“Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Raksha
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:30 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by Raksha »

DAWN wrote:Actualy Mahayana is wery usefull to Dhamma, because peoples wich mind is much aflicted can not enter, and accept directly Buddha words of renonciation, so they comes to Mahayana
Strange...I have heard Mahayana practitioners make almost identical remarks about the Theravada. Recently, at a Buddhist conference I publicly attacked one Vajrayana speaker for disparaging the Theravada, as suitable for those incapable of following the 'superior' Vajrayana. Lord Buddha did not teach an inferior vehicle, which means that they are all equally excellent. It depends on the individual, one with inferior motivation and effort will make a poor job even if taught personally by a Buddha. In truth we are one family, Ekayana, and no brother or sister is superior to another. In the present age it is imperative that we overcome perceived differences between teachings and work together.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by daverupa »

Raksha wrote:Lord Buddha did not teach an inferior vehicle, which means that they are all equally excellent.
Lord Buddha did not teach vajrayana. One accepts that it was held in Naga realms, or what-have-you, without any more evidence than that offered for the Qu'ran having been delivered to Mohammad via angel.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
ALot
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by ALot »

Ānanda, in the future, if the bhikkhus can't handle anatta, teach them about buddha nature. If the bhikkhus become obsessed with dhamma analysis, teach them emptiness. If the bhikkhus cherish scriptures instead of practise, teach them about a special transmission outside the scriptures. If the bhikkhus lack interest in morality and meditation, teach them about secret tantras they'll receive later.

-Buddha, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, classified attachment "Skillful Means"
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by daverupa »

ALot wrote:
Ānanda, in the future, if the bhikkhus can't handle anatta, teach them about buddha nature. If the bhikkhus become obsessed with dhamma analysis, teach them emptiness. If the bhikkhus cherish scriptures instead of practise, teach them about a special transmission outside the scriptures. If the bhikkhus lack interest in morality and meditation, teach them about secret tantras they'll receive later.

-Buddha, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, classified attachment "Skillful Means"
Where is this passage, for example, in the following link:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part and section, if possible.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
ALot
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by ALot »

daverupa wrote:Part and section, if possible.
It belongs here, between paragraphs 1 and 2, but it's classified stuff, not visible for everyone:
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh067-u.html# ... xhortation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1. Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ānanda, saying: “It may be, Ānanda, that to some among you the thought will come: ‘Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.’ But it should not, Ānanda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

--confidential Skillful Means--
Ānanda, in the future, if the bhikkhus can't handle anatta, teach them about buddha nature. If the bhikkhus become obsessed with dhamma analysis, teach them emptiness. If the bhikkhus cherish scriptures instead of practise, teach them about a special transmission outside the scriptures. If the bhikkhus lack interest in morality and meditation, teach them about secret tantras they'll receive later.
--confidential--


2. “And, Ānanda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as ‘friend,’ let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ānanda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as ‘friend’; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as ‘venerable sir’ or ‘your reverence.’
But all this super secret classified stuff probably doesn't belong to "Early Buddhism".
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by DAWN »

Good joke :smile:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism

Post by Kusala »

Raksha wrote:
DAWN wrote:Actualy Mahayana is wery usefull to Dhamma, because peoples wich mind is much aflicted can not enter, and accept directly Buddha words of renonciation, so they comes to Mahayana
Strange...I have heard Mahayana practitioners make almost identical remarks about the Theravada. Recently, at a Buddhist conference I publicly attacked one Vajrayana speaker for disparaging the Theravada, as suitable for those incapable of following the 'superior' Vajrayana. Lord Buddha did not teach an inferior vehicle, which means that they are all equally excellent. It depends on the individual, one with inferior motivation and effort will make a poor job even if taught personally by a Buddha. In truth we are one family, Ekayana, and no brother or sister is superior to another. In the present age it is imperative that we overcome perceived differences between teachings and work together.
I agree. Even though Theravada and Mahayana (Vajrayana included) are different branches of Buddhism, we're still one big family.
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
Paribbajaka
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 am

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by Paribbajaka »

James the Giant wrote:When I first learned about "Skillful Means" I was appalled and aghast:
"You're saying the Buddha DELIBERATELY LIED for 45 years of teaching!?"
After a bit of study I understand the idea of Upaya better, but it still seems a bit icky and dishonest to me.

To be honest, (and without a shred of evidence offered by me) it seems like exactly the kind of thing a new sect would fabricate in order to discredit the old school.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

How is the above different from skillful means?
May all beings be happy!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by binocular »

Paribbajaka wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

How is the above different from skillful means?
In the case of Venerable Nanda, the trick involves two people, one who is in on the trick and one who isn't. And it was resolved within foreseeable time.

As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by Dan74 »

binocular wrote:
Paribbajaka wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

How is the above different from skillful means?
In the case of Venerable Nanda, the trick involves two people, one who is in on the trick and one who isn't. And it was resolved within foreseeable time.

As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
How do you mean?

I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
_/|\_
User avatar
Paribbajaka
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 am

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by Paribbajaka »

binocular wrote:
Paribbajaka wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

How is the above different from skillful means?
In the case of Venerable Nanda, the trick involves two people, one who is in on the trick and one who isn't. And it was resolved within foreseeable time.

As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
The Buddha deliberately lied to achieve an aim. This is actually very similar to the accepted definition of skillful means in the Mahayana.

As far as deliberately deluding themselves, most modern Mahayanists accept that their sutras were not spoken by the Buddha,but do not lose sleep over it too much. In this modern world where all scripture is looking to be of somewhat dubious authenticity (even, let's be honest, the Tipitaka), it is a virtue to be able to accept that your scruiptures are not true in the historical sense but true in a spiritual sense :anjali:
May all beings be happy!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by binocular »

Dan74 wrote:How do you mean?

I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.

This I gathered from Stcherbatsky's Buddhist logic.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Paribbajaka
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 am

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by Paribbajaka »

binocular wrote:
Dan74 wrote:How do you mean?

I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.

This I gathered from Stcherbatsky's Buddhist logic.
Binocular, that is just the Mahayana way of expressing Dhamma. Theravada also spends a good deal of time speaking of love and compassion for beings that are inehrently "without self". The understanding is that on a relative level there are sentient beings, but on a deeper level there are not.

Studying the teaching of anatta, one sees that each of us is a temporary amassing of "stuff" that naturally dissipitates. We have no real, fundamental anything yet we live, go to work, eat food, etc.

One truth, two sets of words :anjali:
May all beings be happy!
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by ground »

binocular wrote: As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
binocular wrote:On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.
Yes but that does not differentiate Mahayana from Theravada. Theravada also appeals to sense of self in the first place. As long as there arises sense of self that has to be fooled. But actually nothing is fooled and sense of self is foolishness itself. :sage:
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis

Post by Dan74 »

binocular wrote:
Dan74 wrote:How do you mean?

I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.

This I gathered from Stcherbatsky's Buddhist logic.
This is well-explained by the two truths doctrine. I don't think this is too different to Theravada.

On the one hand conventionally we speak of beings. Until the truth of anatta is seen, we think largely in terms of selves and discrete entities. Ultimately there are no selves, no beings, as we conceive of them. But until we know it, there is no sense in trying to brainwash ourselves in thinking so.
_/|\_
Post Reply