Talk:Mahayana sutras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Buddhism This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Mahayana sutras, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I'm thinking of redirecting this page to Buddhist Texts : Mahayana texts section. Anyone object?

Contents

[edit] Intorduction and Reorganisation of first parts

i reorganized the first parts. the introductory part now is very short. I do not see any reason, why the debate about the origin of the texts should be included already in the introductory section. Therefore i moved it to "histoticity and origins" where it belongs. Also, the content of the Lotus Sutra is not important for the introduction...its age might as well be.

Maybe the introductory section has to be redone.

The most basic facts about the Mahayana Sutras imho are: 1. they are buddhist scriptures 2. mahayana buddhists base their faith/philosophy on them 3. their approximate date of origin

all else can be subject of debate... 84.44.215.59 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity and orgins

I have made some cuts to this article. The purported connection between the Mahayana sutras and the Fourth Council of Kanishka is quite spurious. I really don't know who started this myth, but it is wrong. Other features of this article are also dubious. The Mahayana legend of the Naga guardianship of the sutras is not universal. Much could be done to improve this article in order to refect modern scholarship on the origins of Mahayana sutras. There is also a subtle POV slant towards the Theravada view -- the implication is that the Theravada view of its canon is the touchstone for authenticity. In fact, the Theravadin canon is equally open to question.--Stephen Hodge 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See my reply at talk:Buddha - God or Man greetings, Sacca 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, the reason why I cut the linkage between the Kanishka Council and Mahayana is because it is extremely dubious: no reputable modern scholar accepts this. Can you come up with some non-POV proof ? The Kanishka Council was a purely Sarvastivadin affair. So I intend to revert to my previous edit. The orgin of Mahayana sutras is extremely complex and should not be dealt with in this simplistic outmoded manner -- in fact, they were probably first composed in the Deccan area, not in Kashmir and that region. If you have specialized in the origins of Mahayana sutras, I would like to hear your findings.
As I mentioned in talk:Buddha - God or Man, there is no non-POV proof that the Pali canon is very much older than Mahayana sutras - a little older, I would concede, but not more than 150 years. They are both as authentic or inauthentic as each other in terms of content.
I mentioned the Anguttara-nikaya. Compare the contents with the Ekottara-nikaya presrved in the Chinese canon. It's immediately obvious that there is a huge amount of new material included in the AN.
Do you recognize that the Pali Canon was decided to be closed at the third council? And that there existed a second and first council at approximately the same time as they are commonly believed to have taken place? Or do you maybe believe this did actually never take place, and the whole scripture was invented in the first cenury BC? greetings, Sacca 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Buddha - god or man talkpage

Dear Sacca, concerning the Mahayana sutras, you say: "to me they are just later writings, put into the mouth of the Buddha to give them more authority. This is just the historical background-information. So, I like to always make the historical status of a text clear, and I think the historicity of texts does matter". But the same applies to large numbers of the suttas in the Pali canon or the other Agamas -- for example, more than half of the Anguttara-nikaya is clearly of late composition. The Pali canon is highly stratified, both in terms of text and ideas, which indicates that it had a long history of development. It is also noteworthy that the Pali canon was first put into writing around 29BCE, a similar date to the early Mahayana sutras. Apart from some prior epigraphic mentions and quotes, there is actually no evidence for the existence of the Pali canon earlier than the manuscript tradition that is supposed to start around 29BCE. It is likely that very little of the Pali canon (suttas and vinaya) as we have it now represents the actual words of the Buddha. In other words, the suttas in the Pali canon too are later compositions, put in the mouth of the Buddha to give them more authority -- most were probably composed around the time of Asoka and later . Then only difference between the suttas in the Pali canon and the Mahayana sutras is that the composition of the Pali suttas was done a bit earlier than the Mahayana sutras. As user Tony says, one's choice of authoritative sutras all comes down to a matter of faith --Stephen Hodge 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is not true. The agamas are of a different lineage than the Pali Canon, and are very similar to it. This provided the proof that science required, that those scriptures, which come from different monastic traditions (in geographically seperated locations), have a common source in time and place, one much older than the Mahayana Sutras. Because of this, the date at which the Pali Canon has been written down is not of much consequence. These scriptures existed long before they were written down: in the monastic tradition (of human beings) they were transmitted from generation to generation. A method which was also used for (parts of) the Hindu Vedas. That this method worked is proven by the Agamas, for which the same method was used before they were written down, and which are very similar in content to the Pali Canon (excepting the Abhidhamma of course)

Further: the Mahayana scriptures were composed in the first century AD. The fact that some of them incorporated ideas which can be traced back to the 1st century BC does not change the date of composition of those sutras. This should be accuratedly reflected in the article.

