Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by binocular »

Javi wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:33 pmHow to even begin to disentangle this dilemma as Western Buddhists?
I think it is by considering that the actual problem isn't the dichotomy Mahayana vs. Theravada or other such religious dichotomies. But that instead, the core problem is what the purpose of religion as such is. Is religion something that should make it possible for a person to live a "good life" according to worldly standards? Is it to transcend the world? Is it something else altogether?
This is ultimately a personal manner and there is no single solution. Ultimately everyone has to decide if they think that they will hold the Mahayana sutras and shastras as definitive.
It's not clear how such a thing can be a matter of personal decision. From the perspective of the mainstream Western religiological discourse it certainly seems like a personal decision. But this discourse assumes a number of problematic assumptions about the epistemology of religious choice (e.g. assuming people have chosen their religious beliefs while it cannot be meaningfulyl said that they did), while its other assumptions are mutually exclusive with the tenets of some religions (e.g. one cannot choose karmic determinism, as karmic determinism precludes personal choice).

How could one possibly decide which discourse about reality is right one, the true one? If this is to be up to one's own choice, then the person's religiosity comes down to simply affirming their own beliefs.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Dhammanando »

Lucas Oliveira wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:34 pm Bhāvaviveka is considered Mahayana Madhyamaka.

but he argues against the Mahayana Sutras and the Bodhisattvas.
Are you referring to the list of objections to Mahayana sutras that I quoted in my earlier post? If so, these are not Bhāvaviveka's own views. They're a summary of his opponents' views, i.e., those of sixth century non-Mahayana Buddhists. Having listed these objections he then attempts to refute them.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by binocular »

Javi wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:21 pmWhile I think it is important to point out, I don't think its necessary to dwell on it. It is very easy to get all fired up about this stuff and therefore feed our own very special type of conceit in response ("I follow the true teaching!").
I think it is inevitable to dwell on it, and it's not because of one's own conceit or supremacism.
It's funny because I'm sure that it must have been seen as rather tiresome to many ancient Indian Buddhists too, it's just that since they focused on practice and not on propaganda, we'll never know. That's ultimately the sad part about all this, most of the real masters stayed silent and went off to caves and forests instead of writing vast philosophical compendia.
Perhaps they addressed the dilemma below more decisively:
Caodemarte wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:57 pmI do not see a dilemma for Buddhists.
I see it.
For a putthujjana, there indeed exists a dilemma, ie. a choice between two options that seem equally bad:
one is to renounce the world in the hope of a great transcendent happiness, but suffer the loss of worldly pleasures, gains, esteem;
the other is to live in the world, the worldly way, strive for worldly pleasures, gains, esteem, but always be somewhat miserable and suspicious that this just isn't, can't be, or shouldn't be "as good as it gets," and that life can or should offer more.

Some religions and other worldviews seem more conducive to the first option, some to the other.

I suspect that it is actually over these two options that people usually fight when they seem to be fighting over religion or sectarianism, not so much Theravada vs. Mahayana, or Christianity vs. Buddhism, or religosity vs. atheism, etc..
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Where are the enlightened westerners?

Post by Dhammanando »

binocular wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:06 pmTheravādin: This would imply that the Exalted One fed on perfumes.
How does it imply that??
I dare say I'm not convinced by the Theravadin's refutation.
I tend to agree that his Socratic acumen is perhaps not being exhibited to quite its best advantage in this particular debate. Maybe it was the last debating session of the day and Moggalliputtatissa was wearied of talking to idiots. Or maybe it's a case of poor manuscript preservation, allowing termites to feast on the Kathāvatthu and nibble away a minor premise or two.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Dhammanando »

Lucas Oliveira wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:34 pm
"Perhaps the teaching is one, but there are various people who hear it. On account of the inconceivable merit it bestows, it shines forth in various ways".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haribhadra
That's the wrong Haribhadra. I meant this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haribhadr ... ilosopher)
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Where are the enlightened westerners?

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:12 pmThat appears be a rather inaccurate guess.
Certainly not, sir.

The Pali is thoroughly unambiguous in its defintion of 'emptiness' to be 'empty of self'. Thus, I assume Malcolm is sufficiently intelligent to discern the Pali. Therefore, when Mahayana Malcolm asserts there is a 2nd type of emptiness, he is probably asserting 'things' are empty 'thing-i-ness'. Where I have realistically asserted a thing, such as consciousness, is not empty of consciousness-ness thing-i-ness. Otherwise, it would be proper of your good self to provide an explanation.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Aloka »

DooDoot wrote:Mahayana Malcolm asserts....


