this to be fairly annoying, myself.

I would encourage not basing the Mahayana off of polemical writings that are confined to a particular place and time; it tends to perpetuate perceived antagonisms that, from what I can tell, don’t actually exist.

Again, this is not what the Lotus states. The Parable of the Burning Houses is a parable. it is a symbolic illustration of the three vehicles being one vehicle. If one takes this logic to the Lotus Sutra itself, in reference to itself, it is very clear what it is saying. The problem is that people read the Lotus Sutra literally, when it is a work of literature, and within its own context is asking to be read as literature.

The Lotus itself is also turning the Bodhisattvayana teachings on its head, for the time and place, by negating the concept of irreversibility. It is saying that all three vehicles are metaphors for one path.

yes, you can read it as an attack on the Sravakayana explicitly, and you can read it as if the sravaka path is obsolete, but it seems far more likely to me that it, as a work of literature, beckons the audience to regard it as such, and to view the paths as leading to the same destination. So it is not that sravakas are “ignorant” and on the wrong path, but will join the “right” vehicle later on–it is a teaching that all the paths are the same, and the narrative devices used to teach this path are in response to the capacities of each audience.

It’s also important to note that in Mahayana practice, when people discuss “enlightenment” or “Buddhahood” with reference to a living practitioner, the reference is actually to the 8th bhumi of the bhumi model of the bodhisattva path, or the “stage of no-more learning” in the pancamarga, which correlates to the attainment of arhatship on the Sravakayana. While the Mahayana does assert that for bodhisattvas there is “more to do” at this point, the attainments are effectively the same. The only difference between the three types of sages and a Buddha is omniscience. The differences between the three types of sages is effectively none, aside from the bodhisattva-mahasattvas continuing through voluntary birth and death in order to cultivate greater stores of merit.

I have never heard this before in the sutras. My tradition reveres the arhats–I’m not really aware of any tradition that does not.

I too am unconcerned with the authenticity of the Mahayana sutras–I believe them to effectively be philosophical commentaries delivered in literary form, sort of an alternative to Abhidharma systematization.

2 Likes

Well, I suppose that would be one possibility.

Another would be that they’re not in fact the stupas of paccekabuddhas but were merely believed to be such, in rather the same way that gigantic footprints carved in rock in various locations of SE Asia are believed by some to be footprints left by the Buddha. These too serve as popular pilgrimage destinations.

1 Like

While I do not read the Mahayana sutras myself, the scholars I have read disagree with your view. They say the term was used in Mahayana sutras, and even in the Mahayana-influenced Ekottarika Āgama. The term is not as old as the term Mahayana, so is admittedly absent from the earlier Mahayana sutras.

I was hoping to give some sutra quotes but can’t open my version of Williams’ Mahayana book unfortunately. So I found some other references - sorry for any OCR errors. Here’s Jan Nattier in ‘A Few Good Men: The Bodhisativa Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha)’:

Given the fact that all extant versions of the Ugra freely use the term mahayana, it is noteworthy that the corresponding term hînayâna (“low vehicle,” “inferior vehicle”) does not occur in any version of our text. In this respect the Ugra is quite typical of bodhisattva sūtras translated into Chinese during the latter Han dynasty, for as Paul Harrison has shown, terms that can be equated with the word hînayâna appear only rarely, occurring a total of four times in the entire corpus of eleven such texts, which means that the majority do not contain it at all.1 Considerably more frequent—though still not as numerous as the occurrences found in later sūtra translations—are terms that can be equated with either bodhisattvayâna or mahayana.2

The unequal distribution of the terms hînayâna and mahayana in these early translations might seem odd, given their obvious terminological symmetry. But the symmetry is only apparent. While the two terms are grammatically parallel, conceptually—and chronologically, so the evidence strongly suggests—they are not. As Hubert Durt has pointed out, in the earliest literature the term bodhisattvayâna and other synonyms appear to predominate, while the term mahayana only gradually came to be accepted as standard.3

And it was even later, so the evidence assembled by Harrison and others would seem to suggest, that the word mahâyâna came to be paralleled by the strongly pejorative term hînayâna.4

Note for explains:

It is important to point out that the term hînayâna does not mean “small vehicle.” The Indian epithet hīna-, from the root ■>Ihā “discard, shun; be deficient,” carries a range of strongly negative associations, including “lower, weaker, inferior, deficient, defective, low, vile,” and “mean” (see MW 1296b-c); the standard Tibetan equivalent theg-pa dman-pa “low vehicle” accurately captures this negative connotation, as does the expression lieh-sheng “inferior vehicle” used by Dharmaraksa and some other early Chinese translators. In fact, the English expression “small vehicle” is not based on the Indian term at all, but on the Chinese expression hsiao-sheng /J ^ “little vehicle” used by Kumārajīva and others. It may well be that Kumārajīva (whose own background was originally Sarvāstivādin) deliberately chose a less offensive, though technically inaccurate, expression to translate hînayâna.

Later in note 6 he writes:

6 It seems likely that the sequence of development of this terminology began with the straightforward expression bodhisattvayâna, which was then qualified with the epithet “great” (mahâyâna), and which finally led to the creation of the term hînayâna as a back-formation (i.e., formed as the opposite of the already existing mahâyâna) as attitudes toward practitioners of a nonbodhisattva path became, at least in some circles, ever more critical. The term bodhisattvayâna would thus represent the emergence of the path to Buddhahood as a distinct vocational alternative, the term mahâyâna a mere expression of admiration for that path, and the term hinayâna an expression of a derisive attitude toward non-bodhisattva practitioners. In other words, only the first and last terms in this sequence—and not the epithet mahâyâna itself—actually represent significant turning points in the development of the Mahâyâna tradition.

He also references another paper that might be interesting:
Cohen, Richard S., 1995. “Discontented Categories: Hïnayâna andMahâyâna in Indian History.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 1-25.

