Talk:Mahayana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Message from December 2002

Rewrote the relations between Taoism and Mahayana Buddhism. The two ideologies are *not* a seemless fit, but they work together because Mahayana Buddhism can be extremeley syncretic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.92.23 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2002 (UTC)

the relationship between bodhisattvas and enlightment

To the best of my knowledge the previous text was actually incorrect with regards to the relationship between bodhisattvas and enlightment. I attempted to fix that. Luis Dantas 01:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Omniscient"

Is the recently added bit on omniscience correct across Mahyana sects, or should that be qualified? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know. - Nat Krause 13:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pretty correct, though the term is technical, and means different things to different traditions. The Sanskrit word it is translateed from is normally sarvajnana.

There is a jain url that discusses sanskrit usage of sarvajnana and its interpretations. http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/ramjees/omniscience.htm

I think the first paragraph is pretty good, though the claim that Buddhists define sarvajnana as synonymous with Heya-Upadeya(?) is definately a Jain attribution, not a Buddhist one.

Werner, referring to a text by Wayman, says "(In Buddhism) [omniscience] is never understood to cover all knowledge which would include even mundane matters; `it is rather an "omniscience" about the truth of the world and of man' in so far as it leads to the realisation of the path" http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/karel.htm

Others disagree. Hey. How many buddhist traditions are there? 20040302

Dates

Are we sure about these dates? For example, does it really say that the Mahayana started around the same time that its texts were written down? Because those two things almost never happen together in India... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I made it "Mahayana as a distinct movement" a while back to create some wiggle room. I don't think anybody knows when Mahayana as an inchoate tendency began. But your point remains. - Nat Krause 05:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do we mean by distint movement? Lance Cousins argues that there was nothing that could properly called Mahayana Buddhism before probably the third century AD. What he means by this is that before that time there were people practising the (or a) bodhisattva path, but so there are in Theravada today. That doesn't constitute a distinct movement. Likewise, he says that surviving early Sanskrit manuscripts and Chinese translations show that Mahayana sutras in the second century were less radical than the forms familiar today, and argues that they would not have been considered heretical, so that proto-Mahayana could exist within mainstream Buddhism. Peter jackson 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The article's statement that Mahayana as a distinct movement began in the 1st century BCE seems a bit early. Still, I don't know what we should say. I'm not much of an expert on this matter, but my general sense is that before "Mahayana as we know it" existed, it came from "something else" which existed earlier. But, because we know very little about Mahayana prior to approximately the time of Nagarjuna, we are able to say very little about what this "something else" was like. It's not at all clear that "distinct movement" is the right term to describe it.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Description by Whohill?

Who is this "Soothill" guy that we are quoting at length? - Nat Krause 13:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought I'd bump this up to ask again if anybody knows who this is. - Nat Krause 10:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On Amazon.com, Soothill seems to be the author of a dictionnary on Buddhism. PHG

Soothill produced a (n abridged) translation of the Lotus Sutra. Peter jackson 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

formulations

20040302, what does "recognizably Mahayana formulations" mean? Perhaps you could elucidate that a little for the benefit of our readership and/or all sentient beings. - Nat Krause 04:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a quote from Schopen. However, I am pretty sure he is referring to epigraphic phrases that are identifiably Mahayana, such as "Do not criticize the Hinayana" 20040302

To the best of my knowledge the previous text was actually incorrect with regards to the relationship between bodisatva's and enlightment. I attempted to fix that. Luis Dantas 01:45, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Epigraphical .. question.

One of the first known mention of the Buddha as a deity, using the Indian bhakti word Bhagavat ("Lord", "All-embracing personal deity")

I am struggling with this. First of all, the term 'bhakti' as used here, refers to an Indian Hindu tradition that is no more than 700-800 years old (according to scholars). I believe that it is hard to identify the second attributed meaning "All-embracing personal deity" as being appropriate for the date of the epigram. This allows the translation "Lord", which does not help the argument. In my mind the entire argument (that Buddha was viewed as a deity) on epigraphical evidence appears to crumble due to poor scholarship. (20040302 12:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

References to Bhakti are known from around 500 BCE [1] (Panini). Bhakti is also regularly mentioned as one of the causes for the rise of Mahayana: "When Bhakti began to penetrate Buddhism seems unknown, but it substituted devotion to the person of the Buddha fot the original idea of the Buddha as a teacher, and was one of the factors which led to the divine Buddha of the "Great Vehicule", the Mahayana" (Tarn) (also example at [2]). "All-embracing personal deity" refers to Bhagavat, and is also totally appropriate for the time period (100 BCE), corresponding to the rise of the Bhagavat religion in India, and further attested by the Heliodorus pillar inscription for example. Please check the descriptions and timeframes of the religious texts developing the Bhagavat concept, the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavata Purana.PHG 13:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel it is necessary to qualify just what is meant by Bhakti here - I still feel that the term was used inappopriate to the context. According to Wikipedia, the first documented bhakti movement was founded by Karaikkal-ammaiyar around the 6th century AD. I suggest you bring such articles in line with your position. I consider Tarn's analysis to be less reliable erroneous here. Your link suggests that certain pure land schools developed a devotional relationship, that 'has been likened to the bhakti or devotional cults in Hinduism', but actually predated them by about 1500 years. As for the 'Bhagavat religion', I am unsure what you are talking about. If it existed at all, then maybe it would be better to provide links to that, rather than to a much later movement. Dating for the Bhagavad gita and the Bhagavata Purana themselves is notoriously unreliable, and in both cases, the word "Lord" is an adequate translation of Bhagavan. See the article Bhagavan. In brief, I remain unconvinced. (20040302 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Addendum See e.g. the end of the Sutta Nipata from the Pali canon if you wish to find the earliest textual references to devotion towards Buddha, albeit not full-fledged. Certainly enough to see influence for later texts. Williams (pp218-220) discusses sources of reference that indicates such an influence occurs. The earliest datable literary reference to the devotions found in the pure land schools is from around 179CE, from the Pratyutpanna Sutra.

Regardless, the identity of Buddha as a deity merely from evidence of the word 'Bhagavan' remains particularly weak. (20040302 15:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

As far as I know, the "Bhakti" concept and "Bhakti" tradition cannot be equated with what is historically called the Bhakti movement. It is an ancient and pervasive religious concept starting during the Vedic times. It is (reliably) documented in litterature "Panini mentions bhakti in reference to Vasudeva, Krishna's father. Mention of grace and election in Katha (2.20) (2.23) also Svetasvatara (3.20)."

For the connection with Mahayana, please see [3]: "the disciple of Mahayana Buddhism aims to become a bodhisattva, a being that postpones his own entrance into parinirvana (final extinction) in order to help other humans also attain it. As was the case with the Hindu avatars of Vishnu, the bodhisattvas are mediators between man and Ultimate Reality. Through devotion and proper moral conduct humans receive their grace and attain liberation. This new development has been interpreted as a penetration of the Hindu bhakti tradition into Buddhism.". Is this an "unreliable source again"? If you are "unconvinced", maybe you can change the formulation, propose an alternative view, make the affirmation less direct, but please do not just erase content: this is a view held by quite a few people, including respected specialists. Just erasing documented content that does not convince you is POV editing.

On "Bhagavat", this is playing on words. "Lord" of course is a good, if minimalist, translation, but denying "all-embracing personal deity" is rather unfair: you put as a reference an article (Bhagavan) which lists the various translations of Bhagavat as "An epithet of the Godhead; also the Personal God of the devotee.", "Divinity", "God", "Supreme Lord", and then deny any connotation of deity after that. Any of these expressions are fine with me, but we ought to say more clearly in the article what Bhagavat connotes. PHG 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. Cologne's Digital Sanskrit Lexicon has bhagavat: possessing fortune, fortunate, prosperous, happy; glorious, illustrious, divine, adorable, venerable; holy (applied to gods, demigods, and saints as a term of address, either in voc. bhagavan) etc. I guess the difficulty I have is that Buddhists don't/didn't have much 'truck' with 'deities' - they considered devas to be mortal, fallible, proud, and unreliable. Indeed the earliest sutras mention Sakka (aka Indra) as a student and follower of Buddha. Meanwhile, aspect s of deity such as being a creator god, omnipotent, judge, etc. also fail completely within Buddhism. If I think about it, I guess that the idea of using the concept of "all-embracing personal deity" would be a demotion (not a promotion) of Buddha's status in both early Buddhism and the Mahayana. However, I agree that "Lord" loses the grandeur of Bhagavan, so I like your suggestion of "Supreme Lord", which to me does not have the connotations of deity or godhead, though I guess to many Christians it does, so maybe it is still prone to some form of gloss or revision.

Moreover, the extract from the link (http://www.comparativereligion.com/Buddhism.html) is just mistaken. Let me make a proposal, based upon the Lotus Sutra and the Prajnaparamita, as well as all the Mahayana traditions, that the goal of the student of Mahayana is Samyaksam Buddhahood itself. The mistake is a common one, and is based on a misinterpretation of the Mahayana/Nikaya divide. The primary doctrinal difference, which allowed for the development of Mahayana, can be traced to the distinction as to whether nirvana-with-remainder is final, or nirvana-without-remainder is final. The Nikaya schools held that nirvana-with-remainder (Buddha during his life) always ends with nirvana-without-remainder, whereas the proto-Mahayana and subsequent Mahayana traditions asserted that nirvana-without-remainder (the status of a SravakaBuddha) is not final, but nirvana-with-remainder is final. Essentially, the Mahayana Buddhist believes that Buddhas continue to directly benefit sentient beings until the end of Samsara, whereas the Nikaya stated that once entering paranirvana, Buddhas no longer benefit sentient beings directly. Therefore, any text that supposes a Bodhisattva 'postpones' Nirvana is mistaken, in that it is unaware of the doctrinal difference concerning nirvana-with-remainder. There are plenty of primary sources (e.g. Lotus sutra) for this. It also explains a lot of the differences between the Nikaya and the Mahayana sutras.

Moreover, any ideas such as "As was the case with the Hindu avatars of Vishnu, the bodhisattvas are mediators between man and Ultimate Reality." This is just poor taste. The difficulty with syncretism and comparative religions are that often the ideas and schemas often do not translate well. I would prefer to 'vive la difference', and feel that examining ideas on their own grounds offers more respect towards the great number of varieties of religious expression and philosophy....

Regardless, Bodhisattvas are not 'mediators' between man and ultimate reality. All Buddhists assert that the best rebirth (better than being a god!) is a human rebirth. The Bodhisattvas such as Tara, etc. represent(ed) specific aspects of the Buddha - for instance, Avalokitesvara is the compassion of Buddha. Incidentally, there are at least two levels of meaning here - the view of the commonfolk where the Bodhisattva deities are aspects of Sakyamuni (and later, other Buddhas, such as Akshobya), with it's own set of myths, which indeed led to the suggestion of personal, divine beings. Secondly, the view of the inner practitioners is distinct, and here the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara represents the compassion of ones-self - where prayer to Avalokitesvara is more an evocation of the compassion to be found in one's own future Buddhahood.

Back to the 'mediators' statement. Mediator implies a separate, distinct entity, 'go-between', or 'arbitrator', etc., which frankly doesn't work. I find it hard to argue against the fact that many commonfolk treat(ed) Mahayana Buddhism in a manner similar to other religions, but I cannot agree that this is all there is. The primary message of Sakyamuni Buddha was that you can go do it too. The Nikaya followed his teachings, the Mahayana accepted him as an example to follow also. Moreover, karma precludes the ability for intercession and there is no acceptance of omnipotence in Buddhism. Therefore, the comparison with Vaisnavism is unsteady - where Krsna etc. are able to do something, being omnipotent. Even more, the 'ultimate reality' in Buddhism is merely essencelessness. Insight through the three higher trainings is the accepted way to achieve the (third) path of insight, within both the Nikaya and Mahayana traditions..

