Mayahana and Mainstream Indian Buddhist Accounts of Each Other

[Polar Bear]

Deleted- post not relevant to this topic

[binocular]

/.../ That being so, nothing that they have to say deserves a Third Council type of response. All that is required is a reiteration of mainstream Indian Buddhism’s rejection of Mahayana sutras and the reasons for it.

I realize that this is a rather boring response and probably not at all what you were hoping for.

It's not boring!
I wish there'd be more people with a view like yours here.

Moreover, I would note that Malcolm and Astus are not really engaged in an inter-sectarian debate of the kind that took place at the Third Council. Instead, theirs is a purely parish-pump discussion over the small-print in the Mahayana position regarding the arahant. As best I can tell, it forms no part of their intention to persuade Buddhists in general that the Mahayana position is the correct one.

I've gotten the impression that they have no intention to persuade others that the Mahayana position is the correct one; but that they believe that others owe it to see that the Mahayana position is the correct one.

[Dhammanando]

/.../ That being so, nothing that they have to say deserves a Third Council type of response. All that is required is a reiteration of mainstream Indian Buddhism’s rejection of Mahayana sutras and the reasons for it.

I realize that this is a rather boring response and probably not at all what you were hoping for.

It's not boring!

Well, I meant that my post would seem boring from the point of view of those who are interested in talking about things like the Mahayana’s polemical contrast between emptiness of persons and emptiness of dharmas, how the Hinayanists fail to realize the latter, whether Theravadins are the same or different in this regard from other Hinayanists, etc., etc. Some Buddhists seem to really love this kind of talk. As for me, I’d rather spend a whole afternoon cleaning the monastery toilets than waste even a minute on it.

[Dhammanando]

Where can I find this info?

A Summary of Mahayana-like Errors
Defended by pre-Mahayana Schools at the Third Council

(N.B., not all of these were held in common by all Mahayanists. Some, for example, are unique to Yogācārins, some to Tantrikas, some to Pure Landers, etc.)



1. Belittling of arahants

1.1. That arahants are still fettered because their knowledge is not equal to a Buddha’s

1.2. That an arahant may fall away from arahantship

1.3. That kamma may cause an arahant to fall away from arahanthip

1.4. That an arahant may have ignorance

1.5. That an arahant may have doubt

1.6. That an arahant may be excelled by others

1.7. That an arahant may have an impure discharge

.

2. Moral errors

2.1. That reformation of the Buddha’s Dispensation is permissible

2.2. That one attained to supramundane right view may take life

2.3. That an abettor of an anantariyaka kamma may still attain the path of assurance

2.4. That sexual relations may be entered upon with a united resolve

.

3. The docetic heresy and other wrong notions about Buddhas and Bodhisattas

3.1. That it cannot be said that the Buddha lived in the world of men

3.2. That it is not right to say that the Buddha taught the Dhamma

3.3. That a Buddha’s everyday speech is supramundane

3.4. That the cirumstances of each of a Bodhisatta’s rebirths may be freely chosen by him rather than being due to kamma

3.5. That a Buddha is omnipotent

3.6. That a Buddha is omnipresent

3.7. That a Buddha’s excrement smells like the finest perfume

3.8. That one with supernormal powers may live for an aeon

3.9. That a Bodhisatta’s being assured of Buddhahood is equivalent to entrance upon the path of assurance

.

4. Exaggerated ideas about how much is due to karma

4.1. That earth is the result of kamma

4.2. That sound is the result of kamma

4.3. That aging and death are the result of kamma

4.4. That merit increases with utility

4.5. That all six sense-bases are the result of kamma

4.6. That material qualities are the result of kamma

4.7. That everything is due to kamma

.

5. Errors arising from wrong notions about suññatā and the two truths

5.1. That it cannot be said that the noble saṅgha accepts gifts

5.2. That it cannot be said that the noble saṅgha purifies gifts

5.3. That it cannot be said that the noble saṅgha enjoy, eats or drinks

5.4. That it cannot be said that gifts given to the noble saṅgha bring great reward

5.5. That it cannot be said that gifts given to the Buddha bring great reward

5.6. That the fundamental characteristics of all dhammas are unconditioned

.

6. Miscellaneous errors

6.1. That there are six planes of existence

6.2. That there is perception among the impercipient devas

6.3. That the guardians of the hell realms are not living beings but phantasms generated by one’s kamma

.