Anālayo mentions the term Hīnayāna as featuring even in the Ekottarika-āgama, in his paper ‘MAHĀYĀNA IN THE EKOTTARIKA-ĀGAMA’. For example he states:

An instance that does fall within the category of what I would consider as being directly related to Mahāyāna ideas is an occurrence of the term Hīnayāna, which I will be discussing in more detail later on in this paper. The discourse in question, found among the Fours of the Ekottarika-āgama, expounds four unthinkable matters in relation to the Tathāgata which, as the Buddha explains to Śāriputra, Hīnayānists are unable to understand. 25

Note 25 reads:

EĀ 26.9 at T II 640a4: 如来有四不可思议事, 非小乘所能知.

Also it seems at least by the 7th century this was standard terminology in India. I-ching (635-713) reported:

“The Buddhists of North India follow Hînayâna Buddhism exclusively, but in other parts of India the distinction between Mahâyâna and Hînayâna is not clear. Both the people of Mahâyâna and Hînayâna observe the prāti mok$a according to the vinaya. And they also practice the Four Âryasatya E3ll§{f. The only thing is that those who worship the bodhisattvas and recite the Mahâyâna sūtras are called Mahâyâna, and those who do not are called Hînayâna.”

Here’s what Florin Deleanu writes in ‘A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON MEDITATION AND THE BEGINNINGS OF MAHÂYÂNA BUDDHISM’, in the end notes:

Shizutani actually says, ‘The Chinese translations of the As ta (Shobon hannya AhpufiâTî) despise the two Vehicles but do not call them hlnayana yet. The term hlnayana is later and seems to appear first in the Saddharmapundarīka’’ (1974, 40-41). Saigusa (1981, 124-125), referring to Vaidya’s and Kajiyama’s studies, points out that one occurrence of hinayana is, nevertheless, found in the Sanskrit Ms of the Asta, though he adds that he will not discuss the textual history of this passage. (Incidentally, it appears in Chapter 11 (A$ta(M), p. 238, Asta(W), p. 50) which, as we remember, is not amongst the earliest.) He further gives data concerning the number of occurrences in the Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Saddhnrmapundarīka: mahâyâna 60 times, hînayâna 8 times, etc.

and:

Generally speaking, the Mahâyâna attitude towards the Hinayâna seems to have evolved into two main directions: (1) The Saddharmapundarīka, and later on the Tathāgatagarbha current, declare the Lesser Vehicle to be ineffective and proclaim the absolute supremacy of the One Vehicle (ekayâna), i.e. Mahâyâna. (2) Other trends, especially the Yogâcâra, do not deny altogether the possibility of attaining Awakening by Srâvakayâna spiritual cultivation but consider it an inferior form which the bodhisattva should not choose (Schmithausen 1999, 14).

It’s parable to explain why the Buddha lied to his disciples and a justification for that. Right? If not, then in what way is that not the case?

It seem to me to be the same Indian trick used by the Hindus, who instead of saying Buddhism is totally wrong, chose the propaganda story of saying actually he’s an avatar of Krishna, so, he’s included in our system, and we accept him, but, his teachings are at the bottom of our heirarchy so please ignore them, we have far better teachings than that. He was just teaching to ignorant people so he had to give them inferior teachings because they couldn’t handle the real ones.

That’s the exact same model used in the Lotus Sutra, so far as I understand it. In particular, so far as I understand, it’s only ‘one vehicle’ because there is only ONE way to become enlightened, and that is categorically the Mahayana way. So those inferior arahants are a part of the system, yes, but only in the sense of being inferior people whom the Buddha had to lie to so that they could get to a false goal that he tricked them into believing, where they will have to wait in … something akin to suspended animation? … until finally they will convert to the Lotus Sutra’s Mahayana doctrine. How convenient!

This seems to be radical sectarianism. Though I understand that if one were to believe this narrative, then it would make sense. Many Hindus believe that same narrative as applied to the Buddha being an avatar. And by the way we see the same tactic in other aspects of Mahayana, with the ‘second turning of the wheel of dharma’ being portrayed as the real truth, the 1st being ‘provisional’. And then again when men invented the ‘third turning’. And there was even a claim for a fourth! Each time using this same classic tactic, including the competitors in ones system but in an heirarchically inferior position.

It may also be worth remembering the Mahayana sutras give threats. Naturally they were rejected by the majority when they were composed, as it would have been common knowledge that they were new and inauthentic! And we see evidence of that opposition in the texts, with warnings that people who criticise them will go to hell. Now remember that the group referred to as sravakas or Hinayana, categorically reject the Mahayana sutras. So, there’s that!

I think it’s useful to remember that the Mahayana sutras were written by men. And these men, however nice some of them may have been, had sectarian motivations in at least some of the things they wrote into these texts. I think it’s important to acknowledge that, otherwise we won’t be able to understand why they’re making the doctrines they’re making. That’s a vital part of it. We can’t understand their portrayal of non-Mahayanists without understanding that, I think. And why they would try to silence any criticism of their new doctrines, with threats of hell. In a superstitious culture, that’s bound to help the indoctrination process, especially with lay people I guess, but also some monastics. Similar to Christianity’s threats that if you don’t accept their doctrine, you’ll go to hell.

I like to remember also that there are many different and opposing bhumi systems in Mahayana. I guess the 10 bhumi system is the one popular nowadays, but it’s a made up system, and different Mahayanists made up different systems. Some with more stages, some with fewer.

I think it’s also worth remembering that in common Mahayana doctrine, it’s essential to make sure you never even attain stream entry. Let alone arahantship! Such attainments are catastrophic for the bodhisattva, at least in pre-Lotus Sutra Mahayana. If you attain even so much as stream entry, then you can never become a Buddha. It is definitively impossible, according to the standard view of the Mahayana sutras (N.B. Lotus sutra is not standard, being a very late sutra and very different to the bulk of the Mahayana sutras, even though today it may be regarded as an important sutra).