"As was the case with the Hindu avatars of Vishnu, the bodhisattvas are mediators between man and Ultimate Reality." So, In Buddhism, Bodhisattvas are not avatars, they are not mediators, man is superior to Vishnu, and ultimate reality cannot be communicated with (via mediators or not) but is perceived upon reaching the path of insight.

As for bhakti, while I accept that the term was used by Panini, I reject that there is a necessary 'bhakti' slant to the term 'Bhagavat'. I certainly believe that the phrase "using the Indian bhakti word Bhagavat" implies the Bhakti movement, and guess that this was the original intent. Otherwise, why not state (which I am not happy with!) "using the Sanskrit devotional word Bhagavat". The reason why I am not happy with it, is I am not yet convinced that 'Bhagavat' necessarily implies (religious) devotion. I think that it is interesting in a small way to mention the earliest epigraphic evidence of 'Bhagavat', but I feel it is deeply mistaken to draw many conclusions from that.

I go on sometimes.. It is late, and I am tired. (20040302 23:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I did not see you had also erased the quote from Lowenstein: "Various origins have also been suggested to explain its emergence, such as “popular Hindu devotional cults (bhakti), and Persian and Greco-Roman theologies, which filtered into India from the northwest” (Tom Lowenstein, “The vision of the Buddha”)." Do you often erase sources which do not match your own convictions? Again, please add alternative views, but do not erase documented content. As far as I know Wikipedia is about synthesising the available knowledge on a subject (including of course scholarly analysis), not about erasing what "does not convince you". PHG 22:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't like the idea of synthesis (as mentioned above), but I do respect the principles of NPOV and citation. I could just wade in with pointing out the obvious (such as the much later date for the emergence of the bhakti cults), or use citations (e.g. Conze) to demonstrate evidence that places the early development of the Mahayana in the South of India. I do not particularly feel a need to permanently pull Lowenstein, but I do feel that his text offers the same old pro-greek slant which you appear to prefer, to the point of omitting text that suggests otherwise. I think we could get on much better if we both agreed to accept that our own views are merely POV. To date there is not enough evidence to prove that the Greeks invented the Mahayana, and if not the greeks, then the Hindus. However, there is a lot of evidence (especially from certain Christians who appear to be terrified of finding out that religious compassion came to Judea via Buddhist missionaries) that many scholars prefer such views. On the other hand, I have to agree that, though there appears to be sound scriptural evidence for the foundations of every aspect of the Mahayana within the early Nikaya sutras, not everyone agrees.

There was also a pull from Greco-Buddhism - I actually looked up Williams, and felt that the article was definately pushing the pro-greek angle, I did not merely delete, but added the mention of Conze, and the fact that there is scriptural evidence which places the emergence of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras from the Centre or South of India.

I would prefer to work with you on these articles, but to do so, we must look beyond our own convictions, and strive for balance. Later.. (20040302)

By all means, please balance this article with alternative views on the essence of Mahayana and its origins. It will enrich the article, we will learn something, and it is much better than destroying other's content :-). Let me also take exception to the "pro-Greek" label: my "expertise" just happens to be more with the Classical World, and Wikipedia originally having no content whatsoever on the Greco-Bactrians, Indo-Greeks or Greco-Buddhism, and nothing regarding the historical influence of Greeks in India, I just filled-in the gaps.

In the Greco-Buddhism article, most of my references on the interraction between Greek thought and Buddhism come from quite a respected work: Mc Evilly "The Shape of Ancient Thought". Again, your own views may diverge, but I do not think that justifies you pulling the text. Why don't you build on it, and explain what, on the contrary represents irreconciliable differences (you seem to know a lot more than me about that). See you around. PHG 12:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I should mention here, since nobody else seems aware of it, that bhagavant is the normal title by which the Buddha is referred to in the Pali Canon. Whether or not it's devotional, it's certainly not Mahayanist.Peter jackson 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Universalism section discussion

The name "Mahāyāna" means great yāna, or the greater vehicle, in contrast to the Hīnayāna, or "inferior vehicle", indicating universalism, or Salvation for all. This affirmation is grounded in the belief that every individual possesses Buddha nature, and therefore is a potential Buddha who will attain bodhi.

This was contrasted with Hinayana doctrine, which considers that the attainment Nirvana in this lifetime is only possible for a few, demands to lead a monk’s life, to renounce all possessions and to cut oneself from life and its desires, an ideal only achieved by selected arhats.

Because of its universalist position, Mahayana was able to appeal more easily to the lay masses, by promising for all various ways to enlightenment.

I have several difficulties with the above paragraphs, which I shall attempt to explain:

This affirmation is grounded in the belief that every individual possesses Buddha nature, and therefore is a potential Buddha who will attain bodhi.

I feel it would be more fair to say that the Mahayana practitioner works solely for the benefit of all - and therefore is not happy with achieving the status of a SravakaBuddha, or a PratyekaBuddha, but wishes to follow the example of Sakyamuni Buddha, and achieve the status of a SamyaksamBuddha.

Secondly, there is no doubt that all beings are capable of achieving Nirvana, both within the Mahayana and Nikaya schools.

This was contrasted with Hinayana doctrine, which considers that the attainment Nirvana in this lifetime is only possible for a few

Actually, all schools believe this - we are subject to our karmic propensities. The sentence reads poorly anyway - because in the Hinayana sentence there is the qualifier "in this lifetime", which is missing from the Mahanaya sentence above.

demands to lead a monk’s life, to renounce all possessions and to cut oneself from life and its desires, an ideal only achieved by selected arhats.

First of all, arhats within any school are not selected by some judge. Secondly, we only need to read the Nikaya sutras to identify the importance of lay people within Buddhism. Secondly, the monks life in Mahayana traditions such as those of the Indo-Tibetans are actually lineages of Nikaya tradition - so we can see that being a monk is not something that only Hinayana practitioners do. Moreover, the PoW sutra explains that the Mahayana practitioner should follow most of the Nikaya dharma (the exception being turning towards Sravakabuddhahood)

Because of its universalist position, Mahayana was able to appeal more easily to the lay masses, by promising for all various ways to enlightenment.

As a declaritive statement, this really must include a citation of it's source. Such an assertion can neither be proved or disproved.

Rather than attempting to distinguish Mahayana for "Universalism", I argue that one of the primary distinctions between Mahayana and the Theravada (and possibly most ancient Nikaya schools, though I am not so sure) is the very different concept of the final nature of enlightenment. It appears that most Mahayana traditions consider that Sravaka-Buddhahood is not final: This is based on a subtle doctrinal distinction between the Mahayana and Theravadans concerning the issues of Nirvana-with-remainder and Nirvana-without-remainder. As I understand it the Theravadans consider that Nirvana-without-remainder always follows Nirvana-with-remainder (we achieve enlightenment before we die) and that Nirvana-without-remainder is final, whereas the Mahayana consider that Nirvana-without-remainder is always followed by Nirvana-with-remainder (the state of Sravaka-Buddhahood is succeeded by the state of Samyaksam-Buddhahood).

This distinction is most evident regarding doctrinal concerns about the ability of a Buddha after parinirvana (which is identified by the Nikaya as being nirvana-without-remainder). Most importantly, within the Nikaya, a SamyaksamBuddha is not able to directly point the way to nirvana after death. This is a major distinction between Nikaya and the Mahayana, who conversely, state that once a SamyaksamBuddha arises, s/he continues to directly, actively point the way to nirvana for all time (actually, until there are no beings left in samsara). The Nikaya/Mahayana views differ on this, and this is exactly why the Mahayana do not talk about a bodhisattva postponing nirvana, and exactly why the Nikaya do.

To make myself redundantly clear: Within Nikaya, Maitreya has chosen to postpone his Nirvana in order to introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists. While within Mahayana schools, Maitreya will also be the next Buddha manifest in this world and introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists, however, he is not postponing his Nirvana to do so, and when he dies (or enters parinirvana), he will likewise continue to teach the Dharma for all time. Moreover Mahayana argues that although it is true that for this world-system, Maitreya is the next Buddha to manifest there are an infinite number of world-systems, many of which have currently active Buddhas, or Buddhas-to-be manifesting.

So based on the Nikaya/Mahayana doctrinal distinction of the meaning of nirvana-without-remainder, we see two distinct views concerning the path of the bodhisattva, with the Nikaya stating that Bodhisattvas postpone their own Nirvana, whereas the Mahayana schools stating that Bodhisattvas attempt to reach Nirvana as soon as possible, (just like Nikaya Sravakas do), but with the motive to continue to effortlessly benefit all beings for all time (due to the distinction of ability of a Buddha after death). (20040302 00:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC))

You state above that "there is no doubt that all beings are capable of achieving Nirvana, both within the Mahayana and Nikaya schools. What's the authority for this? The Yamaka refers to those who will not attain the path. Is there some authority for saying they are capable but just don't do it? Also, don't Yogacara sources refer to a similar category, called icchantikas? Peter jackson 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Universalism/Compassion contradiction

Universtalism describes a distinction between Nikaya and Mahayana as being "...the Nikaya stating that Bodhisattvas postpone their own Nirvana, whereas the Mahayana schools stating that Bodhisattvas attempt to reach Nirvana as soon as possible..."

Later, in describing Mahayana's emphasis on compassion, the article states,"(a)lthough having reached enlightenment, Bodhisattvas usually make a vow to postpone entering into Nirvana until all other beings have also been saved."

Can anyone explain?

SCOBOW67.176.1.213 16:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad that the above contributor has raised this point, as it bothers me too. I think there is a huge confusion here about the terms "Nirvana", "Bodhi" and "Parinirvana". There is a deal of inaccuracy in the above paragraphs - or at least a misleading impression is created. Firtly, "Bodhi" (Awakening, "Enlightenment") and "Nirvana" are two sides of the same coin. When one achieves Bodhi, one is also in a state of Nirvana. Bodhi is more the understanding or visionary dimension, whereas Nirvana is more the experiential aspect (peace, bliss, etc.). "Parinirvana" is usually used (although not always) of the physical death of a Buddha or arhat.

I am surprised to read here that in early Buddhism Bodhisattvas (bodhisattas) postpone their Nirvana. I don't think they do! Surely they (and the earlier lives of Siddhartha are focussed on to show this) strive to attain Bodhi. Once that is attained, they are automatically a Buddha. Then they live out their lives, teach and physically die. What happens after that is never clearly specified in early Buddhism. In Mahayana, Bodhisattvas generally do not postpone their "Nirvana": they wish to attain Bodhi and Nirvana for themselves but also help other beings secure it too - life after life after life. When those Bodhisattvas become Buddhas, they might pass into "Parinirvana" (physically die), but they continue to operate in samsara in all kinds of mysterious ways (e.g. sending out simulacra / projections of themselves - "nirmanakayas") until all beings are liberated from suffering.

So I think these two paragraphs really need to be made more accurate and more clear. Best wishes to everyone. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment is heavily weighted with my POV ! My first edit too. In Theravada there are what the Buddha called the Ten Indeterminates. These are ten metaphysical questions that the Buddha was said not to have answered intentionally. ( found majhima nikaya 63 - you can find this sutta translated by Thanissaro Bhikku on accesstoinsight.org ) These questions often seems to cut through a lot of ontological issues, for me at least. Here is the quote from the sutta:

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

Here the division between Mahayana and Theravada become more distinct. In Theravada the concept of a Buddha's existance after death is one that one is supposed to avoid. Also the temporal concept of eternity and non-eternity implied by the existance of a perservering Bodhisatva is also not supposed to be delved into. And as stated they are because they don't lead to .... Unbinding.

