More on Mahayana

It is, in fact, a common thing to openly follow more than one religion (including Mahayana) in East Asia. Theravadans may also follow Buddhism and other religions, though it tends to be more clandestine (so other rites are less likely to be openly practiced in the Buddhist temple). Early Jesuit missionaries in China found the idea of professing a combination of faiths especially difficult to get their heads around.

So we have in some Mahayana communities three yanas (vehicles (or ways)): the monk or nun way, the hermit way (pratyekabuddhayana) and the layperson way to be a good Buddhist. Walpola Rahula discusses these roles in this and Theravada contexts in his Zen and the Taming of the Bull. Many of Siddhartha’s immediate disciples chose the Arhat path open to them (I’ve mentioned in an earlier post how much easier it would be expected to be for them given his proximity to their lives – Christian and Muslim traditionists tend to have a similar view of people whose lives were directly touched in incarnate human terms by their respective main religious paragons). Rahula acknowledges (in agreement with what I wrote in an earlier post) that Theravadans honour the Bodhisattva way without according it the precedence over the other two that Mahayana Buddhism does.

In Mahayana theology, Arhathood tends not to be regarded as the end, in any event, as it is often seen as merely permitting a rest stage perhaps leading to a better re-birth but a re-birth all the same. This is clearly not the Theravada view. Their belief is that an Arhat is a “never-returner” by definition having attained nirvana.

The Lotus Sutra has another analogy that again attempts to explain the difference. Suppose we are together in the middle of a vast desert with Siddhartha (this desert is meant to be an analogy for the much-hated samsara of both Theravadan and Mahayana tradition). Then, out of compassion, Siddhartha causes a mirage so that we believe the end to the desert is near. In his compassion, then, he created this mirage (Arhathood) in order that we might be encouraged and strive to reach the end. Once we reach the mirage we will (perhaps unhappily) realise that it is a mirage but by then we will actually be much closer to the end of the desert and have more strength to get out of it than if there had been no mirage produced. So Buddha is not beyond telling at least one ‘white’ lie it seems, if the means can be justified by this most ultimate end: ultimate liberation. The sutra directly teaches that there is only one way out of the desert and that is Buddhahood (so Siddhartha, by ‘providing’ that sutra, at least makes good on his promise to unmask the mirage in the end).

The American Theravadan Jack Kornfield once joked “whether there are one or three, all vehicles will be towed away”.

Mahayana V Theravada discussion again (this time with the advantage of knowing a bit more about both)

I will now, cautiously, re-examine the alleged contrasts between ‘the earlier Buddhism’ and Mahayana Buddhism, to some extent in the light of the intervening information that I’ve been posting. If I could trust that I knew how to put workable tables on this blog I would but I don’t so I’ll just go through the dichotomies one by one.

The earlier Buddhism seems to have had an individualist orientation as opposed to the group orientation of Mahayana. The ideal was essentially the aloof quest to become an Arhat whereas with Mahayana it became a quest motivated by compassion to become the Bodhisattva ideal.

The earlier Buddhism, too, was focused on the role and separation of the religious orders in contrast with the many upaya that gave many laypeople more roles in Mahayana Buddhism than they ever might have possessed earlier. Some of the Mahayana sutras may be read as actually being anti-clerical. One sutra lauded the wisdom of a 12 year old girl in a story (in a hint of contrast with its relative lack in many monks – this also hints at a less sexist Buddhism (though the earlier Buddhism wasn't especially sexist either)).

The new system even had a third role or way (yana) in the Tibetan rites, that of the yogi hermit – neither lay nor bound by any rules of the vinaya (usually seeking Arhathood). Even within lay Tibetan ranks, certain high roles were also able to be established so that in a sense a post-Vatican II-like era of formalised lay involvement in “Church” government began.

It is reasonable to argue that a similar transformation appears to be occurring today and over the last 200 odd years in the Theravada-tradition countries although its inspiration is apparently recent and arguably Western. The idea of permitting married priests has still also arisen only in the Mahayana tradition (in parts of East Asia).

The earlier Buddhism was focused on psychology somewhat to the exclusion of cosmological questions whereas the Mahayana Buddhists were taught cosmology in substantially greater detail.

Self-effort was a teaching that stood out in the earlier Buddhism. The goal was to be one’s own philosopher. Mahayana Buddhism in various forms provided one on the other hand with useful incantations that might make it possible to commune with and learn from mystic teachers in other realms. So Buddhism became an easier religion to get on in, then, with the aid of others (even in other realms).

The very earliest Buddhism also (mostly) resisted ritual whereas the Mahayana rite embraced it much more fully.