I’d love to find the reference for you but I believe it’s in Williams’ book, my version of which seems to now be corrupt and will not open!

2 Likes

Ah, yes. Though I think a pertinent question may rather be, were they believed to be stupas of paccekabuddhas who lived before or after the Buddha? I don’t know if anyone has the answer to this but it would be interesting if the answer is out there. Since it has doctrinal implications regarding their view of this category.

Many of your quoted passages do not conflict with what I’ve stated. You are interjecting your own view here.

I do not deny that “Hinayana” is an offensive and derogatory term. But it is pretty clear that it is later. There are occasions where you project a view of inferiority onto ideas that don’t contain them explicitly, such as the Yogacara preference for the bodhisattva-yana. There was a Sautrantika-Yogacara school as well, most well represented by the works of An Shigao.

You are also ignoring that when Hinayana came to be employed as a term, it was used to construct straw men, and often these critical views were directed at the Vaibhasika specifically.

I won’t deny that ferocious sectarianism existed among the Mahayanika. But I contest that such a view is implicit to any schema of the bodhisattva way, and assert that these polemics were likely introduced in competition with other schools.

The view that Mahayana-aligned Buddhists across time and space held a disparaging view of the Sravakayana is not a logically tenable position—few views in Buddhism have been entirely consistent across time and space. There were periods of intense antagonism, and periods where it did not matter. There are texts where Mahayanika are transported to hell realms in their sleep for disparaging the Sravakayana. In the Abbreviated Record of the Resonances of the Three Treasures, the Silla monk Sungyu disparaged the Agamas and told sravaka monks to pursue the Mahayana, and later that night he dreamed of the Pure Land, being chased away by it from a bodhisattva there, who chastised him:

"The lesser path destroys death–the greater teacher destroys marks. Using the leser Dharma as a ladder one may ascend to the greater path. This is the pattern of your country. If you treat the Agamas with disrespect and begrudge others’ chanting, you will not be able to enter the gate of the Greater Vehicle."

Awaking from his dream, [Sungyu] wept with grief. He repeated of his sons and chanted the four Agamas to obtain welcome into the Pure Land. His disciple also had a dream, in which his master seated on a lotus flower came and spoke to him, saying, “In this Saha world, because I relied originally on Pure Land practice in addition to chanting the Agamas, I first obtained the lesser path and not long afterward returned to enter the greater path!”

[…] This tale is interesting because it advocates that in Silla some aspirants for the Pure Land entered the Mahayana path by means of the Hinayana.

McBridge II, Richard D. Aspiring to Enlightenment: Pure Land Buddhism in Silla Korea. University of Hawaii Press, 2020.

I recognize that it is easy to look at a text like the Lotus Sutra, and think it is disparaging—I felt this way too when I first read it—but these polemics are always grounded in specific historical conditions, and they do not apply to all conditions. The Lotus Sutra is complex, specifically because it does not mean what it says. It explicitly tells you and shows you repeatedly to not take it at its word. It is an upaya within an upaya.

I don’t exactly know what your bone to pick is, but I would hope, rather than asserting that this superiority complex is implicit in the Mahayana texts as an essential feature, you take a historical-critical approach and assess how and under what conditions this hardline sectarianism developed, given the early Mahayana texts do not tend to take as aggressive an approach, and often present the bodhisattva path as one option among others.

Given the disparaging polemic was an introduction into the texts at a later point and is not essential to the Mahayana, it can be excised.

4 Likes

TLDR, but according to K.R Norman in his The Pratyeka-Buddha in Buddhism and Jainism, the concept of Pacceka/Pratyeka Buddha was adopted by Buddhism and Jainism from another Sramana sect in their early stage of development. I have discussed this in another topic here

For question “does a Pacceka Buddha teach others to enlightenment?”, in Dhammapada commentary there is a story indicating that a Pacceka Buddha can teach others to attain the same enlightenment:

https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/Texts-and-Translations/Jatakas/Dhp-290-Sankhakatha.htm

3 Likes

I believe they do. You wrote:

The sources I gave directly refute that, and also go towards explaining why you can find the term Hinayana in the English translations. We should expect that when, as these scholars are telling us, that was the term in the Indic texts.

Also regarding:

As you can see, I’m basing it on the Mahayana sutras themselves. And I’m not limiting myself to that time period either, as I’ve demonstrated by the report of the Chinese pilgrim. Furthermore, I can give you numerous examples of this same explicitely sectarian view of the non-Mahayanists being specifically inferior and that that path should be avoided, and is selfish etc., from 20th century sources if you like. And this is also the view I myself have been taught from inside the Tibetan tradition while studying in monasteries in Asia. And in that context it was also made explicit that Theravada is this very same ‘vile vehicle’ - a view that is in perfect accord with the report of the Chinese pilgrim.

We have to remember that saying that a rival path cannot lead to enlightenment until the person converts to our path ‘later on’, is not the same as “teaching that all the paths are the same”. Allow me to give an example:

Suppose I’m Muslim. And I say Buddhists are selfish and the most you can attain through Buddhism is a stuck state that helps nobody, eternally trapped in a state of ignorance. But, it’s ok because at some stage in the future, when you’re ‘ready’, you will convert to Islam, and through Islamic practice, you will go to heaven. And, the Buddha was actually a prophet of the creator god Allah. But his disciples were so ignorant that they could not bear to hear the Quran - their heads would have exploded if they heard it! So instead he lied to them and gave them teachings that their ignorant and feeble minds could bare, so at least they’d get a little better. But for any non-inferior student, you should totally ignore Buddhism and only practice Islam, since Islam is actually the only possible way to get to heaven.