As far as I know, Malcolm's main training has been in Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayana).

Here's an excerpt of the 17th Karmapa Orgyen Trinley Dorje talking about emptiness in an article "The Nature of Everything is Emptiness" :

We need to know why the Buddha first talked about emptiness. The main reason is to remove our clinging, so first we must recognize how we cling to things. Then we can solve the problem: once we clear away our clinging, we will be able to see emptiness. In the morning we spoke about the path of seeing, which is seeing emptiness. In our confusion, we take the world to be solid and real; we do not experience the empty nature of what appears due to our mistaken understanding. Seeing emptiness refers to a time when we are not entrapped by concepts. We do not see anything that is mistakenly manifested in our minds, nor do we see anything we take to be truly existent.

What the sutra is saying is that not seeing is the best type of seeing. In the morning we emphasized that emptiness does not mean to be completely without something, a kind of void or lack. It means emptiness is not what we think it is. What does that mean? Emptiness does not contain what we think exists. What we think exists, does not; however, this does not mean that something completely does not exist. This means that what we know now from our experience is basically wrong. Why? Because we strongly think that things truly exist on their own. Since this attachment is wrong, all that we see is an illusion, a fantasy. Emptiness is telling us that these illusions are not real. They are fake, and that is why the Buddha calls them empty.

Usually people understand “empty” to mean an absence, a complete nonexistence. But actually, empty refers to the fact that what we now know is an illusion and, therefore, does not exist. This does not mean, however, that the thing itself does not exist. This point is extremely important.

This recalls what Tilopa told his disciple Naropa: “Son, it is not things that entrap you but your attachment to them.” Tilopa means that things in themselves cannot imprison us; it is our own attachment that serves as an obstacle.

There is a key point here: Emptiness is not built on nothing; something that existent is the foundation for emptiness. In other words, because things exist, you can say that they are empty. Due to our attachment and misunderstanding, we do not know the true nature of things. If all the things outside did not exist, then we could not talk about emptiness. If nothing existed, then nothing could be empty, and you could not talk about emptiness at all. It is due to existence that there is emptiness, and not to nonexistence.

http://kagyuoffice.org/the-nature-of-ev ... emptiness/

:anjali:
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Lucas Oliveira »

Dhammanando wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:03 am
Lucas Oliveira wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:34 pm Bhāvaviveka is considered Mahayana Madhyamaka.

but he argues against the Mahayana Sutras and the Bodhisattvas.
Are you referring to the list of objections to Mahayana sutras that I quoted in my earlier post? If so, these are not Bhāvaviveka's own views. They're a summary of his opponents' views, i.e., those of sixth century non-Mahayana Buddhists. Having listed these objections he then attempts to refute them.
Do you have any links to these arguments?

I found many links he talking about empty.

:anjali:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Javi »

binocular wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:45 am
Javi wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:33 pmHow to even begin to disentangle this dilemma as Western Buddhists?
I think it is by considering that the actual problem isn't the dichotomy Mahayana vs. Theravada or other such religious dichotomies. But that instead, the core problem is what the purpose of religion as such is. Is religion something that should make it possible for a person to live a "good life" according to worldly standards? Is it to transcend the world? Is it something else altogether?
This is ultimately a personal manner and there is no single solution. Ultimately everyone has to decide if they think that they will hold the Mahayana sutras and shastras as definitive.
It's not clear how such a thing can be a matter of personal decision. From the perspective of the mainstream Western religiological discourse it certainly seems like a personal decision. But this discourse assumes a number of problematic assumptions about the epistemology of religious choice (e.g. assuming people have chosen their religious beliefs while it cannot be meaningfulyl said that they did), while its other assumptions are mutually exclusive with the tenets of some religions (e.g. one cannot choose karmic determinism, as karmic determinism precludes personal choice).