The final contrast was cultural. The earlier Buddhism was conservative and exclusive but Mahayana Buddhism was liberal and inclusive. Its very existence was counted a liberal change by the conservative earlier forms. New skilful means were permitted to be learned from other religions, as alluded to in an earlier post. It is still possible in the Theravada tradition, however, though less common, to also have other religions. Exchanges arguably might even occur between Mahayana Buddhism and Western psychology (and do, in fact, with either side contributing to undermining ‘blockages’ in the other).

The reality is that there are progressive and conservative forces in both traditions but the contrasts do stand up to at least some extent. But the final picture is of course much more complex.

Classes of Mahayana Scriptures

For the purposes of study, it may be useful to list the types of scripture that exist and then discuss some of their class histories in the coming posts (groupings courtesy of Rupert Gethin):

“Perfection of Wisdom (Prajnaparamita)” Scriptures (that teach about the “emptiness” and Compassion of the Bodhisattva life)

Scriptures such as the “Dasabhumika Sutra” and “Bodhisattva-pitaka” (that set out stages on the Bodhisattva path)

Meditation Sutras (that teach about meditation)

“Mind-Only” Scriptures (that stress the way the mind “constructs” the world and getting past the self)

“Embryo of Tathagata” or “Buddha Nature” Scriptures (that teach of the Buddha within all of us – their taxonomy overlaps somewhat with that of the “Mind-Only” group)

Scriptures Central to East Asian Buddhism, especially (such as the Saddharmapundarika Sutra)

“Pure Land” Scriptures (regarding the “pure land” of Amitabha, the Buddha of Boundless Light)

The class believed to be the oldest in origin is the Prajnaparamita class and the oldest of the class is probably the “Perfection in 8,000 Lines (Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita)” being first written in 8,000 lines of Sanskrit. Paramita means perfection, Prajna means wisdom and the class is collectively called the Prajnaparamita sutras. They don’t have the clear historical moorings of any of the Tripitaka Canon (especially the first two pitaka) and their style is more poetic, certainly, than the 3^rd pitaka, the abhidharma, against the intellectualism of and scholasticism related to which they are thought, in part, to be a criticism. The style is also visionary and there is much allusion and reference to mythology and cosmology. We can regard it as somewhat breaking the so-called “noble silences” of Siddhartha concerning such things as I mentioned in an earlier post. It directly teaches the ultimate nature of reality in a less intellectualising and more intuitive way than the abhidharma does and promotes this form of teaching over the way of the scholastics. The symbol of the sword as seen in pictures and statues of the Buddha Manjusri as below is often used in its imagery:

This sword possibly symbolises the radical and heroic nature of Mahayana Buddhism and also the tool (prajña) required to ‘cut away’ all illusion. The realisation expected in this state of prajña is that all is nothingness or no thing-ness (sunyata) so in effect the sword, too, is an illusion. It is the ineffable true nature of ‘things’ that there is no thing. Those who developed these ideas realised that this would be regarded (and perhaps disparaged) as nihilism (and suggest that prospect as the reason it wasn’t the first thing that Siddhartha taught). It’s more radical even than non-self. The world is likened to things like a dream or a flame. Even nirvana is so regarded and, in case we think there is anything or anywhere else that could exist or not or both or neither, we’re told there isn’t anything else that isn’t no thing-ness, too.

Traditionally, these teachings were withheld until a Bodhisattva was well into the Bodhisattva path. Anyone else, proponents argued, would certainly misuse them. They are taught as the answer but only for the so-initiated. The powers (cittis) that are said to come from meditation in the jhanas for such people include the ability to walk through walls, teleport, fly and read minds but are themselves taught as being unwanted distractions (at best) from arriving at the final truth of sunyata. They are in fact temptations that may lead to pride, which is certainly undesirable. The cittis are really regarded as quite dangerous for those reasons.

It is unclear how literally this belief in no thing-ness is meant to be taken. Perhaps the idea is simply meant to make ‘letting go’ of ‘things’ easier (since if they don’t really exist in the first place it can’t make sense to ‘hold on’ to ‘them’). Letting go is after all what ‘the doctor (Siddhartha)’ ordered.

Mahayana sutras say things like ‘awakening is openness’, ‘awakening is liberation rather than negation’ and ‘awakening is radiance, awareness and beauty’ so it can’t really be nothing. It may be both nothing and something, though. No opinion (drsti) of this can be anything other than limited, of course, because all of our elaborations (prapancas) of the world are limited of necessity. The ideas are regarded as quite scary from a normal human perceptual viewpoint. Sunyata is the basic focus of the second turning.