Also Mahayana Buddhism recognizes the teachings of the Pali Canon and the Agamas as older: see for example the theory of the three turnings, which puts the 'Hinayana' as the first turning. Both the Agamas and the Pali Canon come from the early buddhist schools, and in fact they derive from different early schools. It is interesting to see the history of those schools: they did not make arguments about the Sutta-pitaka or the Vinaya-Pitaks, but strictly about Abhidhamma(pitaka). This again indicates that the first two pitakas were very similar amongst those early schools, and that the Abhidhammas, as a later development, differed, which gave rise to arguments.

Consequently I will put most of what you deleted on the Mahayana Sutras back. Please feel free to go to Anguttara Nikaya and put in any data you honestly believe is true. greetings, Sacca 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, The likelihood that parts of the agamas and the nikayas derive from a common source is well-known, though it should be noted that the written evidence for the Agamas is also very late. However, you have no evidence of dating apart from supposition. You say that "these scriptures existed long before they were writing down". How would set about proving this ? Strictly speaking, one could say that this is merely POV, since it cannot be established by any means. See, for example:
"We know, and have known for some time, that the Pali canon as we have it - and it is generally conceded to be our oldest source - cannot be taken back further than the last quarter of the first century BCE, the date of the Alu-vihara redaction, the earliest redaction that we can have some knowledge of, and that - for a critical history - it can serve, at the very most only as a source for the Buddhism of this period. But we also know that even this is problematic since as Malalasekera has pointed out '...how far the Tipitaka and its commentary reduced to writing at Alu-vihara resembled them as they have come down to us now, no one can say.' In fact, it is not until the time of the commentaries of Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala, and others - that is to say the fifth to sixth centuries C.E. - that we can know anything definite about the actual contents of this canon. We also know that there is no evidence to indicate that a canon existed prior to the Alu-vihara redaction. Although Ashoka in his Bhabra Edict specifically enjoined both monks and laymen to recite certain texts, which he named, he nowhere in his records gives any indication that he knew of a canon, or the classification of texts into nikayas." Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (p23-4), Gregory Schopen (Univ of Hawai'i 1997)
The precise dating of Mahayana sutras is not the problem: it is the failure to recognize that the Nikayas / Agamas are likely for the large part to have been composed over a period of several centuries after the Buddha died. Theravadins don't like to hear this, but to put it rather crudely, most of the Pali suttas are as fake as the Mahayana sutras -- they were just faked a bit befoe the Mahayana ones.
You claim an authentic oral tradition for the Pali canon with no evidence apart from inference based on presupposition. One could easily apply the same logic to the Mahayana sutras, with the same level of proof.
You say, "Mahayana Buddhism recognizes the teachings of the Pali Canon and the Agamas as older". No, it doesn't in any meaningful way. The account of the three turnings relates to sutras expounded in the Buddha's own lifetime.