So there is a list of ten that I belive crops up more than once in the Pali Canon. It's not as well known as some other suttas that are extracted and elaborated upon - but it still has it's weight. Also, even thought these ten questions aren't known publicly as other tenets of Theravada I feel that it is just as important as other well known tenets and should be known.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can comment on this.

External links

Why is the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA) listed here? It may indeed offer "Hundreds of free buddhist talks and huge forum", but it's in the Theravada tradition. Shouldn't the link be moved to that article?

It's just spam—someone wants to promote their website. Please remove stuff like that if you see it in the future. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Three Aspects of the Buddha Nature

Why isn't this discussed anywhere in the article? uriah923^(talk) 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. Why don't you add something about that to the article? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Like Nat, I have not heard of the "three aspects of the Buddha Nature" before. Is this perhaps referring to the "three natures" referred to in Yogacara Buddhism (apparent, dependent, and ultimately real)?? Cheers. From Tony. TonyMPNS 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

criticisms

hello, I was just editing the criticisms of Mahayana and Vajrayana on Theravada on the main Theravada article, and was curious if there was such a section on the Mahayana page. Off course, I don't want to cause misunderstandings or hard feelings, so I will ask for permission first to put some of Therevada's criticims on the Mahayana page (off course, there are some). Alternatively, we could also make another article dedicated to just all the various common criticisms between the 3 main schools, and keep the pages on both Theravada and Mahayana clear of them. To be honest it doesn't seem very necessary to include all the criticisms on the main page of a school. Off course we would still include some references in the articles to the criticisms article. greetings, Sacca 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Three main schools" - is this tripartite buddhism (which aren't schools)? As for the criticisms - I object to their presence here or anywhere. See the discussion on Talk:Theravada for history of this sort of stuff. (20040302 08:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

With 3 main schools I mean Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana. I don't think the word Tripartite Buddhism is quite acceptable for Theravada. Off cource, Vajrayana and Mahayana do practice Tripartite Buddhism, but for Theravada it is just one Buddhism, in which a Bodhisattva path is recognized but not taught by Theravada (or Buddha as in the Pali Canon). But then again, there are Theravadins who practice it, so it's one big happy family..

I think you missed my point. Tripartite Buddhism doesn't represent a practice, but a common division of Buddhist populations, based upon indo-tibetan and indo-chinese traditions - As I have mentioned elsewhere, the difficulty about using the notion of "Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana" as a correlated partition of buddhists is that the traditions that initially used this partition used the division as "Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana" - which does damage in two ways: (1) it reinforces a correlation of Hinayana with Theravada - something that nearly every Buddhist organisation has been working away from since the 1950s and (2) the term Hinayana is also a deprecated term, due to the strong belief that it is a derogatory term (certainly within the indo-tibetan traditions from around the 3rd Century CE it makes no sense whatsoever to be derogatory to sravaka/pratyeka sutras or practioners, which is why I do not believe that the term is necessarily derogatory - but despite my views, I agree and understand that it is a term to be deprecated). So the challenge that we face is that the triple partition of current buddhists is heavily dependent (as a partitioning) upon mahayana thought - but it appears to serve a purpose in current demographic analysis. I am not so sure that the division is necessarily the best - but that's another thing.

Gautama Buddha's 'Bodhidattva-adventures' ;-) are heavily commented upon in the Jatakas (which are of late origin - after the demise of Buddha), and these stories gained a big influence in later times because they are quite nice and inspirational stories for those with faith. Outside the Jatakas there is not much mention of the Buddha's previous lives in the Sutta Pitaka, which concurs with Buddha's statement that he just teaches 'the leaves in his hands', just what's necessary and beneficial, not all the leaves in the whole forest.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this...

I had a brief look at the talk page of Thervada. Maybe we can take the second option then, of just moving the all criticisms and defenses together on one page so those who are interested have easy access? greetings Sacca 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe - but think carefully about this - regarding this whole issue of 'criticisms' etc - let me copy something I wrote before on this topic:

It sets a terrible example to have one group of Buddhists criticising and abusing other groups of Buddhists. Even if there are any Mahayanists who do that against the Theravadins, it still does not put the Theravadins in good light to go and do that back, or put words into the mouths of those that they do not understand.

— User:20040302, Talk:Theravada

In my opinion, all Buddhists are urged by Dharma to show tolerance and respect - most especially to each other. I am very aware that there have been individuals - even in the recent past who have made claims that are mistaken or ill-informed, based upon their own textual traditions. I don't really think that it is a good idea to typify any tradition on the basis of the mistakes it has made. IMO It would be far more appropriate to demonstrate an awareness of the benefits and qualities that different traditions have brought with them. Why not author a new article that refers to the qualities of the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions that are remarked upon in the Theravada tradition? I believe it would be a far more worthy cause. Also, I am still waiting to hear from you for a better alternative to 'Sravakabuddha'! (20040302 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps this critical material could be combined with the article on Buddhist polemics? It does seem a bit unfair for only Theravada to have a section on criticism. Although, incidentally, I believe that section was originally written by a Theravada follower in the form of "misconceptions about Theravada".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have now followed Nat Krause's suggestion and moved the section to Buddhist polemics. greetings, Sacca 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished at [your edition]. Is that means all Mahayana is faked Dharma based on sutras writen by evil people (in monks robes) with intention to change original teachings? Tadeusz Dudkowski 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

comparison

The whole 'doctrine' section is a comparison of Mahayana to Theravada. I am quite surprised at this, and think maybe a lot can be moved to Buddhist polemics or some other place. If not, somebody will have to put quite some work in reworking the section from a NPOV. People might want to consider replacing the mention of Theravada with the early Buddhist schools, which is more relevant for Mahayana.

The section on doctrine mentions 4 differences between Mahayana and Theravada. Three of these are contentious and POV:

1. Enlightened wisdom, as the main focus of realization.
2. Compassion through the transferal of merit.
3. By the way parts of number three are also present and Theravada (Rich cosmology, celestial realms and powers).

These items are frequently stressed in Theravada. I recognize that Mayanana claims these things are being their selling-points, but really this is POV. What can any Buddhist do without enlightened wisdom and compassion? Indeed these are very frequently mentioned in the Pali Canon and later Theravadin commentaries. This is the core of Theravada teachings, too. Until this issue is corrected, I think a pov label is justified.Greetings, Sacca 07:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

incorrect information

Also there are quite a few mistakes in the article. I will put them here, maybe I will repair the article later.

1. section on 'Epigraphical evidence': Bhagavato is a standard word in early buddhism (Namo tassa Bhagavato arahato sammasambudhassa) is about the most chanted prase in Theravada, and it comes straight from Pali Canon). This is no proof at all for ealy mahayana in 1st century BC. This information is not connected to Mahayana and should be deleted.
2. Section on origins: Mahayana as a distinct movement began around the 1st century BCE in the area around Kushan Empire is not correct, some pieces of scriptures dat from that period. Mahayana is not recognized as a distinct movement at that time. This is more commonly believed to hae happened in second half of 1 century AD.
3. section on The 4th Buddhist Council. this information is wrong see article on Fourth Buddhist council.
4. Mahayana Scriptures. The Mahayana (sutras?) were probably set in writing around the 1st century BCE. This is speculation. the first complete sutras date from 1 century AD, and scholars think these scriptures contain parts of some slightly older scriptures (hich might or might not have been written down - oral transmission was very common at that time).

I did not change these things right away because I want to be cautious with edits in this article.Greetings, Sacca 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Sacca 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Transcendental Immanence Section

A Wiki editor has tried to remove the references to the "Self" in this section, saying that they are inappropriate. I understand that from the viewpoint of non-Tathagatagarbha Buddhism such a term may strike many as inappropriate, but it is actually the chosen word of the Buddha in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (it is frequently linked with the Eternal, Pure, Unchanging and Blissful qualities which characterise the Buddha as Dharmakaya) and is also found in a number of other Tathagatagarbha sutras. So it is perfectly legitimate to use it in that context. The Wiki editor who objects to this says that non-essentialism is the essence of Buddhism. That is probably the view held by many, many Buddhists - but in regard to the Tathagatagarbha sutras it is not an accurate portrayal of what the teachings actually insist upon, as those sutras were (according to their own words) delivered to rectify such a doctrine of the impermanence, changefulness and non-Self-hood of the Buddha! So I would strongly contend that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term which the Buddha of the Tathagatagarbha sutras frequently employs in a positive, cataphatic sense when speaking of the Tathagatagarbha doctrine. All best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 11:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article dwells on the mythological aspects of Mahayana and neglects the philosophy. Nagarjuna is not even mentioned and his metaphysics is contrary to many of the characterizations of Mahayana here. Short descriptions of the prominent sects should be here as well. This article is not about a very controversial subject, I suppose this explains why the quality is not very high. Arrow740 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So no one has yet reverted the replacement of the word "liberal" by "conservative" in the introduction? I would like some other editor to look into it. In fact I think either of the two words is unnecessary. --Knverma 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mahayana

In case anyone might be interested, there's discussion regarding a possible Template:MahayanaBuddhism going on at Template_talk:Buddhism. Any feedback welcomed and appreciated. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick suggestion

Just dropping by for a quick suggestion... if this article is ever going to be above B-class, it needs in-line citations like crazy - especially for an important long article like this. -Midnightdreary 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

npov

Hello, just labeled a section as npov. The language is not objective, the whole section seems to be original research. Where are the references? Could somebody rephrase these contents so they sound objective, using references? The views are expounded as if they are really true, and they are not presented as views. This is actually a big problem in the whole article. Greetings, Sacca 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious problems

"Early Mahayana did not have a taboo regarding the composition of new sutras. With the creation of new Mahayana Sutras, the Mahayana movement was rejected by the Theravada schools as heretical."

That statement is highly biased and sectarian against Mahayana. Does anyone have sources for this? Also, like someone said, this page focuses too much on the mystical side of Mahayana and not enough on the philosophical points such as Nagarjuna's works.

Jmlee369 04:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not even certain that Nagarjuna was Mahayana. He could also have been Theravada or another of the early schools. Greetings, Sacca 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Universalism

Regarding this text:

• For example, the early schools held that Maitreya (彌勒菩薩) will not attain nirvana while Gautama Buddha's teachings still exist. In contrast, some Mahayana schools hold that Maitreya will be the next buddha manifest in this world and will introduce the dharma when it no longer exists; he is not postponing his nirvana to do so, and when he dies (or enters mahaparinirvana), he will likewise continue to teach the dharma for all time.

I couldn't see the contradiction between the two. Both seem to be saying that Maitreya will attain nirvana/attain buddhahood after Gautama Buddha's teachings disappear. Did I completely misunderstand it? Perhaps it requires a clearer explanation. --Knverma 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I add here, just to confuse the issue, that the Tibetans hold that Nagarjuna was a Buddha, & the Nyingmas probably hold that Padmasambhava was. There are probably other examples. Mahayana doesn't regard Maitreya as the next Buddha. Peter jackson 11:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese characters are missing

The chinese characters at the beginning of the article are missing or damaged. Greetings, Sacca 12:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bodhichita Weasel Words

The first sentence of this section uses the phrase "According to most Mahayana followers" without citing any sources. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words--ॐJesucristo301 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahayana Humanistic Buddhism

I think that there should be some content from or at least a link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Buddhism Dhammapal 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• I've deleted the bit about salvation as opposed to liberation, as I've no idea what the difference is supposed to be. Perhaps someone can put it back with a proper explanation.
• "Theravada schools" is wrong: Theravada is just one of the early schools, not a collective name for them all (except for the ill-informed).
• I hope my other corrections are clear.