Does this sound like I’m “teaching that all the paths are the same”? In this example, do Buddhism and Islam seem “the same”?

Ho about if I say, if you spread the word that the Buddha didn’t teach the Quran, then you’ll go to hell. Does that improve my case for claiming Islam and Buddhism are the same? Please note all I’m doing is applying the Mahayana sectarian logic from the sutras, to this hypothetical example. I think sometimes it can be useful to see the logic when we apply it to something less close to our potentially biased feelings.

Later than what? I believe I’ve demonstrated and explained that it was a term used in the Mahayana sutras, and that it came not in the earliest period of the composition of the Mahayana sutras, hence is absent from the earliest sutras. This is not at all surprising. Muhammad was tolerant of other religions when he lived in Mekka, with few followers, just some friends and family perhaps. But if you look at the Quran in the sections from him living in Medina, when he had a large following and was warlord, the material is intolerant. Similarly, when Mahayana was new and unpopular, they say the arahant path as normative, but their new way as an option only for a few men. That directly contrasts later tradition, such that at the later extreme of the Lotus Sutra, the Mahayana is a path for everyone, and those who reject is are seen as vile, despicable.

So, yes it was ‘later’ than the earliest Mahayana sutras (I wonder if these are ever taught in the West in Mahayana?), but that later view thrived and is still very much alive today. Though admittedly Tibetans, for example, tend to try to keep that quiet when teaching Westerners. I think this is because they know such sectarianism can put Westerners off. I assume that’s what’s behind the presumably deliberate deceit in them translating hīnayāna as ‘small vehicle’ or even ‘foundation vehicle’ - this I think cannot be an accident, since the Tibetan term retains the explicitly derogatory meaning of the Indic. And having experienced Tibetan Buddhism from within the community, I can assure you they absolutely look down on non-Mahayana Buddhism. Maybe except a very few rare modernists. Even Alan Wallace, a highly regarded translator (he used to translate for the Dalai Lama) and samatha teacher well qualified in Tibetan Buddhism, denies any possibility of Theravadins even experiencing rigpa! Though he even says Muslims and Christians etc. can. Why does he single out Theravadins as being the only ones he mentions who can’t? Naturally, due to blind faith in the Mahayana teachings he has received (he studied a great deal, as a student of the Dalai Lama and others).

You’ve already seen the Chinese pilgrim making it entirely clear that the term was referring to real people. And this is how the Tibetans use it now, and in their texts. And I see no indication that the use of this term in the Mahayana sutras and āgama was not being used in the same way, to refer to non-Mahayanists following the arahant path. I have no idea if at one point in time it may have been used as a straw man, but clearly there is well established usage of it as a real category.

You don’t contest it with me since I do not hold such a view. The earliest Mahayana sutras are not sectarian, as I mentioned. Only when Mahayana became bigger (some say it became popular outside of India before it caught on in India itself) did it become so sectarian. The Mahayana sutras preserve various layers of that evolution. So the view is very different depending on the age of the sutra you consult. For example, early on Mahayana was only for very special men. Most men and all women were supposed to follow the arahant path. Of course that’s not at all the model Mahayana came to follow later or, and up to today!

Well we can at the very least say it has been held from the time of the composition of the Lotus Sutra, until the 21st century from India to the USA with a great many countries in between. That’s quite a lot of time and space!

So, this extract is saying:
Non-mahayana Buddhism is inferior, Mahayana Buddhism is superior. Use the inferior one first and then the superior one. Don’t slag off the inferior one.

That’s polite in the sense of encouraging people to not disparage the inferior one. But it’s still sectarian. Again, it’s like a Muslim saying you can only go to heaven through Islam, but you can study Buddhism first, but still have to become a Muslim to go to heaven. And, don’t slag off Buddhism. Now you could believe such propaganda if you want, but I would personally just see it as propaganda, designed with a specific purpose of establishing the superiority of a school, while making tidy the issue of evolution by which we are forced to accept the inferior one as a part of the system since in this case, it was there from the beginning, before the new system was even imagined!

I agree. All of the Mahayana texts are compositions by men, long long after the Buddha died. So we can remove anything from them! And I applaud anyone who rejects the negative and irrationally sectarian teachings in them that contradict the Buddha. I wish all of Mahayana would reject all of these types of teachings. But, I think they will only be able to when they admit to themselves the fact that they were not taught by the Buddha. However, blind faith is a very strong defence against truth. Until they are willing to step outside of their blind faith, there seems no amount of evidence that will make a difference to their views, which are so characterised by cognitive dissonance on these topics.

Focusing on negative forms of sectarianism is not really helping the quality of this discussion. Let’s keep the thread more focused on pratyekabuddhas.

5 Likes

Seconded.

Lets keep the focus on the OP

3 Likes

Another reason I almost didn’t read the book is because of its age. Academic Buddhism has changed a lot in recent years. There are many reasons for that, such as the discovery and study of new texts (Sanskrit and Gandhari) that have changed our understanding of Buddhism’s evolution. Another important factor is the more holistic approach being taken in Buddhist scholarly research. It seems to me that in the recent past you had Mahayana scholars who only knew about Mahayana, Vajrayana scholars who only knew about Vajrayana, etc., and the resulting scholarship was biased because everyone was only working within their own limited scope and lacked a bigger picture. Now that we have scholars comparing Pali suttas with Chinese agamas, sutras in the Tibetan canon, and sutras in Gandhari, we’re getting a picture of Buddhism thats quite different than what was traditionally presented.