Owing to the terseness of the English translation, the meanings of some of the above debates will be a little opaque. They should become clearer when read in the full translation in the link below as this also includes a précis of the commentary on each debate.

https://archive.org/details/PointsOfCon ... athavatthu

[Dhammanando]

It might be a good idea to split this thread.




Done!

[binocular]

/.../ Some Buddhists seem to really love this kind of talk. As for me, I’d rather spend a whole afternoon cleaning the monastery toilets than waste even a minute on it.

Bhante is funny!

[Bundokji]

Point 3.7 seems to be quite interesting to be debated between different sects

[Dhammanando]

Point 3.7 seems to be quite interesting to be debated between different sects

It was a very short and one-sided debate.

Controverted Point: That even the excreta of the Exalted Buddha excelled all other odorous things.

Theravādin: This would imply that the Exalted One fed on perfumes. But you admit only that he fed on rice gruel. Hence your proposition is untenable.

Moreover, if your proposition were true, some would have used the excreta for the toilet, gathering, saving them in basket and box, exposing them in the bazaar, making cosmetics with them. But nothing of the sort was done.

The commentary attributes the view to the Andhakas and Uttarāpathakas, on account of their excessive affection for the Buddha's person. It's no surprise that the Uttarāpathakas would think such a thing, for they were a late-Mahāsaṅghika splinter group and the Mahāsaṅghikas were responsible for the lion's share of extravagant ideas about buddhahood. That the Andhakas (the school of Andhra Pradesh) would share the Uttarāpathakas' folly isn't so easily accounted for. On the whole the Andhakas seem to have been pretty reasonable regarding Buddha-related matters.

[binocular]

Controverted Point: That even the excreta of the Exalted Buddha excelled all other odorous things.

Theravādin: 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.

"That even the excreta of the Exalted Buddha excelled all other odorous things" actually seems possible. I garden, I have to do with different kinds of manure. I also take care of cats and have to clean up after dogs. I can tell each kind of manure simply by its smell. I also know other smelly details about which I won't say more at the time.
The controverted point doesn't say that the excreta of the Buddha weren't an odorous thing, only that they excelled all other odorous things. I think this is possible, but it has nothing to do with my affection for the Buddha's person. The fact is that there are excreta that smell less than others.

[DooDoot]

the Arahant sees and meditates emptiness in the person but not in phenomenon, while the Bodhisattva see emptiness in both.

Despite the very sloppy language above, the sloppy idea of "seeing emptiness in phenomena", which I assume or guess means seeing "there is no phenomena", is unrelated to liberation according to the Buddha and is thus irrelevant. Liberation, according to the Buddha, is based in the abandonment of craving & the self-conceit. Therefore, seeing a tree as a "tree" or seeing body, feeling, perception, intention & consciousness as "body, feeling, perception, intention & consciousness" does not create suffering. This being said, the Pali does teach the emptiness of phenomena, as follows:

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."

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

Regardless, to hold there is no phenomena is wrong. In Pali, phenomena are classified by their functionality. For example, each time Malcolm looks at a computer screen, consciousness arises & functions, therefore, consciousness, as a phenomena, exists, regardless of its temporariness & conditionality.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, sn.iii.87 it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes , ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.79

Another fatal flaw of the Malcolm Mahayana wrong view is if liberation is this emptiness of phenomena, liberation can only be temporary because such an idea cannot abided in permanently. In reality, these ideas are not any type of liberation or meditative experience, Instead, these ideas are only intellectual philosophy rather than realities seen directly. That "phenomena" are composed of smaller & smaller causes & conditions is only an intellectual idea. It is not something that can be seen in meditation. What can be seen in meditation is what is described in the Pali suttas, namely, for example, consciousness is the experience of cognition; consciousness arises dependent on sense organs; consciousness ceases when sense organs cease; consciousness is impermanent; when examined closely, consciousness is empty of self, etc. To hold there is no consciousness because consciousness is comprised of tiny electrons, atoms & molcules is just intellectual imaginings, despite these imaginings possibly being scientifically true. It is wrong & a lie to assert there is no consciousness because consciousness operates & only operates each time there is seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, cognition, etc. I think the Mahayana Malcolm view is certainly a superstition because it cannot be proven to be true or real. It is only an idea or thinking. It is not seeing. Therefore, the Bodhisatta does not "see" what Malcolm claims the Bodhisatta "sees". Instead, the Bodhisatta is merely thinking or engaged in papanca.