Peter jackson (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening Section

There is a quote here that claims "the historical source of the name Mahayana is polemical". This seems to be inaccurate -- there is altogether too much reliance upon the outdated opinions of Warder in much of the Mahayana-related articles. It is clear from recent scholarship focussing on the very early Mahayana sutras that its adherents did not regard it as polemical (in fact, Sheishi Karashima has demonstrated that the original term was "mahājnāna", read as Mahayana via a mistaken reading of a Prakrit mahājāna). Warder seems to derive his opinions from a very limited reading of Mahayana sutras, concentrating on well-known ones like the Lotus Sutra. many early sutras just do not use it in a confrontational or polemical way. There is also a view amongst some scholars (Jan Nattier is one I think) who suggest that the term was not originally intended polemically, but used within the group to raise the esprit de corps. It later comes to have more of a polemical flavour as the Mahayana followers met with persecution from some quarters. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What books are you quoting? Sounds interesting. Mitsube (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I shall be posting something on the Mahayana Scriptures talk page in the next few days which will cover this. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The second source for this was mentioned, but placed in the wrong location, so I separated that quote/source into two now. Now it is more obvious that it is not just AK Warder, but also mentioned in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Greetings, Sacca 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made various changes to the article, and a few big additions: on the two periods of Mahayana (early and late), and the three main sources that contributed to Mahayana.Greetings, Sacca 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Statement

Early in this article, there is statement "The earliest Mahayana scriptures probably originated during the first century CE" sourced from Warder that is quite outdated and should be deleted (together with most of his other outmoded and ill-informed views). It is now thought that the first Mahayana texts (in Prakrit) date from at least the 1st century BCE, and arguably even earlier. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you have a good source for this you can add it. For now I will do it myself to save you the trouble. Greetings, Sacca 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually both dates can be used. AK Warder was again not as bad as you claim he is. He seems quite good actually. Greetings, Sacca 11:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both dates should not be used -- the general view (when expressed) of scholars specializing in early Mahayana is that it dates back at least to the 1st century CE -- it has to be because of internal textual evidence in some fairly elaborate (i.e. presupposing a lengthy previous development) Mahayana sutras that mention Gautamiputra Satavahana (c60 - 90 CE) as a contemporary. This again shows that Warder is not a reliable source for Mahayana since i) he is out of date now and ii) not a specialist in Mahayana. If you think that Warder is "quite good" on Mahayana, I fear your library resources are sadly limited. Have a read of Nattier's "A Few Good Men", Ray's "Saints of India", Schopen's papers on Mahayana published in "Figments and Fragments of Mahayana in India", relevant papers by Paul Harrison, Jonathan Silk or Seishi Kajiyama. These, to name a few, are considered to be the leading specialists on early Mahayana. Please read these, then come back and tell us that you still think Warder is "quite good" on Mahayana or do you have a fondness for Warder for other reasons ? --Anam Gumnam (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I had been meaning to correct this myself recently. I was recently reading sections of Paul Williams' Mahayana Buddhism and I noticed the following statement: "From about the first century BCE the changes occurring within Buddhism seem to have issued a new literature claiming to be the word of the Buddha himself." (pg. 32)—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nat, again you also are off course welcome to add that statement as a source if you are interested in that. I notice that Anam is more interested though in using 'at least' first century CE. That is fine also of course, as long as it is stated clearly not to be open-ended, suggesting that these sutras are from Gautama Buddha. These sutras are clearly later than the Vinaya, Nikayas, Agamas and even the Abhidhammas. Nobody would contest that. Also nobody is claiming second century BCE. And also we are talking about just a few sutras here, not the sutras that are important to current Late Mahayana. We are talking about early Mahayana which is a different thing. It's like comparing the Early Buddhist Schools and Pre-sectarian Buddhism. Not the same. I still feel Anam is a bit too angry at AK Warder. I feel that maybe you have ever met him and didn't like him for some reason? I much enjoy reading about early Mahayana and it is indeed very interesting. Thanks for your reading suggestions Annam. I already had a look at Ray's book by the way. Try not to make this personal please? Greetings, Sacca 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Schopen is quite biased. He's probably suggesting Early Mahayana is the first and oldest kind of Buddhism, I guess... But still, he is mentioned as a source in the articles, please note that. There is no reason to remove Warder from Wikipedia just because you are not happy with his opinions. ;-) Greetings, Sacca 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

How would you know that Schopen is biased ? Which of his 40 odd published papers are you referring to ? If you had read anything by Schopen you would have known that his views would not find much favor with a Mahayana aficiando. You don't even seem to realize that most of your MacMillan Encyclopedia quotes are pure Schopen. How very amusing ! --Anam Gumnam (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making this personal, with remarks like "I still feel Anam is a bit too angry at AK Warder. I feel that maybe you have ever met him and didn't like him for some reason?"

Also, I'm not sure where you get the impression that Schopen has suggested that "Early Mahayana is the first and oldest kind of Buddhism". I would be quite surprised if that were true, but please enlighten me. If Schopen does argue that, then we should definitely mention it in this article, since Schopen is an influential and respected expert on Indian Mahayana, even if his ideas are often controversial among other experts.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

finished

For now I am quite happy with this article, the detail on early mahayana is much stronger now and the article as a whole is less POV (it wasn't too bad to start with) and has a clearer and better structure. Greetings, Sacca 06:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions regarding early Mahayana history—I'm sure this will be informative for many readers.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Sacca,

If you're going to give an explanation for your edits to this page, please don't leave it on the user talk page of particular editor, but instead on the article talk page.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Nat. But it is accepted practice to talk about these things on user talk pages. Anam is obviously the main concerned party. And thanks for the previous comment, by the way. I appreciate your appreciation. Greetings, Sacca 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't do everything at once -- I told you, I have a physical handicap and cannot use computer for great lengths of time. The improvements I made yesterday cost me a lot in pain and time -- so thanks a lot. I shall revert back to my edits and if you'll give me a few days, I can insert references for every single one of my changes where substantive. You seem to be acting as though you think that you own this article and nobody else can make changes without your approval. I don't think that is how Wiki is supposed to work. If you have a problem about that, I think there are Wiki ways of settling the matter.

And as user Nat Krause wrote, you should post your comments here, so I have moved them from my user page. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Anam. You are not the only one with physical discomforts. My detailed reading of your edit cost me time and effort and some uncomfortable physical feelings, too. You disregarded the previously existing references, you were too free in changing the referenced statements, so that the references didn't match the statements any more. So I am sorry for your feelings which will be hurt a bit but I unreverted your revert. I am putting in time too. Just take it step by step. We have the rest of our lives. Best wishes. Greetings, Sacca 05:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny ? Do you need morphine every day for your "uncomfortable physical feelings" ? I know that there are surely other disabled people on Wiki, but somehow I don't think they include you. You need to realize that not everybody is going to do things your way and fix things instantaneously just because you say so. The proper etiquette on Wiki, I believe, is to add a tag in the text requesting a citation / reference. Why don't you do that ? Do you own this article ? --Anam Gumnam (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The following was posted on my user page by user Sacca. I can only assume that it was an attempt to conceal the reverts that this user made without bringing them to the attention of a wider audience. I address his points above --Anam Gumnam (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anam, I am now looking at your recent edits on mahayana sutras, I am a bit concerned that you do not use any sources, and frequently change statements which are clearly and well referenced. If you want to change such statements, you will need to use references which support your opinion. I will have to revert a number of your contributions because of this. I will also remove some comments which are not referenced and seem doubtful, other comments I will apply an tag to identify them as needing a source.

For the future, this style of editing will not be sufficient. Please base your statements on published (scholarly) texts that you mention very specifically with pagenumber included, so that they are verifiable to others, and so that we can see whether you accurately represent their positions or not. Finding sources and mentioning them will take more of your time than just casually correcting them as you see fit. This however is just part of the process of editing at Wikipedia.

Greetings, Sacca 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I took out the mention of Schopen because it was just repeating the previous sentence in a different wording, and was not referenced, and the conclusions of that research are already correctly mentioned in the article. Greetings, Sacca 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I told you I WAS GOING TO PUT IN THE REFERENCES. How many more times do I have to repeat myself ??? There is no rule in Wiki that this has to be done instantaneously to suit the whims of some user called Sacca, is there ? All you needed to do, as I have done as much as possible, is to put for later attention. Please do so in future. I needed a bit of time for reasons I explained. When I have the reference, that bit will go back in -- and so will all the other edits you cut out. But if you want things your way, I'll start cutting out every line in the article that does not have a reference -- and believe me, there are a lot of those. You might not like Schopen, but the joke is that you don't even seem to realize that every single quote you have supplied from the MacMillan encyclopedia is based directly on Schopen's work -- didn't you know that there are barely more than ten international scholars nowadays working on that period of Buddhism history (Schopen, Silk, Harrison, Nattier, Hodge, Karashima, Walser, Shimoda, Ray and a couple of others). They all know each other and confer. But if you really object to repeats, then let's begin pruning some of the tedious Warder material. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.2. And a statue itself isn't marginal, just its role or importance in the overall picture at the time. It's the language used in the source so I rephrased it to be reflecting the source. Greetings, Sacca 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why did't you write the sentence properly in the first place ? A statue is just a statue -- it can't be marginal in itself. The quote says that the putative cult connected with the Amitabha statue was probably marginal. Better still, you could even read the original article for the full context: "The Inscription on the Kusan Image of Amitabha and the Character of the Early Mahayana in India" (reprinted in Figments and Fragments of Mahayana Buddhism in India, Hawai UP 2005) --Anam Gumnam (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Annam is very new to Wikipedia, so never mind then (but why did he put his own reply on my personal talkpage? Is that also such a bad and unwholesome motivation, anam?)

I went through all his changes and additions, a favor that he has not found suitable to give to me: he just reverted all my edits. Obviously this will not do. We will have to work on this together, anam.

I am sorry you are not aware that others may have some diabilities, too. And that somehow only your efforts matter, not those of others. I gave reasons why some of your edits were not good enough. Some were ok, but just not referenced. I have left those in the texts, mentioning that refernces are needed for those edits. Sometimes Anam put comemnts in the article which are denied by the reference, these edits are clearly not suitable. Wikipedia is a learning experience too, Anam. If you are held back by your disabilities, hen maybe it would be better for you to go step by step. Don't try to put a lot of unreferenced material, but add one statement at a time, with a good reference to back it up.

Greetings, Sacca 04:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is quite sensible. Mitsube (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I might be newish to Wiki, but I'm certainly not new to this world. I did say that I was going to put in references for all the bits which you have cut out -- you are too impatient with other people and seem to expect them to jump to your tune. I'll take your advice, however, and add references at the same time as my edits in future. Then we'll see if you leave them alone or carry on acting as though this is your private territory -- your "dictatorial" jibe: it has been well observed in psychology that people accuse others of their very own faults through displacement and projection). In any case, I would not worry too much about all this in the long run -- do you intend to guard this article until your dying day ? My guess is that in a few time the article will have changed out of recognition. Look at the history of the main Buddhism entry.