Ray claiming that Theravada Buddhism had completely given up on meditation from sometime a few hundred years after the death of the Buddha up until the writing of his book, when there had already been a major revival in meditation practice decades before, is just horrendously bad scholarship. I think him arriving at that conclusion is partly because he comes from a Tibetan Buddhist background, and so had no connection to a living Theravada tradition. If he had known about Ajahn Cha and Ajahn Mahaboowa, for example, I think he would have been forced to reassess his thesis. The reason I believe this is that there’s no reason to think that Theravada forest traditions hadn’t arisen and then died out before in the past. Considering that one of the hallmarks of forest traditions seems to be their reliance on practice and not scholarship, these forest traditions wouldn’t have left behind large collections of texts. If Ajahn Mun had appeared a few hundred years earlier than he did, it’s not difficult to imagine all record of him disappearing once the forest tradition was absorbed into the larger, non-forest monastic establishment, as seems to happen with all reform movements across religions.

He didn’t say that Mahayana arose out of stupa worship. In the opening section of the book he lays out a “two-tiered system” of laity and monastics. He said that stupa worship was recommended to the laity as one of the ways of practicing, but meditation was exclusively for monastics. Regarding the arising of the Mahayana, he claims it arose as a reaction to the settled, city-dwelling, non-meditation focused form of monasticsim that began to dominate Buddhism. He claims that in early Mahayana the bodhisattva was a return to the ideal of the forest monk. Anyway, I’m not going to reconstruct his whole argument in this thread. Anyone interested in learning more can read the book.

Yes, please. Whatever sectarian polemics existed in the past, now we’re seeing a lot more harmony and respect between different schools of Buddhism. There’s no need to focus on ancient name calling, especially in a thread about pacceka buddhas.

Cool, thanks! I’ll provide a quote of that here for others. The guy studies Brahmanism, which doesn’t work, so then he seems to ordain with a paccekabuddha, and becomes enlightened. So this seems as if it’s another sramana group with a Sangha and a body of teaching, which seems to contradict the ideas we’ve had:

Ācariyena vutte, Paccekabuddhe upasaṅkamitvā pucchi:
When this was said by the teacher, after approaching the Paccekabuddhas, he asked:

“Tumhe kira pariyosānaṁ jānāthā?” ti
“Do you know the end (of the teaching)?”

“Āma, jānāmā.” ti
“Yes, we know.”

“Tena hi me ācikkhathā?” ti
“Will you teach it to me?”

“Na mayaṁ apabbajitassa ācikkhāma,
“We will not teach one who has not gone-forth,

sace te pariyosānen’ attho, pabbajassū.” ti
if you want (to know) the meaning of the end, you should go forth.” 09

So: “Sādhū!” ti sampaṭicchitvā tesaṁ santike pabbaji.
After replying: “Good!” he went forth in their presence.

Athassa te: “Idaṁ tāva sikkhassū,” ti
They said to him: “You should learn this,”

vatvā: “Evaṁ te nivāsetabbaṁ, evaṁ pārupitabban”-ti-ādinā,
and saying: “You should dress thus, and you should cover yourself thus,” and so on,

nayena ābhisamācārikaṁ ācikkhiṁsu.
they methodically taught him good conduct.

So tattha sikkhanto, upanissayasampannattā,
Training right there, and having the supporting conditions,

na cirasseva, Paccekasambodhiṁ abhisambujjhitvā,
in no long time, after attaining the Pacceka Awakening,

sakala-Bārāṇasinagare, gaganatale puṇṇacando viya,
throughout the whole of the city of Bārāṇasī, like a full-moon in the sky,

pākaṭo lābhaggayasaggappatto ahosi.
he attained the highest gains and the highest fame.

So appāyukasaṁvattanikassa kammassa katattā,
As the deeds he had performed (in past lives) led only to a short lifespan,

na cirasseva Parinibbāyi.
in no long time he was Finally Emancipated.

Athassa Paccekabuddhā ca mahājano ca, sarīrakiccaṁ katvā,
Then the Paccekabuddhas and the populace, after performing the funeral ceremonies,

dhātuyo ca gahetvā, nagaradvāre Thūpaṁ kāresuṁ.
and gathering the relics, had a Shrine built at the gate to the city.

Saṅkho pi brāhmaṇo: ‘Putto me ciraṁ gato, pavattimassa jānissāmī,’ ti
The brāhmaṇa Saṅkha, thinking: ‘My son has been gone a long time, I would (like to) know what happened,’

taṁ daṭṭhukāmo, Takkasilāto nikkhamitvā,
and desiring to see him, after leaving from Takkasilā,

anupubbena Bārāṇasiṁ patvā,
gradually reaching Bārāṇasī,

mahājanakāyaṁ sannipatitaṁ disvā,
and seeing the populace gathered round,

‘Addhā imesu eko pi me puttassa pavattiṁ jānissatī,’ ti
thinking: ‘Surely one of these will know what happened to my son,’

upasaṅkamitvā pucchi:
after approaching, asked:

“Susīmo nāma māṇavo idhāgami,
“A student called Susīma came here,

api nu kho tassa pavattiṁ jānāthā?” ti
does anyone know what happened to him?”

“Āma, brāhmaṇa, jānāma:
“Yes, brāhmaṇa, we know:

asukassa brāhmaṇassa santike Tayo Vede sajjhāyitvā, pabbajitvā,
after learning the Three Vedas from a certain brāhmaṇa, and going-forth

Paccekasambodhiṁ sacchikatvā Parinibbuto,
and attaining Independent Awakening, he was Finally Emancipated,

ayamassa thūpo patiṭṭhāpito.” ti
and this is the Shrine we established.”

This seems to relate directly to what I was wondering - if paccekabuddha was (or became) a term for sramana groups that did not fall into the category of being paths where enlightenment is unavailable. Fascinating!

Does anyone have info on how they’re regarded in the Jain texts from the Buddha’s time and before? And/or how/if the Jains differentiate them from other Sramana groups? I.e. if there’s some categorical difference, for example, saying all other sramana groups don’t lead to enlightenment except for these paccekabuddha groups, as Buddhism seems to be saying?