[mikenz66]

Despite the very sloppy language above, the sloppy idea of "seeing emptiness in phenomena", which I assume or guess means seeing "there is no phenomena", is unrelated to liberation according to the Buddha
...

That appears be a rather inaccurate guess.


Mike

[Lucas Oliveira]

For the Theravada, the sources are the Pali commentaries and Sri Lankan chronicles.

Somewhat ironically, however, the best sources of all are probably the Mahayana ones — Indian polemical works which attempt to defend Mahayana sutras against mainstream Buddhist objections to them. Being on the whole fairly gentlemanly debaters, Mahayanists like Bhāvaviveka and Haribhadra are careful to give scrupulously accurate accounts of their opponent’s views before taking a sledgehammer to them. In so doing they inadvertently leave us with a richer record of how non-Mahayana Buddhists viewed the Mahayana than that found in any non-Mahayana sources.

The following summary of "Hinayana objections" is taken from the Tarkajvālā, Bhāvaviveka's auto-commentary to his Madhyamakahṛdayakārikaḥ. (I've Palicised the Sanskrit words):

“The Mahāyāna suttas were not included in either the original or in any subsequent recitation of the Tipiṭaka.

“They contradict the doctrine that all saṅkhāras are impermanent by teaching that the Tathāgata is eternal.

“The doctrine of the all-pervasiveness of Tathāgatagabbha [‘Buddha Nature’] shows that the suttas’ author has not abandoned grasping at self.

“By teaching that the Buddha did not pass into Nibbāna they imply that Nibbāna is something other than the quietus of extinction.

“They make absurd prophecies that the Buddha’s mighty arahant disciples will eventually become Sammāsambuddhas.

“They belittle, mock and slander arahants.

“They extol unawakened Bodhisattas above the omniscient Buddha.

“They pervert the entire Dispensation by maintaining that the Blessed One was merely an illusory emanation.

“They advance the untenable claim that the Buddha lived in a state of uninterrupted samādhi.

“By asserting that weighty evil kammas can be absolved and prevented from ripening by mere rituals, the Mahāyāna suttas teach the heresies of acausalism and kammic inefficacy.

“Therefore, the Blessed One did not teach the Mahāyāna suttas. Rather, they were certainly delivered by Māra in order to pander to men of loose morals, to comfort men of evil desires, and to deceive men of feeble wits.”

Thank you Bhante!

I did not know Bhavaviveka and Haribhadra.

[Javi]

From my study, the Mahayana school's caricature of the mainstream schools as not understanding the emptiness of phenomena has always been obviously wrong. And I say this as someone with deep respect for the Mahayana traditions, practices and sanghas, having read a lot of their literature and practiced with them in their sanghas (Tibetan and Zen). It is just polemics pure and simple, spiritual marketing tactics of the lowest degree.

It has already been shown that Pali texts contain teachings about suññatā. A cursory google search will show that this is a teaching and a meditation taught in the Pali texts. I think the main issue here is that in the Pali suttas, suññatā is not seen as some separate truth apart from anatta. Also, there is no separation of suññatā of phenomena and suññatā of persons. Rather, from the POV of the Pali suttas, seeing that the five aggregates are empty of a self just is seeing suññatā - and this perception leads to letting go of the aggregates. BTW this is what is important about suññatā, that it is a skillful perception that leads to letting go. Suññatā is not the goal in itself, but a means to it.

This is, IMO, not different from what the Heart sutra says for example, so I honestly cannot see how Mahayanists think that they have this truth of emptiness all to themselves when it is clear that they do not, texts from mainstream schools such as the Tattvasiddhishastra of Harivarman clearly teach that dharmas are impermanent contingent phenomena empty of a self. Mun-Keat Choong and Yin Shun have also published studies with texts on Emptiness in the Chinese Agamas proving that these teachings exist here as well. This is also taught in the Theravada - no Theravadin will ever say that dhammas are some self existing essence thingy. Just because they do not use the same language and terminology as the Mahayana philosophers does not mean they do not teach emptiness. It only means that these schools diverged before certain scholastic terminology developed.

Interestingly enough, this is also the Gelug point of view of Tsongkhapa. Malcolm is not representing all of Tibetan Buddhism, rather the perspective of his particular school who disagreed with Tsongkhapa that arhats understand emptiness of phenomena.