However, I intend to do something about rewriting a couple of the opening paragraphs anyway. Apart from the fact that they are a bit misleading for casual readers and skewed to a particular outdated understanding of Mahayana (even with the carefully "selected" references) Overall, they don't read very well, but are more like a bunch of ad hoc notes stitched together by an high school kid. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

History

The History section really needs to be refined at some time since the whole thing seems to be based on just one scholar's (Hirakawa) classification. It is a bit odd to call Madhyamika or even Yogacara "late Mahayana", considering the accepted dates for Nagarjuna and Asanga. The heyday of pramana is rather later. Reflecting current trends, I would suggest that the divisions should be:

1. Proto-Mahayana
2. Early Mahayana
3. Mid-period Mahayana
4. Late Mahayana

The first is, I hope, self-explanatory, the second should cover the early phase of Mahayana when many of the key sutras were compiled but before clear cut schools with Mahayana emerged, the third would include the Madhyamika, Yogacara and Tathagata-garbha strands with their founders and the composition of non-sutra treatises / commentaries, and finally the fourth would include very late sutras, the Pramana school and the synthesis that emerged between Madhyamika & Yogacara, as well as, perhaps, the early tantras.

There is no rush to do this -- it's just an observation, food for thought. --Anam Gumnam (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Mantra article

An editor has suggested that editors working here might wish to know that the Mantra article here lacks citations. Just a notifications for your convenience.(olive (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Thanks to above. Not sure which Mahayana scriptures describe syllabic or textual foci of meditation as mantras. I suspect the theologically relevant texts are either in Sanskrit or Tibetan. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddha Nature Issues Once Again

It is perplexing (or is it?) why any positive, affirmative statements on the Buddha Nature - even though taken virtually verbatim from recent monographs on the subject by qualified scholars, and referenced accordingly - arouse almost unique aversion and seem to invite a gleeful wielding of the editorial scissors on the part of some Wikipedia contributors. I very recently posted here in the 'Mahayana' article statements by Professor C. Sebastian on the Buddha Nature from his 2005 book on the Uttaratantra. Knowing of the unrelenting fuss that some people make if the exact dots, commas, words, phrases, emphases and meaning as given in the original quote are not faithfully and exactly reproduced, I duly set forth all the relevant quotes and citations, with linking passages to make for smooth reading. Here is what I posted:

'The exegetical treatise called the Uttaratantra, which takes as its main subject matter the Buddha Nature (tathagatagarbha), sees the Buddha Nature as everlasting, uncaused, unconditioned, and incapable of being destroyed. Professor C. D. Sebastian comments:

'... the Tathagata-garbha does not belong to the objects that are caused and conditioned (samskrta), because it is eternal, persistent, quiescent and indestructible.'[67] According to Professor Sebastian, the Uttaratantra's reference to a transcendental Self (atma-paramita) should be understood to mean a single, unitary cosmic essence:

'Atma should be understood in the sense of the unique essence of the universe.'[68]

This universal and immanent essence of the tathagatagarbha is the same throughout time and space. Professor Sebastian writes:

'The Uttaratantra advocates the unity and universality of the Tathagata-garbha, inherently pure, yet veiled by the contingent and accidental (agantuka) klesas [defilements]. ... The Essence of Buddhahood (Tathagata-garbha), without any sort of dereliction, exists in every being, being one and the same in all times and space.'[69]'

Straight-forward enough, right? Certainly not! A certain (seemingly new) editor chose to cut out nearly all the quotes and try to summarise them, but in doing so missed out key points and epithets and also repeatedly called the Buddha Nature 'something' - whereas that implies that it belongs to the world of 'things' or 'objects' (which is specifically denied by Prof. Sebastian). I reverted the passage back to its original form. Then our good dear and indefatigable friend, Mitsube, inevitably came along and reverted my revert back to the truncated version by the other editor. I pointed out that the meaning had been changed in this way, and I more or less restored the original version. That was changed again by Mitsube, who claims that the language was 'effusive'. Well, it was not in fact effusive - just stating some facts about the Buddha Nature (e.g. it is eternal, quiescent, persistent', etc.) which were mentioned by Sebastian in the original quotes, and reflecting his wording. I have tried again to reflect, accurately, what Professor Sebastian says. But I have no doubt that this will be removed once more. I am sure that nothing would, however, be removed or queried or meddled with if I were to write something of the following kind: 'According to Professor C. Sebastian, the Buddha Nature is shown to be a mere name with absolutely no reality behind it of any permanent kind and only a provisional, contingent, momentary existence in the world of relativities, in accordance with Dependent Origination, which is the non plus ultra of Buddhist and Buddhological doctrine and constitutes the bedrock and zenith of deepest Buddhist philosophy, in accordance with both Theravada and Madhyamika teachings.' I bet there would not be one change, not one whisper of disapprobation, not one revert in such a situation! It is quite evident that some people on Wikipedia are almost pathologically allergic to affirmative Buddha Nature teachings. But that is their personal business and should not get in the way of accurate reporting of what recent scholars are in fact saying on this particular subject. That is what I am attempting to provide here - accurate reporting of what C. D. Sebastian, for example, has recently written on the Buddha Nature in his book on the Ratnagotra-vibhaga. Too much to ask of Wikipedia that this be allowed? You bet it is! Suddha (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suddha, I apologize if my edits seemed negative or offensive to you. This was not my intent. I, myself, am a student of Buddhism. The purpose of my edits was to improve the section for tone, context, and summary style so that the meaning of Professor Sebastian's words would be more easily understood by non-scholarly, non-Buddhist readers. I would not have spend considerable time copy-editing the section if I didn't think it had value. Peace. -- Trelawnie (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Trelawnie: thanks for your thoughtful words. Good of you to explain what you were trying to do. I understand now what you were attempting. The main thing we must be careful of, though, is not to omit information from the original quotes when we are summarising; neither must we substantially change the meaning of the original. For example, to summarise Sebastian as saying that the 'Self' is 'part' of the essence of the universe is not what was stated in the original; in fact, that re-phrased version goes against the basic teaching of tathagata-garbha (that there is one-and-the-same unified essence in all beings, etc., rather than parts of a greater whole). Anyway, I think the summarised version as it now stands looks OK - so no harm done. Cheers! Suddha (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Thing" is dharma/dhamma, in the sense of any-thing. Mitsube (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Buddha as 'Fictional Character' Provocation

I see that Mitsube chose to remove words which said that the Buddha in the tathagatagarbha sutras taught certain doctrines, giving as "justification" for the removal the claim that the language was 'opaque' and that the reader would not realise that the Buddha in these sutras is a fictional character. This removal is unjustified, as the language is far from 'opaque' (as User: Sylvain has correctly indicated) and the claim that the Mahayana Buddha is just a 'fiction' is unnecessarily provocative. The following points need to be considered: 1). There is no scholarly consensus on exactly what the "historical Buddha" taught, so to denigrate the Buddha in the Mahayana sutras as compared (implicitly) with the Buddha in the Pali suttas is not only deliberately provocative (Mitsube's stock-in-trade), but unsupportable from a scholarly point of view. It has been endlessly shown on the Wiki Buddhist pages that some scholars are of the opinion that even such major Pali texts on the life of the Buddha as the Mahaparinibbana Sutta are a 'pious fiction' (see User: Anam Gumnam's excellent comments in such areas, elsewhere on Wiki). Wikipedia really should have got beyond this childish "my Buddha is better than your Buddha" attitude. There should be objectivity, fairness and, it might be added, a degree of cultural sensitivity. Also, where is a direct quote from a Mahayana specialist from a wholly reliable source that specifically states that 'the Buddha in the Mahayana sutras is a fictional character'? 2. Even if one were to accept the Mitsube viewpoint (some might call it a prejudice), that does not invalidate the verbal expression, 'the Buddha in the tathagatagarbha sutras teaches ...' - since the Buddha is a figure or character within those sutras. That is his appellation. That does not indicate that he is 'historical' or 'unhistorical'. It is just the title of that figure in those texts and so is fittingly used when referring to teachings that come out of that figure's mouth. It is tiresomely clear that some people on Wiki Buddhism articles endlessly try to denigrate and rubbish the Mahayana. The childishness of this approach beggars belief. It is one of the many reasons why Wikipedia is so despised by so many genuine scholars. Suddha (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Large amounts of the Pali Canon are fiction. I do not dispute that. That doesn't change the status of Mahayana sutras. Mitsube (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good, Mitsube, that you acknowledge this. The problem is that one can never quite know which parts are authentic and which are later concoctions. This applies, from a scholarly point of view, to the Mahayana teachings too (most of which seem to be re-statements of ideas found already in the Pali canon). Even the famous Theravada specialist, Walpola Rahula, sees no real cleavage between the Mahayana and the Pali doctrines. But that is no guarantee that either set of teachings is definitely from the 'historical Buddha'. If we are honest, we have to say that we really do not know what the historical Buddha actually taught. We can only surmise. I think Nat Krause's suggestion below is quite a good one ('According to the XYY sutra, the Buddha taught ABC ...'). That seems reasonable. Cheers. Suddha (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The sutta and vinaya pitakas as a whole can be linked to the historical Buddha with a much greater degree of certainty than can even early Mahayana literature. "The Buddha" in scholarly discourse generally refers to the Buddha as portrayed in the early texts, i.e. the sutta and vinaya pitakas and the agamas. Mitsube (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be informative for us to look at how the articles on Christianity (which tend to have had a lot more sets of eyes on them) handle references to the Gospel of John. I believe that vanishingly few halfway-neutral scholars believe that John is at all likely to be a faithful historical account of a historical Jesus—but how do neutral sources describe its status?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the appropriate phrasing is, "According to the XYZ sutra, the Buddha taught ABC."—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that is a good way to avoid any disputes - provided, of course, that the same thing is said in connection with the Pali suttas (which, on Wikipedia, it rarely is - a typical display of bias and un-evenhandedness). By the way, it should be mentioned in reference to Mitsube's claim that the Buddha did not 'write' the tathagatagarbha sutras: of course not - the Buddha did not 'write' any suttas or sutras at all (neither Pali nor Mahayana). That is why everything is uncertain regarding what he really taught. Mitsube (I believe) has had this pointed out to him before (possibly by Anam Gumnam), but seems to have forgotten this crucial point. I am sure that this was just a momentary lapse of the memory or slip of the 'pen' on Mitsube's part! Suddha (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There tends to be a major problem with a lot of people not citing sutras at all, when quoting the Buddha; instead, many people just write something like "the Buddha said, 'Let no two go the same way.'" It would be nice if there were a consensus system of chapter-and-verse for Buddhist texts, in order to make citations as concise and clear as "John 21:23". I'm aware that there are some systems that are used sometimes along these lines, but they did not appear to be as user-friendly as the Biblical system.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• You are so right (on both points). Additionally, many people say the Buddha said this or that, and often they are misquoting a particular sutta or sutra (whereas with a sensible reference system, it would be easy to check). A great example of the sloppiness of the claims made about what the Buddha taught is found in the 'liberal Buddha' image propagated by many who (often without attribution) base their understanding of Buddhist practice on the Kalama Sutta: people endlessly like to say, 'The Buddha says in this sutta do not believe a single word he himself speaks' (not at all true; he nowhere says that in the Kalama Sutta); 'just follow what works for you' (an incomplete version, at best, of the message of the Sutta). What people nearly always leave out is that the Buddha added the rider that one should follow and practise what is efficacious and 'is praised by the wise'. This is far from being the free-for-all, do-as-you-think-best approach to religion that many people would like it to be. But anyway, I think you are right in what you observe and suggest above. Suddha (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude this doesn't have much information b'y! .... sucky ! .. add more because i ain't failing because of this bomb bomb ! BOTGA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.61.98 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Warder a Theravadin? I hadn't heard he was a Buddhist at all.

A 3rd edition of the book was published in 2000, so it can't be accused of being out of date. Perhaps more relevant is the question of whether 3rd world publishers count as reliable sources. Personally, I cite Warder & other Indian publications only as sources for the opinions of their authors.