You say, "It is interesting to see the history of those schools: they did not make arguments about the Sutta-pitaka or the Vinaya-Pitakas". This is wrong -- not a lot of literature survives from these schools, but they certainly did argue about the interpretation of Sutra and Vinaya topics. It was also well-known that different schools had some sutras in the Agamas which others did not, Vasubandhu mentions this problem in his Abhidharmakosa-bhasya.--Stephen Hodge 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Until now, your 'evidence' just concerns the fact that it is not written down until that time. Current scholars have long since moved on to the scripture itself, and focuses on the language used as a method of dating, and comparisons between the agamas and the pali canon. Using this, dating can be done and has been done, and I am familiar with the results. The results of this largely are responsible for the authority that the Pali Canon and the Agamas hold in the scholarly tradition as the most authaurative. The Mahayana suttas do not have this authority, this is a common understanding amongst scholars. The fact is was written down in 30 BC doesn't negate the existence of the older version at all, and this whole issue was abandoned a long time ago. I know nobody who believes the Pitakas were invented in Sri Lanka in 30 BC. Are you the first one, maybe?
And you are right: the arguments only concern interpretations of the actual Sutta-pitaka, often based on the respective Abhidhammas. They are not about variations in the actual Sutta-pitaka, which were very similar or maybe even identical. The existence of suttas which are not present in the other version concerns only a very small number; it doesn't concern the main body of the tenthousands of suttas which are in communion with eachother. Remember, it is not stated they were the same, just very similar, and pointing to a common source, which is both cases is referred to as the First Buddhist Council.
This whole discussion seems like moving back into time, frankly. These things are old and resolved a long time ago. greetings, Sacca 02:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sacca, either I have not expressed myself clearly enough or you have misunderstood my position. I am, of course, well aware of current dating methodologies -- I imagine that you too have read the relevent research by von Hinuber, Sasao, Norman, Pande, Gombrich, Meisig, Kingsbury, Allon. Hence, I too am aware of the dating results that these various scholars have proposed, as well as the methodological drawbacks. I have also done quite a lotof comparative Agama/Nikaya research myself -- I just have spent the last three years comparing most of the SA and SN. However, valuable though all this recent work is, you will note that they all merely propose a relative chronology -- an absolute chronology is probably impossible. Kingsbury's results are easy to understand when one looks at the various chronological distribution graphs he has produced.
So what is my position ? Well. first I do not give the traditional accounts of the Councils much credence. Even the word "council" seems somewhat grandiose. Doubtless, there were some such meetings, but I do not believe that they compiled the Nikayas then as traditionally claimed. The relative chronologies the above scholars and others have proposed, using various methodologies, does not allow for this.
I also think, in company with most scholars, that the Nikayas do not represent the ipsissima verba of the Buddha. In fact, along with others, I think that a number of key Buddhist doctrines do not datwe back to the Buddha himself. I am thinking of the skandhas (cf Kingsbury, Vetter et al) and the 12-fold pacciya-samuppada. Looking at other religious corpora, such as the Christian Gospels or the Confucian Analects, it has been well demonstrated recently that the percentage of actual teachings of the founder is fairly low -- around 20%. This seems to be a fairly universal pheomenon -- and in the case of the Nikayas, I suspect the percentage of authentic "word of Buddha" teachings is even lower.
Hence, if one takes the relative textual chronologies, backed up by ideological chronologies, it would seem that the Nikayas were compiled over a period of several centuries after the Buddha's death. Extrapolating from Kingsbury's data (and taking Agama parallels into account), the bulk of the Nikaya suttas he examined seem to have come into existence about 200 years after the Buddha. This would place us around the Asokan period, which when I think the evidence points for the complilation of the Vinaya as well as the core of the Nikaya collections (cf Frauwallner "Earliest Vinaya").
So the upshot of all this is quite simple. If the bulk of the suttas/sutras do not date from the 1st Council, they must have been compiled later by monks who put those words into the mouth of the Buddha, unless you are suggesting divine revelation. This is exactly the same situation as claimed by people such as yourself for Mahayana sutras. But there is no absolute difference: as I said before, the Nikaya/Agama authors just made their creations a bit earlier than the period Mahayanis began to compose their sutras. Indeed, on might even argue that there is evidence that the Mahayanis were just taking a leaf out of the Nikaya/Agama author's book. Given this situation, one cannot, if one is scientifically honest, say that the Nikayas/Agamas are necessarily more authorative than the Mahayana sutras. I imagine that this is a hard pill for you to swallow, but that is where objectivity and intellectual honesty will lead you, I'm afraid. You can't apply one set of criteria to Mahayana Sutras and not expect to have the same criteria applied to the Nikayas. Does that help make things clearer ? --Stephen Hodge 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit

The latest edit (02:05) by Stephen is acceptable to me, it seems we have reached a solution on this subject. Maybe I will add some more details (sources) later. greetings, Sacca 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I was just getting the Katyushkas ready :)--Stephen Hodge 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Recent edits to this article seem to have to take a decided anti-Mahayana position, which seems inappropriate. My impression (which is, of course, non-expert), is that modern scholarship contains a continuum of opinions about the relative validity of the Pali and Mahayana literatures, ranging from "the Pali literature is definitely much older and may well be a much more authentic record of what the original Buddhism taught" to "the Pali literature is only slightly older than the Mahayana literature, and they may well have arisen in similar fashions". Unless my impression is quite wrong, Wikipedia should reflect this range of opinions.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Nat. I totally agree with you. There is no proof whatsoever that Pali Buddhism constitutes the "original teachings" of the Buddha. None whatsoever. Therefore, there should not be any assumption on Wikipedia that Pali Buddhism is the "original, true" teaching of the Buddha and that Mahayana is a concocted, distorted re-write. One has to distinguish between the literary forms (in which the Mahayana sutras are cast) and the content. The literary forms with their hyperboles and various literary devices could be of later provenance, while the doctrinal content could be very ancient and stem from the Buddha himself (as with the Pali doctrines, of course). Streams of teaching from the Buddha could have come through along a Mahayana route, or through an "agama" route. The honest truth is: no one knows for sure what the historical Buddha taught - therefore Pali Buddhism and the Mahayana should not be dismissed as "not from the Buddha" here on Wikipedia. That should be a basic policy of respect and intellectual honesty, in my view. I'm sure you will agree! Best wishes. From Tony TonyMPNS 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello both, Please go and do some research then. I dived into some relevant books (historical books on buddhism in india by scholars) and found these quotes, they reflects the general attitude that exists among scholars. This is about facts, if these are the opinions of scholars, they can be mentioned on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a publicity page for interest-groups. It is fairly mentioned that Mahayana believes these scriptures to be from the Buddha. And that scholars do not. Another quote which I didn't include (because this page isn't about Pali Canon) was about the Pali Canon, saying that there is no reason to assume these (Pali) scriptures are not from the Buddha, unless you take the extreme agnostic position. For the Mahayana Sutras however, there are a few reasons (AK Warder names 5 but there are more) why scholars take the position that these Mahayana Sutras have not been written by Gautama Buddha. Greetings, Sacca 10:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, relax. In fact, there are no texts "written by Gautama Buddha". All Dharma teaching are only used, tested by many generations of Buddhists (in various languages, nations and cultures) transmission from master to student. Text is only like a tool or finger directing on target. And only textual analysis of sutras and a few suppositions (about teachings of "early buddhism") is not a good reason to write in wikipedia that Mahayana Buddhism is based on "non-original texts". Buddhism is not a cult of a mumified library, after 25 centuries we can say it's a living transmission using many methods (texts also). Grets. Tadeusz Dudkowski 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article as it now stands is a near-polemic, definitely not NPOV, citing only one rather polemical source (Warder). I will pitch in with clean-up shortly. Sylvain1972 21:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hallo dear Tadeusz and Sylvain1972. You will not be surprised to hear that I agree with you! I think the article tends too much towards being an attempted "hatchet job" on the Mahayana sutras. It seems that it wants, at all costs, to get people not to take the Mahayana sutras seriously as very possibly containing genuine teachings of the Buddha (as I said earlier, we should distinguish between the later literary forms of the Mahayana sutras and the doctrines - most of which are very much rooted in "early Buddhism"). I think one should not go out of one's way to "rubbish" the authenticity of Buddhist doctrines or the sutras which expound them, when the facts of their provenance are far from certain. I also was struck by Sacca's odd comment that the Mahayana sutras were not written by the Buddha. Nobody claims that they were! But to be fair to Sacca, I think that this was just a verbal slip on Sacca's part, as Sacca knows very well that the Buddha did not write any of the suttas/sutras at all. Anyway, it seems that there is a pretty general view now (from Nat, and a number of others) that this article is too anti-Mahayana in slant and needs to be less polemical in its general tone. Thanks to all. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, yes I am fine. The article is of course not polemic, but based on solid scholastic enterprise. In some Buddhist articles, nobody seems to involve any scholastic works. I have decided I will include scholastic works because it makes these articles more objective, more scientific, less POV. Also one learns quite a bit from it, so that's another reason why I am willing to put in the time and effort to go through these works. I really encourage you to do the same. Greetings, Sacca 05:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Skilton and Robert Gethin are two scholars whose work can be incorporated into this article, which at this point reflects Warder's biases entirely.Sylvain1972 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)
How can we establish the consensus of experts regarding this subject? Does Sacca have some particular degree of expertise that entitles him to state what scholars believe? This is a bit ironic considering that, above, we find a thread in which Stephen Hodge, a bona fide Buddhist scholar and translator, explains a contrasting opinion.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nat, you are absolutely right. It is quite obvious to nearly everyone who has commented here that a desire to tarnish the validity of the Mahayana sutras has recently become evident in this article. And Sacca: please stop deleting material which I have added on the "Tathagatagarbha Sutras" section of this entry. I happen to know something about that area of Buddhism (after decades of study of it) - so kindly desist from censoring important information. Thank you. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Properly Referenced

