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?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:30 pmAs it goes, the Chinese also has a section that basically says the exact same thing as the Pāli:
所以者何?彼法非義饒益,非法饒益,非梵行饒益、明、慧、正覺、正向涅槃故。
To whom is the Chinese version addressed? I note that Bhāvaviveka is citing a version where the listener is Ven. Ānanda, while in the Pali it's the bhikkhusaṅgha. If the Chinese also has the bhikkhusaṅgha as the audience then it's possible Bhāvaviveka was using some other recension that we haven't yet found.

Having said that, the only other version that I personally know of, that of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, is also addressed to bhikṣus and is not more succint but actually more prolix than the Pali:
Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Once the Buddha was on the banks of the Ganges, in the forest of Simsapavana. At that time, the Tathagata picked up a small tree-branch with some leaves [on it] and said to the bhiksus: "Are the leaves that I hold in my hand many, or are all the leaves of the grass [plants] and trees of all grounds [forests] many?" All the bhiksus said: "O World-Honoured One! The leaves of the grass and tress of all grounds are many and cannot be counted. What the Tathagata holds in his hand is small in number and not worth mentioning." "O all you Bhiksus! The things that I have come to know are like the leaves of the grass and trees of the great earth; what I impart to all beings is like the leaves in my hand." The World-Honoured One then said: "The innumerable things that are known by the Tathagata must be my own if they [i.e. those things] but enter into the Four Noble Truths [i.e. if they are comprised within the Four Noble Truths]. If not, there would have to be five Truths." The Buddha praised Kasyapa: "Well said, well said, O good man! What you have now asked will greatly benefit innumerable beings and give peace. O good man! All such things are [contained] in the Four Noble Truths."
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

Post by Coëmgenu »

This recension, AFAIK (and I'm still looking at it as I type), isn't addressed to anyone. It simply has the Buddha speaking to a 'myriad bhikṣavaḥ' (諸比丘). But I am in the process of doube-checking myself.
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.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
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 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:37 am This recension, AFAIK (and I'm still looking at it as I type), isn't addressed to anyone. It simply has the Buddha speaking to a 'myriad bhikṣavaḥ' (諸比丘). But I am in the process of doube-checking myself.
A Facebook friend has just sent me the Tarkajvālā passage from Eckel’s translation:

.
Another response [to Hīnayānists’ objections] is to say that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha’s teaching, because it was collected by the original compilers, such as Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Guhyakādhipati, and Maitreya.[*] Śrāvakas did not compile our root collection, because the teachings of the Mahāyāna were beyond them. As it is said in the Śiṃśapāvana Sūtra:

“Ānanda, I have understood an extremely large number of dharmas, as many as there are leaves in this Śiṃśapā grove, but I have not taught them to you. They are not profitable for you; they do not cause you to be weary [with saṃsāra] or free from desire.” [**]

Translator’s notes

* Tāranātha lists the same four Bodhisattvas as original compilers of the Mahāyāna (trans. Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya: 98). The Traité (383) lists the compilers as Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, and Vajrapāṇi. (Guhyakādhipati is an epithet of Vajrapāṇi.) Bu-ston’s account of the compilation of the Mahāyāna mentions the tradition of the Tarkajvālā along with several others (Obermiller 1932b: 2.101-2).

** Compare SN V 437-38.

So, the key differences, it seems, are that in Bhāvaviveka’s version of the sūtra the phrase “these things are not profitable” is changed to “these things are not profitable for you”, while the clauses beginning with “...irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life...” are omitted entirely.
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 »

Basic points unifying Theravāda and Mahāyāna

Text of the original document

9. We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

Expansion of the formula

10. We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_poi ... 1y%C4%81na



:namaste:
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 »

Dhammanando wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:31 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:37 am This recension, AFAIK (and I'm still looking at it as I type), isn't addressed to anyone. It simply has the Buddha speaking to a 'myriad bhikṣavaḥ' (諸比丘). But I am in the process of doube-checking myself.
A Facebook friend has just sent me the Tarkajvālā passage from Eckel’s translation:

.
Another response [to Hīnayānists’ objections] is to say that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha’s teaching, because it was collected by the original compilers, such as Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Guhyakādhipati, and Maitreya.[*] Śrāvakas did not compile our root collection, because the teachings of the Mahāyāna were beyond them. As it is said in the Śiṃśapāvana Sūtra:

“Ānanda, I have understood an extremely large number of dharmas, as many as there are leaves in this Śiṃśapā grove, but I have not taught them to you. They are not profitable for you; they do not cause you to be weary [with saṃsāra] or free from desire.” [**]

Translator’s notes

* Tāranātha lists the same four Bodhisattvas as original compilers of the Mahāyāna (trans. Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya: 98). The Traité (383) lists the compilers as Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, and Vajrapāṇi. (Guhyakādhipati is an epithet of Vajrapāṇi.) Bu-ston’s account of the compilation of the Mahāyāna mentions the tradition of the Tarkajvālā along with several others (Obermiller 1932b: 2.101-2).