2 Likes

Sure. I hope you don’t mind, I will just quickly address two points regarding Ray’s book, and then in the next comment I’ll bring it back to paccekabuddhas, also from Ray’s book in case it benefits the discussion.

Since many people might read this and it may stay up for many years, I wanted to address this. While I agree that there are issues with Ray’s book, I do not think this criticism is accurate. I think this is the part of the book you may be referring to, from pg 18:

In relation to Buddhist monasticism in contemporary Thailand, Bunnag makes an observation that reflects the same view. After noting that according to Buddhist theory, only monks can legitimately aspire to nirvana, she continues:

However, none of the Thai monks to whom I spoke appeared to consider nirvana a relevant goal for which to strive; those who considered that [it was a relevant goal] . . . believed that only after billions of years of tireless effort could they or their contemporaries achieve this state. The majority of monks . . . chose to rationalize their limited spiritual horizons by saying that only the Buddha and a few of his disciples had become enlightened, and that this facility was no longer available. (Bunnag 1973, 19-20) 24

As mentioned, even if settled monastics did not hold enlightenment as a practicable goal in this life, this did not leave the laity without criteria by which to evaluate the monastics’ worthiness as recipients of offerings. Bunnag’s observations about present-day Thailand have some validity, as noted, for settled Buddhist monasticism as a type in other times and places: the laity tended to judge the monastics’ sanctity primarily in terms, first, of “conformity to the formal stereotype” outlined in the vinaya (1973, 34) and, second, of demonstrable mastery of the sacred texts (1973, 53-54). Bunnag further remarks that, in the context of the monastic institutions she studied, “meditation, which was originally intended to represent a more advanced stage in the process of self-purification, is a less highly regarded activity than is the study of the Pali texts: which is to say that the latter pursuit, being more easily assessed in terms of academic degrees and certificates, is accorded a higher evaluation than [meditation] for success in which the evidence is less tangible” (1973, 54). 25

He’s not saying that meditation is not being practiced. He’s saying that it’s not being prioritised. And, by the way, even in Tibetan Buddhism, which explicitly teaches that enlightenment is possible in this very lifetime, I’ve been in Tibetan monasteries where the monks believe that enlightenment it almost impossible, and takes aeons, and so they do not even dream of trying to become enlightened. And in Theravada, I am not surprised that not meditating, and not trying to become enlightened, was very common as that informant reported. Maybe so also now. I don’t think we can assume that traditions such as the Thai Forest Tradition and their views and practices, represent the normal Buddhism of most monasteries in the Theravada or even Thai world.

He uses Hirakawa’s work a lot, and while he questions some of it, he seems to use it heavily in his own conclusions. For the sake of making this a little clearer for whomever might read this, I’ll quote from Ray’s book, adding some highlights in bold:

According to Hirakawa, in the earliest Mahayana literature, the renunciant bodhisattvas are depicted as having two primary residences. First—and not surprising in light of the Mahayana texts we have examined—is the dranydyatana, the forest retreat, where they lived in solitude and practiced meditation. In addition, the renunciant bodhisattvas are depicted as living at another place—namely, the stupa, in order to study and be cared for when ill. In Hirakawa’s words, in the early texts, “the living quarters are referred to as dranydyatana and stupa. The renunciant bodhisattva practices austerities in the dranydyatana, but when he becomes ill or when he studies the sutras, he goes to the stupa” (1963, 96). When the renunciant bodhisattvas were fulfilling their vocation of meditation in retreat, they would live in their forest hermitages. But their Buddhism was not without its institutional side, and for this they came to the stupa. Hirakawa tells us that “it was the stupa which was the religious center for the renunciant bodhisattva” (85). 38

Hirakawa develops his thesis about the nature and functions of the nonmonastic renunciant bodhisattvas living at stupas in a later article (1987). Stupas, Hirakawa says, became centers of religious orders, quite distinct from those based on the settled monastery. The bodhisattva renunciants, then, would have served as leaders of orders, teaching lay believers and receiving alms from them.

However, although these religious specialists led lives similar to those who had abandoned the life of a householder, they still were not monks (bhiksus) [and] . . . had not taken the full set of precepts (upasampada). . . . Because they felt that certain religious experiences were necessary if they were to teach others, these religious specialists not only taught lay believers but also engaged in strict religious practices. Consequently, they imitated the practices performed by Sakyamuni Buddha and strove to attain an enlightenment identical to that which Sakyamuni had experienced. Since Sakyamuni had been called a bodhisattva before he had realized enlightenment, they too called themselves bodhisattva?,. (94)

Hirakawa continues that the communities of laypeople and renunciants connected with the stupas would have been primarily interested in two things: the Buddha’s ability to save sentient beings and the types of practices that would enable people to realize buddhahood. These two interests are, of course, the two major trends that characterize the classical Mahayana, the notion of the Buddha as a saviour to be worshiped (Pure Land traditions) and the idea of the Buddha as an ideal to be emulated (wisdom traditions [Ratnagunasamcayagdthd, Rdstrapdlapariprcchd Sutra, minor Rdstrapdlapariprcchd Sutra, Astasdhasrikdprajndpdramitd Sutra, Samdhinirmocana Sutra, and Lankdvatdra Sutra]). Hirakawa then concludes that “the religious activities of these bodhisattva^ eventually led to the development of Mahayana Buddhism” (1987, 94).

Hirakawa’s analyses suggest the following image of renunciant bodhisattvas in the early or proto-Mahayana tradition.

  1. They were forest renunciants, following forest practices in imitation of the Buddha and striving to attain the Buddha’s full enlightenment.

  2. They were religious leaders, whose spiritual authority in their own eyes and in the eyes of others was connected with their forest way of life and meditation practiced in retreat.