In this particular case I think the citation of Warder at the top of the article as saying Mahayana originated in the south is contradicted by a statement later that it originated in the northwest. Peter jackson 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not correct to say that Theravada is Hinayana from a Mahayana perspective: the main meaning in the tradition itself is practice (see citation in article), not denomination, & there are Theravada bodhisattas. Peter jackson 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hināyāna was a historical thing. However "original" Theravāda is, it is nevertheless a contemporary one. This distinction makes identification of the two presumptive. They should be assumed separate and research allowed to continue arguing whether they are two or one. Moonsell (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How can there be knowledge without respect?

Holy Cow! (If you'll forgive the expression...) Reading this discussion page, I feel like I'm sitting in on a late-night, coffee-fueled debate between adherents of Catholicism and Protestantism. Who really cares which came first, which came later based on true early ideas, or didn't, or both.... Is the idea an endless series of squabbles based on minor (or perceived major) doctrinal differences? This seems ridiculous when the subject purports to be enlightenment!

Obviously, the different traditions and schools have different histories, different texts, different points of view on many subjects and, what is apparently most problematic, different definitions or understandings of some key terms. Is this not what makes them different traditions? I agree with one writer, on this point at least: 'vive la difference'! If we follow the twin guides of common sense and experience, we will assume that each tradition has its strengths and weaknesses. Is there any one of the major traditions that has no wisdom and insight to offer the others? Truly seeking to understand another point of view has nothing to do with watering down your own, but rather with maturing it. Here's a good starting point: How about using the other group's name for itself, rather than your own historically-weighted epithet?

I propose this: Each group writes its own article, with only the politest and most respectful comparisons to other traditions. If something further is needed, I suggest a comparative page, in the form of a simple chart with half a dozen or a dozen basic, agreed-upon categories. Each group writes descriptions of its own (and only its own!) philosophy and principles - and no backhanded insults: 'We believe this, rather than....'.

The question is, does this all have some meaning and purpose? Will this better people's lives or lead to their enlightenment? Or is it merely a continuation of the age-old priestly game: 'The gods have spoken through us and us alone; our words (and writings) are perfect and complete!'?

Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Historically the mahāyāna commented heavily on the hinayāna. This is a fact, not opinion and can't be evaded in this article. Hinayāna, by contrasted, largely ignored mahāyāna and did not much comment back. That may seem to distort the picture, such that attempts by Theravādins to rectify the imbalance seem concocted. The fact is, though that such commenting have occurred historically and do occur now. We can't pretend otherwise. Moonsell (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahayana vs Theravada

It doesn't make sense to contrast Mahayana with Theravada, because these are different categories. Thereava is just one of the 18 early Buddhist schools (called "Hinayana" by the Mahayanists). Please don't spread this error on Wikipedia. If you want to be politically correct, use "early Buddhist schools" instead of Hinayana, but not Theravada in this case. Two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.180 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article just seems to say there are these two traditions and they are mutually exclusive. Nothing odd here. Moonsell (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Theravada acknowledges the superiority of the Mahayana ideal?

The claim that Theravada also "acknowledges" that deliverance of everyone is "a more perfectly virtuous goal" is found in only one source (Brian Peter Harvey, "An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics"). The contrary is however true for every other source. All other Theravada scholars and Theravada Buddhists aim directly at nirvana. In fact they consider the goal of nirvana to be superior to the goal of living the Bodhisattva life of postponing ones own enlightenment for the sake of others. In fact, they maintain that others can be truly and correctly led on the path to nirvana only if we ourselves attain the goal and know for ourselves that the teaching of the Buddha is true. Thus the Theravada Buddhists maintain, as is found even in the Pali Canon, that guiding others to nirvana can be done only when one confirms for oneself that enlightenment is a real possibility for humans that are willing to exert the effort needed. They further maintain that the goal of one's own liberation is by no means selfish or self-centered, since only the abandonment of all selfishness does enlightenment ever happen. So enlightenment cannot be a selfish personal attainment that abandons others (so to speak) to suffer in samsara. Instead, it is precisely out of compassion that all those on the path to enlightenment as well as those having attained enlightenment, teach the way to nirvana.

This section will require massive rewriting. In brief, the Bodhisatta of the Theravada is not the same as the Bodhisattva of the Mahayana. In fact, Theravada maintains that "Bodhisatta" is not the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit "Bodhisattva" and is instead the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit "Bodhisakta" - a person on the path to enlightenment, someone capable of enlightenment in the near future or in the next few births, provided he exerts right effort. Theravada rejects the notion that a person prepares to become a Buddha and delays his enlightenment for the day when the Buddha's teachings are lost, so that he may teach the path to everyone. Instead, they maintain that the teaching will be rediscovered naturally by anyone that exerts right effort. I can provide extensive citations for all that I say here. So please hold on for detailed and accurate information and don't rely on some university professors that impose their ideas of Mahayana on Theravada. The article's aim should be to correctly represent all schools of Buddhism, while taking note of the fact that many misunderstandings and incorrect claims exist in the literature. AutoInquiry (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WBSC's declaration of unity between the different traditions

• Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna

"The Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna is an important Buddhist ecumenical statement created in 1967 during the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), where its founder Secretary-General, the late Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera, requested the Ven. Walpola Rahula to present a concise formula for the unification of all the different buddhist traditions. This text was then unanimously approved by the Council."

"6. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others."

• Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism

"There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest. [...] From this we can see that anyone who aspires to become a Buddha is a Bodhisattva, a Mahayanist, though he may live in a country or in a community popularly and traditionally regarded as Theravada or Hinayana. Similarly, a person who aspires to attain Nirvana as a disciple is a Sravakayanika or Hinayanist though he may belong to a country or a community considered as Mahayana. Thus it is wrong to believe that there are no Bodhisattvas in Theravada countries or that all are Bodhisattvas in Mahayana countries. It is not conceivable that Sravakas and Bodhisattvas are concentrated in separate geographical areas. [...] At the end of a [Theravada] religious ceremony or an act of piety, the bhikkhu who gives benedictions, usually admonishes the congregation to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realising one of the three Bodhis - Sravakabodhi, Pratyekabodhi or Samyaksambodhi - as they wish according to their capacity."

There are some strange ideas coming from westerners who want to follow Theravada Buddhism, even denying the existence of the three vehicles in the Theravada school, as though it is fundamentally different from all other Buddhism that was in India. When it came time for actual Theravada bhikkus at the council to agree on commonalities, the list of common points was unanimously accepted, which included the three vehicles and the bodhisattva as the highest but most difficult and arduous path.

There is also a fair amount of literature and cross-over between the two traditions, and there is no serious argument that I have ever heard of that "bodhisatta" refers to anything other than the Pali equivalent of "bodhisattva." There is quite a bit of Theravada literature referencing the three vehicles, just as there is in Mahayana literature. The concepts are also very similar, although the bodhisattva in Theravada and Mahayana play a slightly different role. On the matter of postponing enlightenment, Paul Williams asked Tibetan Buddhist monks if this was actually true, because it seems that this detail is just always repeated without regard to the sources. The monks replied that if one was capable of achieving Anuttara Samyaksambodhi, he or she should do so immediately. This is the same as the Buddha, who was a bodhisattva seeking Anuttara Samyaksambodhi, and who achieved it as soon as it was possible for him to do so.

The concepts of the three vehicles are not so different between Mahayana and Theravada, really. The difference is mainly that Theravadins typically start with the sravaka path, while Mahayanists typically start with the bodhisattva path. Mahayanists also accept many sutras pertaining to the bodhisattva path, which accumulated over time in India. Some Theravada bodhisattvas also accepted Mahayana sutras, but they were later burned and destroyed by conservative elements, which was in turn related to sectarian politics in Sri Lanka at the time, between the Theravada school and the Mahasamghika school. Tengu800 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bodhisattva or Bodhisakta

The correct Sanskritization of bodhisatta is probably bodhisakta, but that doesn't matter, it's just a word (just like sutta should probably be sukta). There have been some notable Theravadins who declared themselves to be bodhisattvas, including at least one king of Sri Lanka and Anagarika Dharmapala. In fact, according to Ajahn Maha Bua's biography of Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Mun had in a previous lifetime made a bodhisattva vow, which he renounced during his last lifetime so that he could attain nirvana, which he did.

About delaying vs. not delaying, I believe that East Asian Mahayana teaches that it should be delayed, but Tibetan Buddhists teach that a Buddha can and would chose to reincarnate after his parinibbana. This isn't an issue that the early texts address, I think that one could argue from them that Buddha, whether or not he could, would not chose to so reincarnate. Mitsube (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(Moved to this section for clarity)

That said, all Bodhisattas are respected deeply even in the Theravada tradition. It may be noted that the correct translation into Sanskrit (Bodhisakta, instead of Bodhisattva) is not trivial. This is because the Mahayana Bodhisattva has to mandatorily teach. It is in fact considered a selfish thing to choose one's own enlightenment over the Bodhisattva vow to remain in samsara to help others. The Bodhisakta vow of the Theravada however, is entirely different. It is a vow especially to attain nirvana in some future lifetime, if not in the present one. This means that the Bodhisakta clearly chooses to attain nibbana and not to remain in samsara. This Bodhisakta vow is truly possible only for one who has at least crossed the stage of sotapatti and has not already attained nibbana. There is no clause in the Theravada tradition that obliges a Bodhisakta to teach others, or to continue in samsara. One teaches others about the Dhamma out of sheer will, and it is definitely appreciable. But nowhere is not considered superior to stay in samsara, than to attain nirvana.

AutoInquiry (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Basic points of distinction

Since the section occurs in the main topic, it would make sense to classify the distinction between Theravada and each of the different positions of Mahayana and also include a section on Walpola Rahula's declaration of unity. That will summarize the key distinctions between the two schools in a brief scholarly manner for anyone seeking information on this. In fact, the section should be so good that we should be able to use the same information on the Theravada Buddhism page to maintain consistency across Wikipedia pages.

Arahant is the name the Buddha used for the completely enlightened saint

Thanks a lot for the clarifications. I am not a westerner and therefore, do not think that the goal of arahant is different from the goal of samyaksambuddha. It is not disputed at all that there are gradual stages that lead to the attainment of nirvana, starting with, the sotapatti, when a person has just entered the stream of the noble ones on the path to englightenment, the Sakadagama, once-returning, the non-returner (Anagama) and finally nibbana (nirvana) or arahanthood. So as Tengu800 correctly points out, all those on the path to nirvana are Bodhisattas. But the key point to note is that in Theravada, no matter whether you are a Sotapanna, a Sakadagami or an Anagami, you are a Bodhisatta. Any person that can potentially attain nibbana, whether sotapanna, sakadagami or anagami is a Bodhisatta. An arahant is the same as a samyaksambuddha (or samma sambuddha). The Buddha was also an Arahant; thus the commonly heard invocation "namo tassa bhagavato, arahato, sammasambuddhassa" which is a mark of respect to the Sakyamuni Buddha.