Hi Nat, please don't remove properly referenced statements. That's not a good thing to do, you know. If you don't agree with the contents of the statement, at least you can agree that the statement is properly referenced to a trustworthy scholarly source which has peer-review? And that it is thus a valid addition to the encyclopedia? I bet you, you can! Have nice day, Greetings, Sacca 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All in all, the source you cite makes an interesting and valid point. But, can it really be that you don't see the tendentious nature of what you've written? By titling the section "self-contradictory" you have extracted the most inflammatory possible word from the quotation. I have fixed the header by changing it to "diversity". As a Wikipedia editor, though, you have a responsibility to make sure that your contributions meet Wikipedia's standards, such as NPOV. Why should other editors have to take the time to clean up your work?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Nat, I am currently one of a few who actually use scholarly articles. Many people on Buddhism-related articles just change somebody else's phrases into a version they themselves like, without referring to scholarly articles at all. So what results is a more or less politically correct, but possibly wrong, article. That's the situation of quite some sections of the Buddhism article now - but I intend to do something about this, of course. Thanks for pointing out the diversity-tag. That's a really nice way to see it and true, of course.
I do think you're a bit small-hearted here, taking the time to do just one little edit (have you counted my recent edits?), and then complaining about the time it takes? The above comment you wrote (on this talk page here) is about 50 times longer than the edit you made in the article. The effort you put into complaining about the amount of work it took you to make an edit is much more than the actual work you undertook, isn't that a bit strange? But I understand your feeling, I sometimes have the same with the edits some wikipedia-editors do, and I sometimes follow their contributions just to make sure they don't do too much damage. I think the only way to solve this issue is to use scholarly articles as a basis for edits - I am sorry not more people have moved into this mode yet. All the best, Greetings, Sacca 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AK Warder

I am concerned that such reliance is being placed on quotations from AK Warder in various articles concerning Mahayana. As a Theravadin, he is hardly an expert on Mahayana -- fair enough, but why so much reliance on him ?? But apart from that, his work is rather out of date and hardly represents current thinking on Mahayana-related matters. The Indian edition of his book was first published in 1970, so one can assume that it was written in the 1960s -- a lot has changed since then in Buddhist studies.

I suspect that the intention in relying so much on Warder is mischief-making in order to denigrate and undermine Mahayana articles. If this imbalance is not redressed, perhaps it is time for concerned parties to subject Theravada articles to a full range of unsympathic Mahayana quotes. We could begin by dropping the politically correct pretense that Theravada should not be designated as Hinayana from a Mahayana perspective -- which it indubitably is ! --Stephen Hodge 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, i understand your last sentence right. You mean, it should not be mentioned that the term hinayana should better not be used? I would just like to add to the discussion that H.H. the Dalai Lama in his public teachings does not use the term hinayana any more. As i recall, he even explicitly explained in his public Teachings in Zurich, Summer 2005, that the Term Hinayana could be perceived as derogatory and that although from his point of view, it is not meant that way, he will abstain from using this term in the future (btw. belitteling the hinayana teachings/paths would constitute a major downfall (breach) of the boddhisattva vows). Instead he uses the term Shravakayana, or, more precisely, speaks of the Paths of the Shravakas and of the Pratyekabuddhas, who, in cotrast to the followers of the Bodhisattvayana, seek personal liberation only. I currently participate in a 5 year study of Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy at a german gelug dharma center (www.tibet.de). One of our tutors, Christof Spitz, is the german translator of H.H. He also chooses the term Shravakayana whenever possible. In our study texts by Geshe Thubten Ngawang and in classical Mahayana texts, of course, the term Hinayana is widely used. 84.44.215.59 10:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on Buddha's teachings

Which book on early Buddhism uses Mahayana Sutras? None. Books on early Buddhism or 'Buddha's Buddhism' just can't do that, the Mahayana Sutras don't have that credibility. Even the Japanese scholars agree on this, even though they have been raised in a Mahayana country.
I just remember (for myself) that what I'm trying to do (make many scholarly references in articles concerning Buddhist history) is never going to be a popular thing amongst the Wikipedia editors with Mahayana preferences, and even among many Theravadins. This would be very unlikely. I don't get many 'cheers!', but that's ok. I think this information is important, and it is nice to delve into the subject.
For your info, I have used 5 different books on the subject. Warder is only one of them, you can look in the notes yourself, I presume? I might not have used all 5 books in every article I edited, though... He speaks clearly, formulates his words very well, so his quotes don't have to be long, but contain a lot of clear info. It's actually the third edition from 1999.
Stephen, on a personal note, previously I actually thought you were just a scholar, but it seems different. I hope that while reading or translating these mahayanic sutras you didn't start believing their claims for historical authenticity? But I guess this might happen even to the best of men. Greetings, Sacca 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Peter jackson/Sources for early Buddhism, where I'm trying to collect together scholarly opinions for use in just such endeavours. Please contribute. Peter jackson 11:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AK WARDER?