  3. The stupa played a number of roles in the life of the bodhisattva renunciants and, in an important sense, defined their kind of Buddhism. At the stupa, they were able to carry out religious functions as leaders of orders and teachers of the laity. At the stupa, they could also come to receive alms, to study, and to recuperate when sick. And, at the stupa, their devotion to the Buddha and other saints could find an appropriate focus.

I thought that was worth clearing up. For more detail, please see his book. And now, returning to paccekabuddhas…

1 Like

This will be a long comment, of quotes from Ray’s book giving details about paccekabuddhas. I cannot guarantee that all this will be accurate but hopefully it will be of use for this discussion. If anyone feels he’s contradicting his sources (if you can understand the abbreviated references), please do quote and correct! Again, sorry for any OCR errors - especially diacritics cause issues so if a word looks mispelled, imagine what diacritics could have resulted in wrong letters from OCR. I’ll put some parts in bold that interest me.

Regarding stupas:

For Fa-hsien, stupas are primary manifestations of the dharma and are encountered everywhere. Although by far the great majority are stupas to Buddha Sakyamuni, other buddhas, and pratyekabuddhas, the pilgrim also tells us that he visited a number of stupas built to arhants. Most of the time, these are constructed to particular arhants, as in a certain locale where he found stupas built to Sariputra, Maudgalyayana, and Ananda (B., 56-57). Stupas might also be constructed to the arhants in the collective, like a stupa in Nagrak built to all the arhants and pratyekabuddhas, of whom as many as a thousand were said to have dwelt at that place (47). The more important of these stupas each has its own history and peculiarities. At Vaisall, for example, are two stupas, one on each side of the river, each containing one half of the body of Ananda; this double interment reflects the story just recounted, of Ananda’s autocremation in the middle of the river, leaving half of his relics on one side and half on the other (96, 100-101). The stupas of the arhants are worshiped in the same general fashion as those of the Buddha. For example, after the chanting of texts, certain monks present religious offerings to the stupa of Sariputra, offering “every kind of incense and flowers” and burning lamps “throughout the whole night” (58). One worships the stupa of this or that arhant depending upon one’s interests and orientation. Bhiksunis worship the stupa of Ananda, because it was through his good offices that women were allowed to enter the order. Sramaneras worship the stupa of Rahula (58-59).

This makes me wonder if perhaps the tradition of stupa building continued to exist in paccekabuddha sramana groups, as well as Buddhism, after the time of the Buddha. I wonder, if we have any records of meetings with paccekabuddhas set in a time after the Buddha’s death? Does anyone know of any?

More on paccekabuddhas:

Through the activity of presenting himself for darsan by the laity, the pratyekabuddha is in fact teaching the dharma. It is this kind of direct, visual teaching, rather than verbal instruction, that primarily characterizes what the pratyekabuddha has to transmit to the laity. We read in the Divydvaddna and the Avaddnasataka that “these majestic ones teach dhamma [Skt., dharmadesand} by means of the body not by means of words.” 38 Nevertheless, in the cultic setting, words are sometimes exchanged between the pratyekabuddha and his suppliants. For example, after receiving the donation proffered to him, the pratyekabuddha will often invite the donor to make a wish, and—if the giving has been pure—it will often be granted (K., 67). The wish may be for wealth, a better rebirth, or even the attainment of the state of an arhant, a pratyekabuddha, or a buddha. In the Dhammapada commentary, a pratyekabuddha responds thus to such a wish: “May you attain quickly what has been wished and requested, may all intentions be fulfilled like the moon (full) on the fifteenth day” (Dp-c 1:198; 3:92 [K., 89]). 39 In addition, the pratyekabuddha gives utterances that will protect suppliants from harm or otherwise guard them against danger (J 4:15-22 [C., 4:9-13]; W., xxii).

The pratyekabuddha is sometimes also shown giving explicit verbal instruction to those with whom he interacts, including his renunciant disciples or compatriots, and also the laity, both those whom he wishes to inspire to renounce the world and those to whom he more simply provides guidance. He may enjoin his lay hearer to a life of virtue and lead him or her to insight (J 3:471-72 [C., 3:281]). His most characteristic verbal teachings are, however, certain verses (gdthd) that he utters, either in the presence of other pratyekabuddhas or to the laity, who may be simple suppliants or prospective pratyekabuddhas. 40 To other pratyekabuddhas, as when he has just arrived at Mount Gandhamadana, he expresses the essence of his enlightenment. To laypersons who are prospective pratyekabuddhas, he may utter similar verses designed to provoke renunciation (W., xxii).

In teaching those close to him, his teaching is direct and personal. In one story, a pratyekabuddha perceives an ascetic full of caste pride and helps him overcome this pride and arrive at attainment (J 4:328 [C., 4:207]). The pratyekabuddha as spiritual teacher often works in ways that are not perceived by his student. A certain prince comes looking for a pratyekabuddha to receive instruction; the saint arranges his footprints so that it appears that he has gone into his hut, has not emerged, and is thus inside. The prince enters, finds the place empty, sits down on the pratyekabuddha’s meditation place, and attains enlightenment (Sn-c 81-82 [K., 90]). Abstract definitions to the contrary notwithstanding, the pratyekabuddha’s teaching activities in fact occupy a prominent place in the hagiographies. In these, the pratyekabuddha knows nothing of memorized or written texts, and his instruction is spontaneous and situational, suited to the time, place, and needs of the listener. 41

The pratyekabuddha’s teaching may take the form of uttering the spontaneous verses that express his realization. For example, as we saw, when the pratyekabuddhas attain realization, they go to Mount Gandhamadana and are expected to express their realization to the company of elder pratyekabuddhas. When the time comes for their final nirvana, they declare their realization in verse form. The pratyekabuddha’s teaching is also sometimes described as privileged, in that it is only one who has passed through the pratyekabuddha pravrajyd who is authorized to receive instruction. 42