In Mahayana sutras, a similar phrase is common. However, this is taken to be an epithet or honorary title for a buddha, not saying that someone who has achieved arhatship is also a tathagata. In the Mahayana view, arhats and pratyekabuddha do not have the same realization as a samyaksambuddha. Neither arhats nor pratyekabuddhas have attained the Dharmakaya or attained Anuttara Samyaksambodhi. However, they have achieved a Sambhogakaya equal to that of a samyaksambuddha, and this is the body of liberation. A samyaksambuddha is distinguished by the realization of all three bodies (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya). Cultivation of the Nirmanakaya hinges upon both of the other two bodies. Anyone can begin to cultivate the Sambhogakaya through any of the three vehicles, but the Dharmakaya is only finally realized through fully cultivating the six paramitas, of which dhyana is only one. These six paramitas are essentially the path of a bodhisattva in the Mahayana view, with Prajnaparamita usually considered central. The distinction between the three vehicles and their respective attainments are laid out in the Sandhinirmocana Sutra. For anyone interested, the Numata Center edition is the best English version. Tengu800 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Arhat in Mahayana is not enlightened

I believe the main difference is the understanding of the nature of Nirvana. In Mahayana, arhatship is just a stage, and there are various depths of attainment of arhatship. The Lotus Sutra is probably the best Mahayana sutra that deals with these matters, since its composition was precipitated by confusion caused by conflict between sravakas and bodhisattvas. It aims to teach definitively the bodhisattva path to buddhahood. In doing so, it actually offers a thinly-veiled recap of the history of Buddhism that nobody really pays attention to, but is very worthwhile to read. In any case, one of the main ideas is that at the time, was that arhats had claimed to have attained Nirvana. This was refuted by the bodhisattvas, who taught that this is just a samadhi of emptiness. This is sometimes figured in as the ninth samadhi (four dhyanas and four formless samadhis coming before). In this case, emptiness is referring to arhats turning their backs to samsara and entering into a "Nirvana" that appears utterly pure. The bodhisattvas taught that this is just a samadhi, and that arhats could even stay in this state for 84,000 kalpas, but they would finally be roused from it and continue on to Samyaksambuddhahood. Therefore, it is likened to a beautiful but illusory city that travelers may rest in before completing the much longer journey. In some other sources, it is said that the arhats will go into samadhi and completely disappear so that even the devas cannot see that they still have extremely subtle bodies. From this state, the arhat will stay dormant until existence begins to function again. The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra also features the idea that arhats have not fully put an end to samsara yet for themselves, and ignorance has still not yet been fully rooted out. This is probably the most fundamental difference between the two, which is the idea that Nirvana is not the pure attainment of arhatship, but rather refers to a different and further off goal. These came from different interpretations of the Sutra Pitaka and the Jataka Tales. In most cases, the bodhisattva view emphasizes transcendence and the principle of buddhahood. From what I understand, both still learned early sutras and all the basics such as anapana and impurity meditations. All the Mahayana bodhisattvas were part of the early schools as well. The attitude toward the sravaka path in Mahayana was always a little ambivalent, and relations were better in some areas than in others. On one hand, bodhisattvas would sometimes say that there was only one vehicle, and that the attainment of arhatship represented an accomplishment along that path. However, they would definitely not accept the idea that an arhat had achieved final Nirvana or Bodhi. Everything was still formed within the theoretical framework of the early Mahayana view of Bodhi and Nirvana, and this was an important point. Of course, each tradition looks better in the light of its own understanding of the ultimate goal.

Tengu800 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mahayana sutras are not unanimous on this point. Mitsube (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there are Mahayana sutras that teach that arhatship is the end. It is generally accepted that arhats have achieved personal liberation from the gross afflictions of samsara, ultimately by entering what is sometimes called the Arhat's Nirvana. For example, from the Lankavatara Sutra:

Though disengaged from the actively functioning passions, they are still bound in with the habit-energy of passion and, becoming intoxicated with the wine of the samadhis, they still have their abode in the realm of the out-flows. Perfect tranquility is possible only with the seventh stage. So long as their minds are in confusion, they cannot attain to a clear conviction as to the cessation of all multiplicity and the actuality of the perfect oneness of all things. In their minds the self-nature of things is still discriminated as good and bad, therefore, their minds are in confusion and they cannot pass beyond the sixth stage. But at the sixth stage all discrimination ceases as they become engrossed in the bliss of the samadhis wherein they cherish the thought of Nirvana and, as Nirvana is possible at the sixth stage, they pass into their Nirvana, but it is not the Nirvana of the Buddhas.

If they do not pass into this "Nirvana" in what is the equivalent of the sixth stage of a bodhisattva, they can then proceed to the seventh stage and continue on the path to buddhahood. This is all in line with the view expressed in the early sutras such as the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra and the Lotus Sutra, which are probably the two most important early Mahayana sutras. There actually is a large amount of material on these matters, and a number of Mahayana sutras will cover them in a technical manner by explaining the distinctions of each class, stage, and path. Due to the systematic treatment, there isn't a lot of ambiguity about matters like this, even between Himalayan and East Asian schools that were culturally and geographically separated. Tengu800 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this quote. The Lanka is a very late sutra however. Would you mind sharing what the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra has to say about arahants not being enlightened? Mitsube (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lankavatara Sutra was first translated in 443 by Gunabhadra. The Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra was first translated in the late 2nd century by Lokaksema as one of the first extant Buddhist sutra translations. The Prajnaparamita sutras in general don't have such a high level overview of all the details of Buddhism, really. They are all focused on contemplation of mind and reality, sarvajnana, and prajnaparamita. They are not as illustrative or analytical as some of the other sutras. Still, these are from Conze's translations of the Sanskrit Astasahasrika and its verse form, the Ratnagunasamuccaya Gatha.

Prose, p. 165-166: "A man who has a priceless gem and who considers that gem of inferior value and quality, would he be an intelligent person?"--"No, Bhagavan."--"Just like this, there will be in the future some people belonging to the vehicle of the bodhisattvas who, though they have this deep brightly shining gem of Prajnaparamita, will nonetheless think that it should be considered equal with the vehicle of sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, and will decide to seek sarvajnana and skillful means at the level of a sravaka or pratyekabuddha. Would they be very intelligent?"--"No, Bhagavan."--"This has been done to them by Mara."

Verse, p. 29: "It is just like one who has obtained superior food of a hundred tastes, and, although he has the best food, nevertheless seeks out inferior food. So would be a bodhisattva who, having obtained this perfection, would look for enlightenment at the stage of an arhat."

Verse, p. 53: "Having destroyed the jungle of false views, the bodhisattva practicing emptiness and signlessness, surpasses the entire world including the arhats and pratyekabuddhas.

Tengu800 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but this doesn't say that arahants aren't enlightened. The Ugraparipriccha says good things about arahants. Also some texts attributed to Nagarjuna say positive things about the shravakayana. Mitsube (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Many Mahayana sutras have great things to say about arhats and pratyekabuddhas, and their attainments are generally viewed as being respectable. The times when sravakas and arhats are criticized is usually if they have selfish aspirations, do not seek to learn or develop prajna, or become satisfied with their current realizations. Often, Mahayana teachings go out of their way to be conciliatory, and to fit sravakayana into the general Mahayana purview. Asanga and Vasubandhu were also like this. The Yogacara teachings were meant to encapsulate the teachings of all three vehicles. Therefore, the massive Yogacarabhumi Sastra has a very large section (maybe around 600 pages if it were in English) just for detailing all the sravaka practices and stages. Still, the general view is that the bodhisattva path is ultimately necessary to attain buddhahood. Tengu800 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bodhisatta is on the path to nirvana or arahantship

It is therefore not at all disputed that the Bodhisatta is on the path to nirvana (an arahant is one having attained nirvana). In fact, all Bodhisattas are men working hard towards nirvana (arahanthood) and are therefore worthy of admiration. In this sense therefore, there is definite unity between Theravada and Mahayana. However, the question is which one out of the two possibilities - "attaining nirvana in the here and now", or "delaying nirvana to remain in samsara as a Bodhisattva, for the benefit of others" - is nobler. According to the Buddha, and the early texts, nirvana is definitely the higher and nobler ideal and no Theravada Buddhist would agree to settle for anything less than nirvana, and struggle in samsara with the conceited belief that only he can teach everyone and that he will have to return to teach the Dhamma. A completely enlightened person, will have full confidence in the Dhamma. He is impartial to the possibility that the Dhamma will be eventually forgotten (he knows that even the Dhamma will be forgotten one day) and it will have to be resurrected, or rediscovered by someone else. He does not think that he will have to be reborn to teach everyone about the Dhamma - in fact he cannot be reborn. Why is this? (See next section)

The Mahayana sutras teach that arhats have not achieved the Nirvana of the buddhas, so that's something of a moot point. In Mahayana, there is a clear distinction between the attainments of an arhat, pratyekabuddha, high level bodhisattva, and a samyaksambuddha. Therefore, according to Mahayana teachings, Theravada Buddhists do settle for less than Nirvana, because they seek to become arhats rather than samyaksambuddhas. Of course, maybe by some interpretations in Theravada, arhats and samyaksambuddhas are the same thing. However, if that is the case, then any arhat could have been as effective as Gautama Buddha. Tengu800 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not the same thing, but arahants are definitely enlightened. That is the whole point. Mitsube (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to call the attainment of the arhat stage a form of "enlightenment," then that is one thing. Maybe some Mahayana sutras will even say that arhats and pratyekabuddhas have achieved a form of enlightenment, but I can't think of any instances of this. In Mahayana doctrine, though, arhats and pratyekabuddhas have not achieved the Anuttara Samyaksambodhi of a samyaksambuddha, and this is generally what is referred to as enlightenment in Mahayana Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A Buddha can't choose to be reborn

In attaining nirvana, one completely destroys ignorance which is the root cause of birth in samsara (See Paticcasamuppada or Pratityasamutpada). In fact the whole purpose of the entire path was to put a complete and irreversible stop to rebirth. The Buddha's third noble truth is wonderful, precisely because he declares that it is possible to put a complete and irreversible stop to rebirth. If there is no more ignorance, there will be no more craving or clinging sustenance, and therefore there cannot be any further becoming or birth. This implies that in nirvana, one completely destroys all conditions that can lead to rebirth - he can't even wish to be reborn. In fact wishing to be reborn "for the sake of others" is exactly opposite to the goal of the whole teaching. According to Theravada Buddhists, "returning for the sake of others" is just an excuse for one's incompetence to destroy the conditions for rebirth.

This does not imply that Mahayana Buddhists are stupid - it is just the Theravada position on this ideal. Since the section on Theravada and Mahayana is included, it is relevant to mention that Theravada Buddhists consider no excuse to return to samsara to be worthy at all - not even to teach the Dhamma for the benefit of others. In fact, one's own enlightenment is considered to be a vital item of empirical evidence for others that enlightenment is a real possibility, that they can actually see someone having attained nibbana, and therefore it is quite encouraging to work towards an ideal that actually exists. In fact, choosing to avoid nirvana implies that we are positing an ideal supposedly superior to the nirvana taught by the Buddha and held supreme by him. In fact, the Buddha reassures all his followers that nirvana is definitely possible, by giving the example of his own enlightenment, as if saying: "I am only a human, and through human efforts, I have attained nirvana. It is very much possible. Try it." It is quite another matter however, that Mahayana Buddhists, don't think that he was a mere human.

This is not to be confused with a complete annihilation of the person. People often question whether an arahant (the same as a samyaksambudha, or an enlightened person) exists after the dissolution of the body. There is nothing that can be said about this. The Buddha categorically rejects all four possibilities: he exists, does not exist, both exists and does not exist, neither exists nor does not exist. This does not imply that it is impossible to say whether the enlightened man can be reborn. It is definite that he will not be reborn, but he has gone so far beyond the dimension of existence and non-existence that there is no way to pin him down as in any of the four possible categories.

In fact the Buddha often argues in the early scriptures to clarify that birth cannot happen to an enlightened person. An enlightened person, cannot wish to be reborn, precisely because he has destroyed ignorance - not merely that he wouldn't choose to be reborn. According to the Buddha, even a sotapanna is no longer unhappy that he will definitely some day, put a complete stop to rebirth - even he would want to put a complete end to rebirth, but he cannot do so yet until he destroys the rest of the fetters binding him to samsara. Until then, the seeker is doubtful and wishes to be reborn. In fact, a desire to be reborn, whether for the noble purpose of teaching others, or for any other, is (according to Theravada) a clear indication of ignorance and that the person is not even a sotapanna.

