Bridging the two vehicles by Bhikkhu Bodhi

He’s akin to Shiva in the sense that Vairocana was originally an epithet of the Buddha, who was often described as being like the sun shining to destroy the darkness of ignorance. That imagery was then turned into a personification of a past Buddha. It’s possible he may have been also the result of influence from some other sun deity that Buddhists encountered.

In general, Mahayana was the result of a period of intense religious creativity. It was similar and during the same time period as the intense creativity that existed in early Christianity. And as with Christianity, the religious institutions threatened by it codified their scriptures, defined heresies, and so forth to put a stop to all the variant ideas and mythologies that were being circulated. We should also bear in mind that much of the initial burst of mythological creativity wasn’t by Mahayanists, but rather by other schools of Buddhism in India that were writing texts like the Mahavastu an the Jataka stories.

4 Likes

I started out practicing Mahayana (Vajrayana, to be exact), and transitioned to Theravada a few years later. I went to Thailand straight from India, where I had been staying in a small village and mostly meditating. After arriving in Thailand, I learned about a certain prominent, senior Thai disciple of Ajahn Cha (I’ll just call him Tan Ajahn) who was friendly to the idea of the Mahayana. Much of what I’m about to say I learned from a Western Theravada bhikkhu who is a student of Tan Ajahn. I did spend some time at Tan Ajahn’s monastery, and did speak with him a few times about this topic, though. However, since I wasn’t a bhikkhu, there were certain things he couldn’t tell me directly.

Tan Ajahn acknowledges the existence of the Mahayana path, but doesn’t see it as the only path. My Western monk friend keeps bodhisattva precepts. Tan Ajahn never told him it was heretical, only that, “It’s a very long path.” Tan Ajahn is widely regarded as an arahant. I believe he is, too. He is able to see devas, has knowledge of past lives, and all that good stuff. He has seen bodhisattvas, too, like Avalokiteśvara. Tan Ajahn has said that the kamma created by taking and reinforcing the bodhisattva vows will pull back a mind that is about to “enter the stream.” Since becoming a sotapana would mean they only have 7 lives left before checking out of samara completely, a would-be bodhisattva obviously can’t allow themselves to do that. So that’s one way of reconciling the Theravada and Mahayana. That’s how I do it.

I can’t speak for anyone else, like the Dharma Drum folks, but they might have similar thoughts on the matter. You also have to remember that the Mahayana never said Theravada is false and heretical (like Theravadins have done about Mahayana). So there’s no conflict for them if they acknowledge the EBTs. Acknowledging the EBTs doesn’t necessarily mean renouncing the Mahayana. Also, Chinese culture and traditions are very strong. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but Chinese Buddhism is very Chinese. Of all the forms of Buddhism that have come to the West, the Chinese variety is the one that’s spread the least (not counting the Chinese living abroad). I don’t think it would be very easy for a Chinese monk to publicly throw away all the Mahayana stuff. Even the monks at Dabei Monastery still do everything in the Chinese way, they just keep strict vinaya, and practice thudong and dhutangas. A Chinese monk ordaining in a Theravada tradition and promoting only the EBTs is another matter, though.

There’s a theory that the Mahayana arose as the result of the visions experienced in deep meditative states by forest monks. Considering what I’ve heard from Tan Ajahn, who knew nothing about this theory, it seems at least partially credible (but totally unprovable).

1 Like

That’s Chakrasamvara.

1 Like

The vast majority of Mahayana sutras have Gautama Buddha as the main figure, so it was no accident. There are a small handful of texts that feature Vairocana Buddha, but they’re a tiny minority. Most notably the Mahavairocana Abhisambodhi Tantra, an early tantra used by Shingon Buddhism. Vairocana is featured in the Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra, but he doesn’t appear as the main teacher in the text. That’s still Gautama Buddha.

The Heart Sutra features Avalokitesvara giving a discourse on Prajnaparamita, but that is a highly unusual text and very different in form from the “normal” Mahayana sutras out of India.

For connections with Shiva, the main figure that I’m aware of in which there is some convergence, is Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva. The original concept for Avalokitasvara is from the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra. In that text, the bodhisattva listens to those who recite his name, which is why his original name ends in -svara. Later, though, his name was changed to Avalokitesvara. There are some other alternate names as well, such as Lokesvara, Lokanatha, Padmapani, and even Nilakantha (epithet for Shiva). The Karandavyuha Sutra was probably instrumental in this type of development.