How could one possibly decide which discourse about reality is right one, the true one? If this is to be up to one's own choice, then the person's religiosity comes down to simply affirming their own beliefs.
Yea I know you have a problem with the epistemology of religion but this is not the thread to rehash our tango on that issue since that would take it too off topic, so I'll defer you to the other times we've had this discussion.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by binocular »

Javi wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:34 pmYea I know you have a problem with the epistemology of religion but this is not the thread to rehash our tango on that issue since that would take it too off topic, so I'll defer you to the other times we've had this discussion.
On the contrary, I think I have sketched out the solution to the Mahayana vs. Theravada tension problem. I'm rather satisfied with my solution, like I haven't been in a long time.
:clap:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Dhammanando »

Lucas Oliveira wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:58 pmDo you have any links to these arguments?
Bhāvaviveka's rebuttals of the criticisms of Mahayana sutras? No, I don't have any links and I'm afraid I'm away from my library now.

What I do recall is that the rebuttals aren't very good. In fact they're quite an anticlimax after he's given such a bold and no-holds-barred summary of what mainstream Indian Buddhists thought about the Mahayana.

I can only remember two of his arguments now. One of them is a tu quoque that since the various Hinayana canons are different from each other, they too must either contain some material that wasn't recited at the First Council or else have lost some material that was recited.

In another he quotes the Simsapa Sutta in an attempt to impugn the authority of the Council. In this sutta the Buddha admits that he hasn't revealed all that he knows to the bhikkhus and so Bhāvaviveka concludes that it's irrelevant if Mahayana sutras weren't recited at the Council. All it means is that Mahayana sutras are like the simsapa leaves on the trees rather than the ones the Buddha was holding in his hand. Unfortunately Bhāvaviveka seems to have shot himself in the foot with this particular argument, for to say that Mahayana sutras are like the leaves on the trees is tantamount to admitting that they are not of any soteriological importance — which is precisely what his opponents are claiming.

:jumping:
“What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more numerous: these few siṃsapa leaves that I have taken up in my hand or those in the siṃsapa grove overhead?”

“Venerable sir, the siṃsapa leaves that the Blessed One has taken up in his hand are few, but those in the siṃsapa grove overhead are numerous.”

“So too, bhikkhus, the things I have directly known but have not taught you are numerous, while the things I have taught you are few. And why, bhikkhus, have I not taught those many things? Because they are unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and do not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have not taught them.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Dhammanando »

Dhammanando wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:33 pmI can only remember two of his arguments now.
.
Here's a little more on the subject from Prof. Lopez. After paraphrasing the "Hīnayāna" objections, he continues:

Bhāvaviveka takes it as his task to counter these attacks, arguing that the basic doctrines of Buddhism, such as the four truths, the harmonies of enlightenment (bodhipakṣa), the paths, and the powers of the Buddha appear in the same terms in the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras. Furthermore, there are contradictions even among the various versions of the Hīnayāna canon. Bhāvaviveka goes on the offensive, quoting Mahāyāna sūtras to indicate that this teaching was not intended for those of Hīnayāna ilk and provides examples of Mahāyāna sūtras in which there are no śrāvakas present in the audience. For example, to call into question the status of Ānanda as compiler of the Buddha’s word, he cites the Siṃsapavanasūtra, “Ananda, the doctrines that I have understood but have not taught to you are more numerous than the leaves in this grove of simsapa trees.”

Bhāvaviveka argues for a radical discontinuity between the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna canons, asserting that the reason the Hīnayāna schools have no evidence of the Buddha teaching the Mahāyāna sūtras is that those sūtras were intended solely for Bodhisattvas, not for śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the Hīnayāna disciples were not even present when the sūtras were delivered. Haribhadra, while seeking also to maintain the primacy of the Mahāyāna, opts for a more accomodating position whereby the Mahāyāna sūtras, like the Hīnayāna sūtras, were all compiled by Ānanda, although as a śrāvaka he could only compile them through the benevolent empowerment of the Buddha. Hence, for Haribhadra, the “I” of “Thus did I hear at one time…” consistently refers to the same person in both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras.