One scholar is the basis of attacking the Mahayana? I have read Mahayana sutras and the Tipitika and I fully agree with Theravada Scholar W. Rahula:


I have studied Mahayana for many years and the more I study it, the more I find there is hardly any difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regard to the fundamental teachings.

- Both accept Shakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. - The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. - The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. - The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. - Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. - Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anattá and Síla, Samádhi, Paññá without any difference.

These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question. (Theravada - Mahayana Buddhism By Ven. Dr. W. Rahula)


Dragons and gods? They are found in the Tipitika. Buddha lineages? Buddha says he comes from the Buddha lineage right in the Tipitika.

Buddha is called "dhamma sami" (dhamma swami) amatadatta (giver of immortality), brahma Bhuto, dhamma bhuto, etc...right in the Tipitika. Buddha calls himself the father in the itivuttaka.

So please don't tell mahayanist Buddhists that their scriptures are too theistic, these scriptures have a basis for the most part in the early tipitika. Buddhism is about contemplative gnosis, it isn't about blind faith. --149.4.108.27 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It's especially important in religious matters to get this right. WP mustn't take sides. It's not just a matter of factual accuracy; we have to look carefully at selection & presentation. It's no good just popping in the odd scholarly quotation you happen to came across.

Eg, on the topic of self-contradiction mentioned above (I haven't looked at the article here). Williams (Mahayana Buddhism, page 2 I think) mentions contradictions in Mahayana literature, but he also mentions on the same page that Mahayana often uses a pragmatic concept of truth, ie true means useful. As there's no reason why contradictory things shouldn't be useful, this cancels the negative tone & provides balance.

I think it's balanced to say the Pali Canon is mostly earlier than the Mahayana scriptures. Likewise, one could say that the Buddha's teachings evolved into the Pali Canon & other early teachings, & these in turn evolved into Mahayana. But it's not for WP to say, imply or suggest that any particular Buddhist text or school is or is not in accordance with the Buddha's teachings.

What's necessary if we want to go beyond such simple statements is a careful collation of what scholars have to say about these stages of evolution. For the 1st stage, the relation between the Buddha's original teachings & the Pali Canon & other early sources, I've already set up a subpage as noted above. We need something similar for the relations between the early schools & Mahayana. However, that would be more complicated:

  • the Buddha is not around to answer back, so the 1st phase is simply a matter of the relation between the Pali Canon & other early sources on the 1 hand & scholars' theories of the Buddha's teachings on the other; however, for the 2nd phase we should consider not only what scholars say about the relations between diferent forms of Buddhism but also what the schools themselves have said about each other & about the relations between them
  • Mahayana is very varied, so in addition to general consideration of the relations between Mahayana & early traditions we also need to do separate comparisons for particular forms & aspects

Peter jackson 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example, where I have to take issue with Stephen. The statement that Mahayana regards Theravada as Hinayana, if it were in an article, not just a talk page, would be unbalanced, because Mahayana uses the terms Mahayana & Hinayana in (at least) 2 senses & the statement is not true in the main 1, that they refer to levels of spiritual practice & motivation (citation in Mahayana). Bhavya/Bhavaviveka says in the Tarkajvala that Mahayana is included in the 18 schools, meaning in the context that they recognize & honour the bodhisattva path (JPTS XVIII 173). Aspiration to Buddhahood is frequent in Theravada (op cit 116).

The official Buddhism of Ceylon & Thailand is (largely) derived from Western scholars (citation in Theravada & Pali Canon). I wonder whether the "sectarian" understanding of Mahayana is a similar example of feedback.

On further consideration of what I said above about 2 phases of evolution, I think we can't separate the material that way. Hirakawa claims that Mahayana is partly derived from lay traditions independent of the monastic transmission & going back to early times. This is probably still maintained by many/most Japanese scholars. Inclusion of everything is going to complicate things. Peter jackson 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you include some scholars like AK Warder, too? You've already included schopen so A.K. Warder should be there also. You can find it on Mahayana Sutras. And the reference to De Jong's paper of 1993 or 1997? I didn't see it. But you know it exists since you deleted the information from the main buddhism page. 08:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacca (talk • contribs)