1 Like

Bingo.

I was born Catholic, and although I left, I still study it and many other religions. I have been doing that for three decades now, primarily because studying why people believe what they believe fascinates me.

All belief systems change. Some of them quite dramatically. I think the reasons for these changes can be distilled into 3 interconnected reasons:

  • To resolve internal inconsistencies and disputes

  • To curry political favor and economic power

  • To encourage greater participation among lay people/believers.

Changes happen for a reason. Usually for valid reasons that are specific to their context. If the disastrous experiment of Protestant Christianity is any guide, you can’t just slice off all the supposed historical baggage just because you don’t like it. If you don’t engage with that history, you don’t have organic growth and development, and instead you have a you have a banal, on the spot product that holds as much spiritual water as a sieve, and as soon as circumstances change again, that stripped down version becomes less palatable. For this reason, evangelical Christianity is swiftly losing adherents to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and the evangelicals that remain are adopting more “popish ritual”

1 Like

If that assumption is true, then many of the qualities attributed to the Buddha wouldn’t be true, namely: Awakened, perfected, fully accomplished in knowledge and conduct. If one doesn’t have experiential confidence in these qualities of the Buddha and actually is confident the Buddha doesn’t have these qualities, it seems like stream entry, as described in the EBTs, would be impossible for that person.

I’m not even sure how one could make much sense of the EBTs if one had faith the Buddha didn’t possess these qualities.

3 Likes

Okay. Well, this is not a view that I have.

2 Likes

Not at all. According to Buddhaghosa, there are three main soteriological paths: the path of the Buddhas (buddhayāna); the way of the individual Buddhas (paccekabuddhayāna); and the way of the disciples (sāvakayāna).

I think the three vehicles idea is pretty pan Buddhist. I can’t think of a school that rejected it. Of course there are different interpretations of it, but the basic idea is shared by all.

The main difference in Theravada (shared by Sarvastivada) is that to be a bodhisattva you have to take a vow in front of a living Buddha and receive a prediction of future Buddhahood. This is different than in Mahayana, where you can take bodhisattva vows without being in front of a living Buddha.

2 Likes

It’s fair to ask questions, consider alternatives, and look at the evidence in the EBT’s themselves. Asking difficult questions and investigating them is important to learning more about the texts.

Buddhists have been discussing the qualities of enlightenment, and the qualities of the Buddha, since the beginning. And there is a range of different depictions of the Buddha and his qualities within the EBT’s themselves.

1 Like

It sounds like I overreacted. Sorry about that.

3 Likes

I believe that this desire to ‘improve the Buddhas teachings’ is really the epitome of conceit of self, and is based on an incomplete understanding of what the Buddha actually taught. Unfortunately, it is only a tiny number of individuals (on a global scale) that have moved beyond these conditions and are able to know and see based on direct experience. For that very reason, I think the scholarship on the authenticity of the Buddhas teachings is so vital. The integrity of this scholarship is key, as the temptation (based on delusion) to think that the things one doesn’t agree with or understand must be corruptions, and to make those ‘corrections’ is always there in the background.

We know that there are some corruptions in the texts, and I hope that the knowledge of these will spread over time. Sadhu to all the careful sutta scholars working to achieve this :pray: :pray: :pray:

In fact, just this morning I was discussing this, with regard to some ‘corrupted’ text involving the portrayal of women. The damage that these ‘corruptions’ do on both a personal and on a ‘sasana’ level is pretty awful to witness.

With regards to the OP I think it is imperative to be able to acknowledge what are the direct teachings of the Buddha, and what are later works that expand or modify the teachings. It is all about knowing the difference and then making an informed choice about which modes of practice to pursue. Otherwise, we are just willfully propagating delusion. Please Note this is nothing to do with judgments about good or bad - but just about being as clear as possible on the ascertainable facts. As always there are huge individual variations about what helps and what hinders progress on the Path at different times for different individuals. Informed choice doesn’t restrict choice, it is just about clear seeing.

