Thanks @suaimhneas, I also like to listen to talks when I’m not actaully at the computer, which is why I much prefer mp3 files. I haven’t tried the website you mentioned yet but will. I’m not very technically literate so the simpler the better 
1 Like
Dharma became increasingly a highly intellectual exercise among Pandits and Scholars, few treatises were written by actual realized practitioners. Intellect is actually a barrier to realization as it creates mental proliferations rather than unification of mind and stilling of formations. Buddha emphasized listening and practicing according to true Dhamma for entering the stream and four stages of enlightenment. As such, Early Buddhist Texts and their proper translation and comprehension is important for all sincere practitioners.
The chief philosophical schools of Indian Mahayana were the Madhyamika, founded by Nagarjuna (2d cent. AD), and the Yogacara, founded by the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu (4th cent). Many Mahayanists and Tibetans are taught to believe that Mahayana teachings were taught by Buddha himself. And this story is false and must be known as such. The Prajñāpāramitā sutras commonly state that all dharmas (phenomena), are in some way like an illusion, dream or mirage…even Buddhahood and nirvana. Bodhisattvas delay enlightenment (of arahant kind) out of compassion with an aim to become Buddha through practice of prajnaparamita. In reality two vehicles can connect through our common humanity and each person is free to persue whatever suits her taste and temperament.
[History of Mahayana: Innovation and Perfection?]
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi_hqpIu-vk)
4 Likes
The Prajñāpāramitā sutras commonly state that all dharmas (phenomena), are in some way like an illusion, dream or mirage…even Buddhahood and nirvana.
The verse in the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita says that all conditioned dharmas are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, drops of dew, or flashes of lightning. The text also says they are all anatman, and that bodhisattvas should not dwell in them. That last point is perhaps the largest theme throughout the entire sutra (i.e. not abiding in conditioned dharmas).
The text does not say that Nirvana and Buddhahood are dharmas are conditioned, however. It says that all the Noble Ones are distinguished by the unconditioned Dharma (i.e. Nirvana).
2 Likes
Hmm. Since the Prajnaparamita sutras discounts even Buddhahood and Nirvana, the Prajnaparamita sutras also must be an illusion, dream or mirage, (IF) they are spoken by the illusory Buddha! This does not look or sound like the Dhamma realized and taught by Buddha via the middle way. Conditioned dharmas must be known and experienced by the mind before reaching the freedom of unconditioned.
Some History links.
From :- Reasoning - The Sixty Stanzas by Nagarjuna
First, the seeker for reality should be told that everything
exists. Later, when he has understood things and is free from
desire, he should be told that everything is vacuous.
Here it is from the horse’s mouth… worth a read, even if one chooses to disagree 
Santina - Nagarjuna.pdf (1.6 MB)
2 Likes
Mahayana was greatly influenced by Hindu non-dualism of Advaita-vedanta, Hindu Agamas, mythologies, deities, Avatara concept (lankavatara), deities, Avolokiteswara (Shiva), Tara (Kali, Shakti, Guan-yin). It is very important I feel to know the 4 stage enlightenment map and 31 plane of existence given by Buddha, which got lost in Mahayana and Vajrayana. The sensual realm (Kamaloka) the first 11 planes (matrix) are ruled by ‘Mara’. We need practice of virtue , wisdom and meditation to go beyond them. See Bhante Anandajoti: The Planes of Existence - YouTube
Doug of Secular Dharma describes the evolution of Mahayana thought from Not-self to Emptiness and returning to self again in the form of ‘Buddhanature’.
4 Likes
Excellent talk by Bhikkhu Bodhi, by the way, and a great example of how Buddhists should treat one another. If only we could have more Buddhists who are able to build bridges, find common ground, and find meaning in differences…
The existing traditions cover the early, middle, and late periods of Indian Buddhist teachings. Now these traditions are starting to interact more, and there is a lot of room for learning from one another. This will no doubt be a very gradual process, but I’m interested in seeing what can come from it.
4 Likes
Interestingly enough, one could argue that it is inherently non-Theravādin to conceive of it as a “vehicle.” But if we are going to adopt “three vehicle” terminology – pratyekabuddha, śrāvaka, bodhisattva – I think the best method is by dealing with the fact that the Mahāyāna is clearly the teachings also of other Buddhas than Gautama. The most holy of the Mahāyāna sūtras are spoken by Vairocana. We have sūtras spoken also by figures like Avalokiteśvara and Mañjuśrī who are not yet Buddhas. The issue is with a body of literature that has accidentally become ascribed to Gautama Buddha. This is actually often the norm in history. Josquin du Prez has far more motets attributed to him than he ever wrote. Some of his motets that Josquin du Prez never wrote are among his best. A lot that he never wrote is mediocre. There was a sheet music economy in Europe at one point trading almost exclusively in apocryphal du Prez polyphony based solely on the fame and buying power of that name. Everyone loves a brand, and “Śākyamuni-brand” is particularly popular at certain times and in certain places in history.
2 Likes
I finally had time to listen to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s talk. I have personally met him once and twice in a couple of retreats. Have great respect for his scholarship and dedication to Buddhadharma. What he says in the tape around 47 minute about Sumedha story and the way of Bodhisattva emerging(?) from that is something I am hearing first time. It somehow resonates with my own experience. I have witnessed though subtle and not so subtle disparagement of Theravada Arahat ideal and Asian Buddhist ‘baggage’ and downplaying of ethics (especially among some American teachers of Tibetan Vajrayana and mahayana lineage who still uses the extinct term ‘Hinayana’ in their teachings to distinguish them). Development is not always a linear or forward movement in human history, there are periods and pockets of darkness, violence, prejudice and regression even in the age of Enlightenment, Science and rational empirical scientific method. We do have an opportunity now to investigate and inquire into true Dharma, listen and practice true dharma, develop our own wise attention and recognize and honor the realization of noble ones in the four-fold sangha.
“Just as there is no diminishing or disappearance of gold when there is no counterfeit gold, when counterfeit dhamma is present it diminishes the value of the true dhamma and can completely obscure the true dhamma. In the same way, when there is no counterfeit dhamma in the world there will be no diminishing or disappearance of my teachings."
The most holy of the Mahāyāna sūtras are spoken by Vairocana. We have sūtras spoken also by figures like Avalokiteśvara and Mañjuśrī who are not yet Buddhas. The issue is with a body of literature that has accidentally become ascribed to Gautama Buddha
Is Vairochana ‘Shiva’ in disguise? If he is , then I do not think it was accidental. Perhaps, Theravada became more orthodox and patriarchal to protect itself from certain corruptions within ‘Mahayana tantric buddhism’.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/tibbudlectures.htm
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
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