But here's the thing that's tiring about this debate, its superficially academic. How would one know that certain persons' attainment is inferior simply because they belong to a particular school or interpret texts in a particular way? How can someone really know that a Thai Ajahn whose spent his life practicing Dhamma in the forest has not attained the deathless? All one would be doing is plugging in his scholarly categories. "Oh this person doesn't accept Mahayana sutras, so he must be inferior in realization, etc." So instead of going and meeting the person, questioning them, observing them and seeing if they have the marks of a spiritual friend, one just dismisses them based on sectarian views.

And here is where it becomes obvious what this Mahayana category system is all about - it is a sectarian tool to bring themselves up and put others down. I mean, it is quite obvious and understandable. Medieval India was filled with different traditions and one had to stake out one's territory to win support from the elites and from laypeople. The Mahayanists just happened to do this better than the mainstream schools and one can see why, their sutras are more colorful, more impressive, have more miracles and attractive imagery. Also, an eternal Buddha is just much more attractive than a Buddha who is dead and now only accessible through somewhat difficult and repetitive texts.

So yea, that is my response to that whole thing. It is quite nasty that these polemics are still going on in the West, as if Western Buddhism doesn't have more important things to worry about. Hopefully as Western Buddhism develops we will see less of this b.s.

I personally enjoy reading the Mahayana sutras, while I do not accept they come from the Buddha's time as modern scholarship has shown, I think their imagery can be beautiful and their perspectives can be interesting and often they are in line with my understanding of the Dhamma.

However the supercessionism I cannot get behind and this is further proof that they come from a later date since we clearly have no such polemics in the EBTs.

[Caodemarte]

From my study, the Mahayana school's caricature.....

It has already been shown that Pali texts contain teachings about suññatā. A cursory google search will show that this is a teaching and a meditation taught in the Pali texts. I think the main issue here is that in the Pali suttas, suññatā is not seen as some separate truth apart from anatta. Also, there is no separation of suññatā of phenomena and suññatā of persons.... this is what is important about suññatā, that it is a skillful perception that leads to letting go. Suññatā is not the goal in itself, but a means to it.

This is, IMO, not different from what the Heart sutra says for example, so I honestly cannot see how Mahayanists think that they have this truth of emptiness all to themselves.....

I would disagree that is is even superficially academic.

Who exactly says these things? Internet poseurs, scolds, or trolls? Poorly educated sectarians who often do not understand their own sect? The ancient, sometimes cruel, sometimes polite polemics among now extinct Indian debaters from now extinct sects?

Respectfully, there is no one Mahayana authority that can say this or that for all as you would probably agree. There is a wide collection of different sects that embrace a loose collection of texts and ideas that we then group together into what we call the Mahayana and, of course, of disparate individuals.

The ideas of this movement are indeed based on the logical implications of what we now call EBT. The proponents of these ideas believed and said they are the ideas of EBT (and therefore would be ideas or interpretations of ideas shared with the modern Theravada as pointed out by the moderns) as correctly underlined by your comments on emptiness.

[Javi]

From my study, the Mahayana school's caricature.....

It has already been shown that Pali texts contain teachings about suññatā. A cursory google search will show that this is a teaching and a meditation taught in the Pali texts. I think the main issue here is that in the Pali suttas, suññatā is not seen as some separate truth apart from anatta. Also, there is no separation of suññatā of phenomena and suññatā of persons.... this is what is important about suññatā, that it is a skillful perception that leads to letting go. Suññatā is not the goal in itself, but a means to it.

This is, IMO, not different from what the Heart sutra says for example, so I honestly cannot see how Mahayanists think that they have this truth of emptiness all to themselves.....

I would disagree that is is even superficially academic.

Who exactly says these things? Internet poseurs, scolds, or trolls? Poorly educated sectarians who often do not understand their own sect? The ancient, sometimes cruel, sometimes polite polemics among now extinct Indian debaters from now extinct sects?
....

How about Asanga in his Bodhisattvabhumi, or most of the Tibetan scholastic works that form the foundation of the education of Tibetan Buddhist monastics? How about the Mahayana sutras who make these exact points?

The supercessionism comes embedded in all of the major shastras of late Indo-Tibetan Buddhism - with the exception of the Abhidharmakosha.

How to even begin to disentangle this dilemma as Western Buddhists? 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. Those who have more of a historical perspective like myself will certainly see them as interesting and even helpful texts but will defer to the EBTs for the closest texts we have to the Buddha himself.

Of course from a strictly Mahayana POV this is non-sense, the Mahayana sutras are authoritative because they come directly from the Buddha, and herein lies the problem. We are taking different texts as our foundation.