The “Mind-Only” class (and the classes below) are regarded as firmly within the third turning.

The “Mind-Only” sutras, especially, are about ‘getting over ourselves’, basically.

The “Embryo of Tathagata” or “Buddha Nature” class are all about us having the same kind of mind as Siddhartha’s and other Buddhas’ and the consequence that we all have the potential to be Buddhas.

As I wrote above, the group I’m calling “Scriptures Setting out the Stages of the Bodhisattva Path” includes the Dasabhumika Sutra. This sutra sets out ten stages (bhumas) on the Bodhisattva Path each perfecting a different Buddha quality. On this scale Prajnaparamita is only stage six. Stage seven (perfecting upaya) is how we learn to teach others the first six. Whether the stages need to be undergone in order isn’t entirely clear, although it seems likely. Here are the names of the ten in order from one to ten:

Perfection of: Name of Stage:

Generosity Joyous

Good Conduct Stainless

Patience Radiant

Vigour Resplendent

Meditative Concentration (Dhyana) Invincible

Wisdom Face-to-Face

Upaya Far-Reaching

Determination Unshaking

Strength Excellent

Knowledge Cloud of Dharma

The scriptures central to East Asian Buddhism, especially, include the well-known sutra “Lotus of the True Dharma” or simply the Lotus Sutra.

The “Pure Land” sutras discuss at least one other realm (perhaps more) that one may get in touch with/get to in order to progress to Buddhahood faster and/or more easily. Some Japanese “Pure Land” sects teach that reciting the Japanese version of Amitabha (the name of the Buddha that rules a “Pure Land” realm – he may be regarded by many as the head of all the Buddhas) will lead to rebirth in his realm. Here ‘he’ is (with my obligatory feminist ‘scare quotes’):

Amitabha in Japan (from Wikipedia)

The meditation sutras are about just that (meditation). The Pratyuptpanna-buddha-samukhavasthita-samadhi Sutra teaches how to get to meet the Buddhas face-to-face during meditation (and that’s basically the meaning of the long title).

More on the Controversy and Mahayana Buddhism

So I’ve referred to the great Buddhist controversy and noted that the Mahayana tradition came out on top in India and eventually North Asia via Tibet and Afghanistan. But let’s examine what the actual controversy meant in real terms. It really comes down to Arhat v Bodhisattva and also to where Siddhartha might be today.

The Mahayanan Lotus Sutra tries to explain why there have needed to be these two Buddhisms. It gives the story of a man talking his children out of a burning building by offering them temptations such as beautifully carved rhinoceros toys as an aid. The idea here is that the idea of nirvana being desirable was the temptation humans needed to persuade us out of our old lives. It is certainly true that we can achieve nirvana but that man probably wouldn’t recommend that his children play with toys all day once the emergency has passed and neither did Siddhartha (in this role as a loving father) recommend that we all seek nirvana even though we may selfishly choose to (in our roles as ignorant children). This splitting also appears to be a feature of at least Christianity and Islam, to an extent (along the lines I mentioned in at least one earlier post – competing morality and wisdom traditions seem to coexist in most religions).

Far from being a simple and invented way out for laypeople to get more of the trinkets, the Mahayana School saw itself as offering the most mature way to be a Buddhist directly approved by Siddhartha. This partly gets to where Siddhartha is now and how there can possibly be new scriptures goes along with that. Apparently monks could still access him after his parinibbana (when they meditated).

I’ve mentioned the idea that the Mahayana view was a cult of some kind. One example of a version of Mahayana that may indeed be viewed as a cult is the mainly Japanese Ni Chi Ren Sho Shu Ha (日蓮系諸宗派 in Japanese) or NiChiRen Buddhism. Ni Chi Ren was a 13^th Century Buddhist who became its inspiration. This sect focuses today on the Lotus Sutra (the sutra from which the ‘burning building’ parable I’ve just discussed came). Pronouncing its short title in Japanese is said to have ‘magical’ results. In some sense this Sutra is also said to actually be Siddhartha (or perhaps some kind of composite of the Buddhas). Tina Turner has been a devotee of this cult. Things like levitation are possible according to various versions of Mahayana Buddhism especially.