The pratyekabuddha teaches his suppliant, using the situation at hand to instruct in the path to enlightenment and the practice of meditation, or to provoke realization. The style in which such teachings are given is often subtle and suggestive. In relation to the character of the teaching given by the pratyekabuddhas, Kloppenborg pertinently remarks that it involves “subtle influences, instigations, pushes into the right direction, rather than thorough instruction” (K., 40). Doctrine, in and of itself, is not the major interest of the pratyekabuddha. 43 In addition, the pratyekabuddha’s instruction often relies on examples, and sometimes these are not verbal. This is perhaps part of the implication of the statement that he teaches by means of his body—kayika (see PTSD 209)—not by words (Da 133 [K., 41 and 78]). The pratyekabuddha, like the saint Upagupta, may give his teaching in another nonverbal form—namely, visions. A pratyekabuddha wants his young disciple to understand the renunciant way of life; so, although they are far from the place, he reveals to him a vision of Mount Gandhamadana (Sn-c 105 IK., 47]).

The emphasis on the bodily teaching of the pratyekabuddhas indicates how far their dharma is from textual interests and preoccupations. The same is reflected in the story, told in the Suttanipata commentary, of a king of Banaras who engages his ministers in a conversation about the nature of samsara and nirvana. The ministers come forward with all sorts of theories about the nature of the world. The king realizes that these men are not speaking from experience and that what needs to be known is something much more practical. Thereupon, he abandons his kingship, enters upon the religious life, and attains pratyekabodhi (Sn-c 106 [K., 106]). The precedence of direct experience over doctrine has an impact on the way in which doctrine is presented by the pratyekabuddhas. This is illustrated in the story of a king who is very learned but who is dissatisfied with this mode of knowledge. He invites several pratyekabuddhas to give him a talk on dharma. The first does so, but in a disarmingly simple way, saying, “Let one be happy, O great king, let there be destruction of passion.” The king finds this “not very learned” and hopes on the morrow for a more “differentiated” discourse. Yet the next day and on the following days, each of the pratyekabuddhas teaches in the same way, with a few equally simple and apparently unlearned words: “Let there be destruction of hatred, destruction of delusion, destruction of coming into existence, destruction of samsara,” and so on. In the course of this, the king begins to reflect upon what they are saying. Eventually, he concludes, “These ascetics are very learned without explaining (the teaching); as by a man, while pointing with (his) finger at the great earth or at the sky, not only a spot of the measure of a finger is pointed out, but more the earth (or) the sky as such are pointed out, in the same way by these, while explaining one thing each, an immeasurable (number of) things has been explained.” The king wishes to be learned like this and so abandons his throne, enters upon the religious life, and attains pratyekabodhi (Sn-c 109-10 [K., 110]). Here we see an implicit critique by a meditative tradition of a preoccupation with doctrine: it is simplicity and penetration to the core meaning that are important, not sophistication of words and complex arguments.

Here’s a bit about the paccekabuddhas practicing jhāna:

Eventually, the time comes for the pratyekabuddha to enter final nirvana and to relinquish his human form. One such attainment of parinirvana is described in the texts: “Having played the game of the jhānas for three night-watches, taking hold of the plank of the meditation-support at the rise of dawn, based on this the paccekabuddha Mahapaduma entered the sphere of the nibbāna without residue of substratum. In this way all other (paccekabuddhas) also entered nibbdna” (Mrp 1:174 [K., 55]).

Here’s a bit where he mentions the Suttanipāta commentary:

This legend, as contained in the Suttanipdta commentary, tells us a number of interesting things. First, it depicts, in the pratyekabuddha’s context, two forms of renunciant life: town-and-village renunciation or settled monasticism, and forest renunciation. Second, the pratyekabuddha’s path is presented as the forest alternative to the settled and collective ideal. Third, there are certain limitations to the settled life, at least as seen from the viewpoint of the prospective pratyekabuddha: one might be attracted by the material comforts; seeking comforts could become a preoccupation in itself and a source of satisfaction; it might also produce resentment in those who did not receive as much as others; and this could distract from the religious life. The Suttanipdta commentary is, of course, late, and there is no telling the precise historical origin of the legends it recounts. Still, it is interesting that in the mind of later tradition, the pratyekabuddha could be seen as taking an alternative path to a more settled renunciant life, and that the more settled life could be seen as a steppingstone in the road to the radical renunciation of the pratyekabuddha. 51

1 Like

My final word on the subject, which I want to be positive, is that I think this book, where I learned about Ray’s book, is a much better example of modern Buddhist scholarship: https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Yoga-Tantra-Religions-Thirteenth/dp/0521695341. The subject matter is quite different, but includes not just textual studies, but also the results of archaeological research and numismatics. The first half of the book covers the early Buddhist period and then some. The second half is specifically about tantra. Anyway, he doesn’t make any wild claims, but always presents information very carefully and fairly. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in the evolution of Indian philosophy/religion.

1 Like

Cool. I had dinner with him once, nice chap!

This is studied in K.R. Norman book which I provided the link in my previous post above:

2 Likes

Though I’ve never seen a copy of it, I gather there’s some discussion of this in Martin Wiltshire’s doctoral thesis, The Origin of the Paccekabuddha Concept, later published under the title Ascetic Figures before and in Early Buddhism (Mouton de Gruyter 1990).

I attach three reviews of it: a short and largely favourable one by Mathieu Boisvert; a short and clinically critical one by K.R. Norman; and a long and pungently critical one by Steven Collins. Also attached is Wiltshire’s equally pungent rejoinder to Collins.

boisvert1992.pdf (172.3 KB)

norman1992.pdf (209.5 KB)

collins1992.pdf (545.7 KB)

wiltshire1993.pdf (569.9 KB)

5 Likes