** Compare SN V 437-38.

So, the key differences, it seems, are that in Bhāvaviveka’s version of the sūtra the phrase “these things are not profitable” is changed to “these things are not profitable for you”, while the clauses beginning with “...irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life...” are omitted entirely.
Fascinating. One wonders how the change came about in that particular recension.

Clearly this sutra would have been an issue for those who wanted to compose new sutras so there had to have been some editing somewhere down the line.
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
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:31 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:37 am This recension, AFAIK (and I'm still looking at it as I type), isn't addressed to anyone. It simply has the Buddha speaking to a 'myriad bhikṣavaḥ' (諸比丘). But I am in the process of doube-checking myself.
Incidentally, while I have your attention, the time and place of the Chinese recension also seems very different, although my Chinese is hardly at professional standards, so please take this all with tablespoons of salt.

It has the Buddha and his retinue at a 摩竭國 ("mó jié country", possibly *mua(l)gra(d) in historical pronunciation, this seems likely to be Magadha). With 'people' (?) (人, but I may be misreading, this seems awfully vague) between (間) travels (遊行). Then the Chinese seems to clarify that the precise location is actually Rājagṛha (王舍城). It then goes on at length to specify that 波羅利 (Bōluólì, *pˤajrˤajrids, Bimbisara?), not exactly in the centre between the bamboo trees and the village (弗是中間竹林聚落), that mahārāja (大王) in that centre earned merit with housings (於中作福德舍). The Buddha and the masses (諸) of the mahāsaṃgha (大眾) in this centre [between trees/town] stop to lodge for the night (於中止宿).

It is interesting that it goes into such detail about King Bimbisara, given how brief the expositions of āgamāḥ usually are.
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.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:38 amHaving said that, the only other version that I personally know of, that of the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, is also addressed to bhikṣus and is not more succint but actually more prolix than the Pali:
There is, however, yet another version, albeit one that I know of only secondhand: the one referred to by the Pudgalavādin debater in Devasarman’s Vijñānakaya-śāstra, one of the seven books of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. To judge from Lance Cousins's account, the debater appeals to the Siṃsapāsutta in defence of his school’s characteristic doctrine in a manner similar to Bhāvaviveka, though several centuries earlier:

.
Let us illustrate the Vijñānakāya debate with one example. The protagonists are the Personalist and the follower of the emptiness teaching (Suññatavāda). We will call the latter the Voidist. The Personalist asks what is the object of loving-kindness. The Voidist replies that it is the five aggregates given the label of ‘being’. The Personalist, not unreasonably, suggests that this is not in harmony with the suttas which recommend loving-kindness towards living beings rather than aggregates. The Voidist counters with reference to the six classes of consciousness. The object of visual consciousness is visual form. The cases of hearing, smelling, tasting and touching are similar. The object of mental consciousness is dhammas. In none of these cases would lovingkindness have a being as its object.

It follows therefore that the Personalist must affirm a seventh class of consciousness [i.e., one that can cognize a pudgala]. The Voidist then argues that this is equivalent to accusing the Buddha of ignorance.

The Personalist replies that the Buddha certainly knew it, even if he didn’t proclaim it. The Voidist counters with the well-known saying that the Buddha did not have the ‘closed fist’ of a teacher who holds back some of his teachings from his advanced disciples. The Personalist replies with the equally well-known simile which compares the leaves on a single siṃsapā tree with those on the trees of the forest to illustrate the difference between the teachings which the Buddha actually taught and those which he knew but did not teach. However, the Voidist gets the last word by pointing out that the truths which the Buddha knew but did not proclaim were precisely those which were not conducive to following the path to enlightenment. If therefore the pudgala exists, it is not conducive to the path!
(L.S. Cousins, Person and Self
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Post Reply