A particular effect of the advent of the Mahayana tendency to innovate was that this vaipulya Buddhism could now cross-pollinate with indigenous religions such as Chinese Daoism, Japanese Shinto and Tibetan Bön even more easily. As a matter of authority, however, Mahayana belief is that their Canonical works are teachings of Siddhartha’s “second and third turnings” during his lifetime. What precisely that means isn’t entirely clear today but it appears that the second and third turning teachings were first taught in the order suggested by their names by Siddhartha during his lifetime after he had already been enlightened and teaching the “first turning” (often but not always accepted as the Tripitaka – sometimes Mahayana Buddhists prefer to exclude the abhidharma, often decried as too intellectualising, as any actual teaching of Siddhartha) for 16 years. The sravakas (hearers) were reckoned to only be ready for the idea of striving for Arhathood for the first 16 years. The second turning was apparently taught at one place but the third turning may have been taught much more widely. The Mahayana beliefs include the idea that the written teachings were hidden for many years by semi-divine snake-like beings called nagas (see below):

(From Wikipedia – guarding a temple in Vientiane)

The nagas are also known more generally in Indian religions as keepers of esoteric learning. The tradition continues that in around the year 1 BCE or CE around 500 teachers of what became known as Mahayana Buddhism held a conference at Mount Abu (now in Rajasthan in North West India) and there made the decision to reveal the hidden scriptures and begin to teach their meaning(s). To be continued...

The Split within Buddhism as an argument over the Abhidharma – Mahayana

Early in the tradition of Buddhism there were as many as eighteen schools of thought (and perhaps more than 30 have been discerned by modern scholars). Of these, a group called the Mahasanghika (Greater Assembly) proved the most controversial. Within India, their position became the majority viewpoint while Sthaviravadans (“keepers of the doctrine of the elders” – now called Theravadans with the same meaning but in Pali in Sri Lanka and south-east Asia) became the main opposition party. In India, the Sthaviravadan School became the Sarvastivadan School later responsible for the lost Sanskrit Canon. Another school (the Pudgalavadins (personal exponents) or Vatsiputriyas) believed in the actual existence of a soul (person – pudgala) beyond the skandas. The idea of the transmigration of ‘souls’ from lifetime to lifetime was also a controversial area (among many others). The Pudgalavadins were among those that sailed closest to the wind, which is part of the reason for their development of the idea of the pudgala. It was all very scholastic.

I mentioned in an earlier post that there were two accepted councils in the first hundred years after Siddhartha’s death. There was actually a second 2^nd council soon after the 2^nd council and soon after that the Mahasanghika split occurred. Mahayana Buddhism owes something to the Mahasanghika view but it is certainly a different view. The advent of Mahayana (after firstly being brought into existence) as the major of the two streams of Buddhism by the 5^th Century CE (as reported by 5^th Century Chinese pilgrims - the minor stream became Theravada) wasn’t simply brought on by an argument over abhidharma (although the existence of two versions presented that opportunity) but that was part of it. An orthodox Buddhism beyond the abhidharma had developed that was questioned and Buddhism had no problem intrinsically with any questioning. As I mentioned in an earlier post, monks and nuns could happily exist in the same communities for a long time despite holding different views.

Ultimately, though, disagreement upon Canon inclusions and especially the acceptable form of the vinaya forced new communities to be formed. Mahayanans still accepted the Sarvastivadan Canon in full, however. The scriptures that distinguish the Mahayana view appear to have been written around the time the Pali Canon was written but tradition asserts an earlier ultimate inspiration directly from Siddhartha (as does the tradition of the Pali Canon, of course). The name “Mahayana” probably arose in the 3^rd or 4^th Century CE possibly along with the derogatory “Hinayana” euphemistically translated as “the lesser way or vehicle”.

In this period the ‘Buddhist’ Mauryan Empire established by Asoka with its capital near modern-day Patna on the Ganges and extending to southern India and Afghanistan and Pakistan had been broken up by invasions from the north-west. Many of the invaders had taken on the Buddhist religion in some form for the same reasons Indians and others did (discussed in an earlier post). Two new Buddhist strongholds formed: one in the north-west of the old Empire under Kusana rule and one in the south. A further settlement project had occurred in Sri Lanka. Much later (by around the 13^th Century) Buddhism had virtually died out completely in India itself.

The disagreement in the views had to do with the ultimate aim of Buddhism.

The conservatives who had virtually fled to Sri Lanka believed the object of Buddhism was the making of Arhats as soon as possible. This process was individual and to be undergone essentially by the monks. Other Theravada Buddhists could really only hope to be reborn as monks before they could get to this stage in their own existences. This view meant that each monk was only responsible for achieving his own nirvana and thus becoming free of his own cycle of death and rebirth. They did, however, accept (naturally, as Mahayana arguments made a lot of sense within Buddhism) that Bodhisattva- and Buddha-hood were noble enterprises (while yet not accepting that they were superior pathways).