Haribhadra provides a unique reading of “at one time”, however. Rather than only meaning “on one occasion”, he states in his Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka that it also means “in one instant”; by the blessings of the Buddha, Ānanda heard the entire sūtra in one instant. This is one example of the extraordinary pedagogical talents attributed to the Buddha in the Mahāyāna sūtras. For example, in the eighth chapter of the Tathāgatacintyaguhyanirdeśasūtra (Sutra on the Inconceivable Secrets of the Tathāgata) Vajrapāṇi explains to the Bodhisattva Santamati that sentient beings not only perceive the words of the Buddha as issuing from his mouth, but also from his crown protrusion, the hair on his head, his forehead, his eyes, his ears, his shoulders, his hands, his fingers, his penis, his ankles, and the soles of his feet. Furthermore, although sentient beings abide throughout the three billion worlds, he teaches them all in their respective languages. Yet Vajrapāṇi prefaces this catalogue of the secrets of the Buddha’s speech by saying, “Santamati, from the night when the Tathāgata became a complete Buddha, manifesting unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment, until the night when he passed without remainder into final Nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata did not speak even a single syllable, nor will he speak. Why? Santamati, the Tathāgata is constantly in absorption; the Tathāgata does not breathe.”

(Donald Lopez, The Heart Sūtra Explained)
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Lucas Oliveira »

Thank you Bhante!

:anjali:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Coëmgenu »

Dhammanando wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:10 pm
Dhammanando wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:33 pmI can only remember two of his arguments now.
Bhāvaviveka goes on the offensive, quoting Mahāyāna sūtras to indicate that this teaching was not intended for those of Hīnayāna ilk and provides examples of Mahāyāna sūtras in which there are no śrāvakas present in the audience. For example, to call into question the status of Ānanda as compiler of the Buddha’s word, he cites the Siṃsapavanasūtra, “Ananda, the doctrines that I have understood but have not taught to you are more numerous than the leaves in this grove of simsapa trees.”

Bhāvaviveka argues for a radical discontinuity between the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna canons, asserting that the reason the Hīnayāna schools have no evidence of the Buddha teaching the Mahāyāna sūtras is that those sūtras were intended solely for Bodhisattvas, not for śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the Hīnayāna disciples were not even present when the sūtras were delivered. Haribhadra, while seeking also to maintain the primacy of the Mahāyāna, opts for a more accomodating position whereby the Mahāyāna sūtras, like the Hīnayāna sūtras, were all compiled by Ānanda, although as a śrāvaka he could only compile them through the benevolent empowerment of the Buddha. Hence, for Haribhadra, the “I” of “Thus did I hear at one time…” consistently refers to the same person in both the Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras.
[/quote]

Very interesting, bhante. I've been trying to hunt down Tarkajvālā IV, where Ven Bhāvaviveka makes this argument citing the Siṃsapavanasūtra, simply because this is such a huge and strange mistake for him to make, since, as you said it,
to say that Mahayana sutras are like the leaves on the trees is tantamount to admitting that they are not of any soteriological importance — which is precisely what his opponents are claiming.
Interestingly enough, a Google search for Siṃsapavana, Siṃsapavanasūtra, Siṃsapavana sūtra, Siṃsapavanasutta, & Siṃsapavana sutta reveals nothing, it seems that this sūtra/sutta is simply not on the internet? Is it a Pāli text or is it Chinese/Sanskrit? If it is older, does it have parallels? I only ask, not out of a wish to defend Ven Bhāvaviveka, but simply because it seems unbelievable that he would make such a mistake (although it indeed does happen to everyone on occasion). I am wondering if he was citing some eccentric recension at odds with the Pāli?

Would it be on SuttaCentral and my internet skills are simply failing me?

Apologies for the rush of questions. Thank you for your time.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Caodemarte »

Dhammanando wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:33 pm …In another he quotes the Simsapa Sutta in an attempt to impugn the authority of the Council. In this sutta the Buddha admits that he hasn't revealed all that he knows to the bhikkhus and so Bhāvaviveka concludes that it's irrelevant if Mahayana sutras weren't recited at the Council. All it means is that Mahayana sutras are like the simsapa leaves on the trees rather than the ones the Buddha was holding in his hand. Unfortunately Bhāvaviveka seems to have shot himself in the foot with this particular argument, for to say that Mahayana sutras are like the leaves on the trees is tantamount to admitting that they are not of any soteriological importance — which is precisely what his opponents are claiming.…
I don’t follow the comment if I understand it correctly. To say that the Buddha’s teaching for the boundless multitudes of beings are endless does not imply the teachings have no soteriological importance. Doses of of often different medicine must often be calculated individually for many, many people who have specific diseseses. This makes the medicine effective. Prescribing one dosage of the same medicine for every case would be malpractice.
Post Reply