With much metta :dharmawheel: :sunflower: :butterfly:

6 Likes

Ven. Yin Shun in 《雜阿含經論會編》[Combined Edition of Sutra and Sastra of the Samyukta-agama] p. 2 states that the most fundamental teachings of the Buddha are found in the sutra-anga portion of SA (SN):

《雜阿含經論會編》 序 p. 2: “「修多羅」分陰、處、因緣、聖道四大類,在《雜阿含經》的集成中,「修多羅」是最早的,正是如來教法的根本所在。”

This major part of SA (SN) is regarded by Ven. Yin Shun as an essential component for Buddhist traditions, both Mahayana and Hinayana/Early Buddhist Schools. Such a teaching, which includes the early Buddhist texts of SA (SN), is also today’s Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, influenced by Ven. Yin Shun.

It goes both ways though, self conceit could also lead to the idea that one has found the one absolute spiritual teaching and that therefore, one does not need to learn anything else and that no other tradition, religion or philosophy is valuable. This is a conceit one sees among certain EBT fundamentalists online as of late.

3 Likes

This may sound argumentative and perhaps even like a fundamentalist.

What if it’s true, though, that the Buddha is perfected, fully awakened, who teaches truth (Dhamma) good in the beginning, middle, and end? If we have experiential confidence in these qualities of the Buddha consistently expressed in the EBTs and the Dhamma he teaches, it seems like it might be unwise to seek other teachers and teachings just for the sake of not wanting to appear conceited.

On the other hand, perhaps you’re suggesting to be careful about being so sure one has found the teachings of a perfected one before one has actually investigated and verified this to be true or at least likely? This approach sounds useful.

1 Like

This is tricky, especially given that conceit in English has two meanings, one of which is close to idea/belief.

So if paraphrase very slightly:

It goes both ways though, self conceit could also lead to the idea that one has found the one absolute spiritual teaching and that therefore, one does not need to learn anything else and that no other tradition, religion or philosophy is valuable. This is a belief one sees among certain EBT fundamentalists online as of late.

and add this to it

does the problem remain?

Not necessarily, but it does potentially. And it’s up to each individual practionioner/believer to guard against any unnecessary conceit about this view.

2 Likes

To get back to that general point I had made about the progressive nature of the Buddhist tradition over the millennia, an example is the current trend of gender equality and the deconstruction of gender as a concept. If we only read EBTs (and I don’t just mean Theravada suttas when I say EBTs), we would think that early Buddhists were sexists, and that’s the end of the story. Our current trends about gender equality appear to be brand new ideas foreign to Buddhist thought.

But that would not be true. Mahāyānists were deconstructing gender as a concept 1500 years ago. There’s, for example, this passage in the Commentary on the Prajñā Pāramitā Sutra that specifically chooses gender to explain the contemplation of signlessness and engages in a debate with a doubter. They also wrote sutras that bluntly refuted women’s supposed spiritual inferiority by depicting laywomen and female bodhisattvas as equal to any traditional male disciple (or even as more advanced, in the case of the arhats like Sariputra). See for example the Queen Śrīmālā Sutra, Sumati’s Questions Sutra, and the Gaṅgottara Sutra.

So, I personally think that there’s a bigger picture that exists when we look at the Buddhist tradition as a whole. There was a general movement towards a more realistic understanding that begins with EBTs, is refined in Abhidharma, and reaches a kind of post-modern conclusion in Mahayana writings. It seems parallel in a very general way to the arc of thought that took place in the Christian world. We’ve to some extent been re-inventing wheels Buddhists had devised about 1500 years ahead of us.

6 Likes

Let’s hope Western post-modernism learns to balance emptiness with compassion soon!

1 Like

Thank you for sharing this information. :pray:

1 Like

One thing I’ve been wondering is since the Chinese language doesn’t have gendered nouns, like Pali, Sanskrit, and some modern Romance languages do, and the subject of a sentence is often times dropped in Chinese, does a lot of the subtle sexist feeling found in the Pali suttas disappear? I know that “bhiskhu” was directly translated and included in the Agamas, but what about the rest of the sutras?

Sometimes it’s not obvious until you hit some context that makes it clear that “people” are really men in the passage. For example, there might be some discussion of the fourth precept that uses the term “person,” but then all the examples are from the point of view of men. So, yeah, classical Chinese is tricky that way. You can be reading along for a page and then some specific context will make an assumption obvious. And it’s not overall that much different any other ancient literature. Mostly men were writing and reading it, so it’s often implicitly from a male perspective.

3 Likes