This view also had it that this was all Siddhartha had taught and that to teach anything else was to corrupt his message. The proto-Mahayana views, they held, claimed that the Arhat was still a conditioned being and that Siddhartha had planned something different for them.

This was actually a misrepresentation of the Mahayana view which was that the Arhat did become unconditioned but shouldn’t. He should rather pull back so that he might benefit others (I write “he” because nuns and other women were probably not considered as likely to arrive at being a potential Arhat in the first place).

The Theravadans were also most keen to stress the humanity of Siddhartha. The idea that he truly had a super human quality and was actually enlightened before the lifetime in which he taught Buddhism was another Mahayana view that they opposed. On that view, his whole life as Siddhartha was a teachable moment for humanity undergone due to this enlightened being’s extreme compassion.

But the Vaipulya (expanded – Mahayana) view gained the ascendency based on the newly recognised Vaipulya scriptures. There were five distinguishing features of the new teachings that led to claims of superiority:

1) It was better to also help others (as the historical Buddha, himself, did) rather than merely achieve nirvana for oneself only, as the Arhats did (thus the idea of being a Bodhisattva or Buddha was better than the idea of being an Arhat);

2) The more traditional view had wrongly changed since the time of Siddhartha to exclude even nuns from the possibility of Arhathood (thus the expanded teaching also accorded better with the original teaching, though there were several sub-views concerning the enlightenment potential of laypeople);

3) More upaya (ways to become enlightened) became available according to these scriptures (so Buddhism was actually easier than it had been claimed to be – even a king could remain a king and still become enlightened, though this hadn’t been Siddhartha’s path);

4) The newly revealed scriptures and thus commentaries upon them had a more comprehensive cosmology and ontology that also incorporated the first three features well (so it had a coherent theology); and

5) It had more canonical scriptures (84,000) so this made Buddhism easier to understand fully.

The Mahayanans claimed in addition that these teachings were genuine but had been initially hidden for the good reason that it was first necessary for a sufficient number of people to understand the traditional teachings before a critical mass could appreciate the expanded teachings. So these were the real teachings of gnosis. One particular correction to the old view was that Buddhas could in fact (and potential Arhats should also aim to) remain in existence in some sense beyond their parinirvana (for the good of others). The ultimate Mahayana view was that there were actually three so-called “turnings of the wheel of dharma” begun by Siddhartha and that the old Canons represented the first, only, of the turnings.

The opposing view also asserted that the Mahayana view was an innovation produced by simply bowing to popular pressure. There have been six Western scholarly views (all but the last of which are still held by some scholars):

1) The ‘new’ scriptures were the centre of a new “cult” of Buddhism;

2) The Mahayana view was a speculation prompted by new ideas within Hinduism (including the Bhakti tendency) as well as other Indian religions;

3) It was an anti-intellectualism anti-abhidharma trend and a trend towards a more holistic approach to Buddhism;

4) It was a set of ideas derived during meditation during which Buddhas had been encountered and had taught the meditators (the scriptures themselves support this idea);

5) Mahayana Buddhism was simply realised to be in the true spirit of the original teachings of Siddhartha (c.f. “the second and third turnings of the wheel of dharma” idea – further turnings may yet perhaps be realised); and

6) Some Japanese scholars especially suggested that pressure from the laity (Japanese priests marry
suggesting susceptibility to the scholars) led to Mahayana Buddhism (note that this view also agrees
with the traditional view).

Abhidharma Commentaries – Vasubandhu in Sanskrit on the now partially lost Sanskrit Canon

There has been a tradition of commentaries on the two earliest canons and especially their abhidharmas culminating in one great commentary each. The great commentary on the more important Sanskrit one for Indian Buddhism was written by a Peshawar scholar called Vasubandhu and is called Abhidharmakosa. Early translations were also made into Chinese and Tibetan. The great commentary on the Pali Canon was written in Pali in Sri Lanka by Buddhaghosa and is called Visuddhmagga.

Vasubandhu was a noted commenter on the abhidharma and the religious life. The stages of jhana mediation/mindfulness all have detailed levels of reality within them for him. Nirvana (or at least the ninth level of jhana) apparently could not be returned from without exercise of will before entering it that one should later exit it. Buddha apparently achieved parinirvana directly from the fourth jhana. Adepts could obtain noticeable supernatural powers. Vasubandhu apparently generally preferred the vipassana form of meditation practice. The so-called “contemplation of the horrible” is another form used that may include the use of objects such as a corpse or a piece of clay.