Mahayana does not teach that buddhas are reborn. To summarize, their minds are essentially beyond birth and death, so they can be said to neither experience rebirth, nor not experience rebirth. But this is not because they escaped from birth and death by abandoning it. Bodhisattvas train to transcend birth and death, not to stop it and enter a dualistic torpor apart from it. This is a difference between arhats and bodhisattvas in Mahayana teachings, essentially that arhats try to stop birth and death, and then dwell in emptiness almost indefinitely, even up to 84,000 kalpas, and take this to be Nirvana. Bodhisattvas see this state, do not dwell in it, and instead overturn it in order to continue to the path to complete enlightenment. That is to say, any emptiness that manifests itself is still a manifestation, and ultimately false. Tengu800 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The three vehicles

Now this does not mean that the Mahayana ideal is bad. It is only a clarification of the Theravada position on the ideal that the Buddha himself espoused. According to Theravada, nibbana is a nobler ideal in all circumstances. Now comes the question of three different kinds of Buddhas that have become popular over the centuries after the Buddha's demise. The first considered lower by the Mahayana are those that learn the teaching from the Buddhist scriptures and then attain nirvana. Next come those that attain nibbana on their own without any aid, but are unable to teach the Dhamma. Finally come those that attain nibbana on their own without any aid, and can teach the Dhamma like the Buddha himself. None of the early scriptures talk of these three possible vehicles and even the concept of the three vehicles is a Sautrantika or Sarvastivada idea which later crystallized into the Yogacara school. Nevertheless, Theravada rejects the notion that a person having attained nibbana by reading the Buddhist scriptures is inferior to one having attained it without having read the scriptures. In other words, later arahants that followed the path by reading the Buddhist scriptures are in no way inferior to the historical Buddha. There are important reasons for this:

It is well acknowledged in the Theravada community that the Buddha became a reclusive mendicant on seeing the four signs. In this way therefore, the four signs themselves acted as initial instruction to Siddhattha. Further, Siddhattha was instructed in very advanced absorptive trainings by Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta that reached very close to the state of complete enlightenment. After his own enlightenment, the Buddha considered teaching the Noble eightfold path to these two first. Therefore, the Buddha was not devoid of any instruction, although he was not taught about the four noble truths and paticcasamuppada.

Finally, and most importantly as the Buddha himself says, developing the path to enlightenment is the fourth noble truth. One does not memorize this path, but instead develops the path on his own by understanding the nature of dukkha. In other words therefore, the fourth noble truth makes all those attaining nibbana, whether after hearing the Dhamma as a follower of the Buddha, or independently, a complete samyaksambuddha because all of them have to develop the path to nibbana for themselves.

Over the centuries, more and more techniques of learning Vipassana and Satipatthana have developed and each of the followers of the Buddha perfect the art of meditating every time they learn a new way to approach penetrative insight. The Buddha himself attained nibbana through the jhanas, but developed the path to nibbana through Satipatthana. There is no record of the Buddha himself practicing the Satipatthana to attain nibbana. Further, as is seen in the early scriptures, the Buddha allowed for significant leeway in the method; nothing was rigid. Some Anapanasati meditators begin by noticing the flow of breath at the nostrils, others inside the nose, others in the sinus area, others in the expansion and contraction of the stomach and so on. No matter what it is, all of them develop right view, right intention, right attention and right mindfulness using different techniques (assuming that the other path factors are observed scrupulously through the Sila).

As is known well, the Buddha himself devised newer and newer rules in the Vinaya pitaka to ensure that the other path factors are properly developed. Even Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta in the 1900s taught his disciples the Vinaya through direct practice and life in the wilderness. Nothing was to be adhered or clung to as a hard and fast rule, but was to be developed for ones own protection from the defilements of greed, aversion and delusion. In this sense therefore, nobody creates the Dhamma, but everyone must develop the Dhamma to attain enlightenment. In this sense therefore, there is no difference between a teacher and a student when both attain nibbana - because both of them developed the path to nibbana on their own.

In the Mahayana teachings, neither arhats nor pratyekabuddhas are able to enter the Nirvana of the buddhas, and neither has been fully enlightened. They have their respective accomplishments, and a pretyekabuddha has had higher realizations than an arhat, but neither is finished along the path. For example, the Lotus Sutra teaches that the Buddha expounds three different vehicles for the benefit of those with lower aspirations, and that there are some who simply cannot and will not accept the higher teachings. Still, they can achieve arhatship, for example, and then at a later time finish the path. These teachings hold that ultimately they are all bodhisattvas, and that they will eventually finish the path, even if an arhat may stay in emptiness for eons. This is because only the samyaksambuddhas have truly gone beyond birth and death. Tengu800 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Attaining Nirvana and the selfishness of personal liberation

Does this imply that a person having attained enlightenment is selfish and is concerned only with his own liberation? As far as the Buddha in the early Buddhist scriptures is concerned, this is not true, although Mahayana scriptures claim otherwise. For this reason, Mahayana places a special emphasis, making it mandatory for all enlightened people as well as those on the path to nirvana, to teach for the sake of others. It is therefore, considered noble that a Bodhisattva chooses to return for others. As the early scriptures reveal, the Buddha did not make it mandatory for anyone to teach the Dhamma. In fact, choosing to remain in samsara despite being very close to nibbana is considered impossible - one can't choose to be in both places. Either you completely put a stop to rebirth, or you choose to remain in samsara by allowing a little residual ignorance to remain. The Buddha however, clearly says that even if a little ignorance remains, it will eventually grow to bring you back to square one.

Teaching the Dhamma is an act, and like all actions, it is subject to free will - there is no God or scripture than can oblige an enlightened person to mandatorily teach. It is however, true that those that decide to teach the Dhamma, do so out of noble intentions - therefore their volitions are not conditioned by ignorance. Indeed, their volitions are conditioned by compassion. However, even if volition is compassionate, according to the early scriptures, there is a mutual dependence between consciousness and namarupa. Because of this, ignorance is still not removed and is still available to condition other volitions. So while the volition to teach the Dhamma is certainly noble (even unenlightened people, like the sotapannas are encouraged to teach the Dhamma), other volitions such as the volition to be born again are still present precisely because of ignorance. Therefore, the "choice" of returning to samsara to teach the Dhamma is never considered by Theravada Buddhists as a purer or nobler ideal.

I hope that neither of you misunderstand that I wish to show Mahayana in poor light. I have a deep regard for Mahayana Buddhism too. In fact, thanks to them, the Bhikkuni order is still preserved and Theravada countries could revive their Bhikkuni order by requesting some Mahayana Upajjhayas to conduct the ordination chanting for the new Theravada nuns. That Mahayana Sutras were accepted by Theravada earlier is definitely news to me. I would like to see reliable historical references for that, preferably from Theravada itself. But that does not imply that Mahayana can be dismissed as pointless. I do not claim to be a Mahayana scholar par excellence, but know relatively well about it and think that its doctrines on compassion are definitely worthy. However, when a topic deals with the relationship between Theravada and Mahayana regarding certain key points on doctrine, one needs to be rigorously accurate with facts. Once again, thanks a lot for your clarifications. It is very much appreciated.AutoInquiry (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may digress... If someone thinks only of his or her own personal liberation and abandons the responsibility to make the world better, there are certain consequences. Buddhists cannot deny the law of causality and just dwell in a nihilistic view that nothing can improve the world. By the buddha's own compassionate example, he was able to help everyone he encountered, and he never failed to teach a seeker what they needed to learn at the time. Over the centuries, Theravada Buddhism was unable to sustain itself adequately even in its own homeland of Sri Lanka, and needed to import monks just to carry out basic reforms. The Theravada order of nuns died out over 1000 years ago, and many male monks are so narrow-minded that nuns have never been accepted in traditional Theravada countries since. It is truly sad to see that Buddhism could be like this, and if there is a justified use for the term Hinayana, then it must certainly apply to this.

In Mahayana Buddhism, nuns are welcomed. Not only this, but major Mahayana texts such as the Lotus Sutra clearly teach that women have the same essential ability to become buddhas that men do, and they ought to be respected accordingly. They teach that true wisdom transcends the world, but does not flee from it. Rather, with the highest wisdom, one is not only able to help one's own self, but also help others as well, just as the Buddha did. Everyone is welcome, both men and women, and they can practice whichever vehicle they like, although the bodhisattva vehicle is held to be necessary to reach the final goal of buddhahood. Laypeople can also become masters or even enlightened just like a monastic, and they are respected accordingly. Is it any wonder, then, that the state of nuns in each respective tradition is what it is today? Tengu800 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jan Nattier argues the opposite in A Few Good Men:

Once we begin to take the antifemale rhetoric of these early bodhisattva sūtras seriously, we can discern a substantial body of corroborating evidence indicating that the emergence of the goal of Buddhahood (as opposed to Arhatship) brought with it a perceptible drop in women's status in those circles that embraced it. We might note, first of all , that unlike earlier terms for Buddhist practitioners (e.g., upāsaka, bhikṣu, and arhant), the words "Buddha" and "bodhisattva" have no feminine forms (though these would have been perfectly easy to construct in Sanskrit or Prakrit). One might dismiss this as a philological fluke were it not for the fact that female bodhisattvas (and of course female Buddhas) are almost entirely absent from the artistic record prior to the tantric period. Nor is a single female character—to the best of my knowledge—ever registered in the long list of names of celestial bodhisattvas (from Avalokiteśvara to Mañjuśri to Samantabhadra) who appear in the opening passages of so many sūtras ... It is ironic, then, that while the "Mahāyāna" is often portrayed in 20th-century publications as more welcoming of women than earlier Buddhism had been, the reality appears to have been the opposite. While the highest goal of Arhatship was, in early Buddhism, completely accessible to women, the goal of Buddhahood was not. (pp. 99-100)

—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

To take the Ugradattapariprccha Sutra as a guide to early Mahayana, is like taking a few texts from the Suttanipata as a guide to early Buddhism. It may be the case that it reflects some early ideas, but evidence for this is unclear. However, to summarize, the Ugradattapariprccha Sutra takes a very negative view of sex and desire. As I understand it, the only mentions of women are in regard to desire. On the actual matter of women practicing and being bodhisattvas themselves, it is basically unaddressed in that sutra. The imagery of the bodhisattva was always a symbolic one, and often androgynous. This is their Sambhogakaya, a supernatural manifestation, not a human depiction. Not only this, but some bodhisattvas are said to manifest in various forms, including female forms, as they wish. Accurate human depictions would look just like monks, nuns, or ordinary people. In the sutras, they do not really have male or female traits because they are not viewed as being ordinary humans.

There were some important points, though, such as in the Lotus Sutra, that settled the matter that women could become buddhas. The most famous section was in response to the traditional abhidharmic view of early Buddhism that women could not attain certain positions while still in a female body. Notice that it was not in response to a previous Mahayana doctrine that women could not become buddhas. If there were truly a Mahayana doctrine against women becoming buddhas, this section would have been written differently. However, it was directed at Sariputra, who gives the traditional abhidharmic list of things that women cannot become. Sariputra cannot believe that a certain young naga maiden is able to attain buddhahood quickly. He even says that womens' bodies are filthy and not proper vessels for the Dharma. In response, the naga maiden hands a cintamani pearl to Sakyamuni Buddha, and instantly becomes a buddha herself. She then enters a realm of spotless purity, attains all 32 marks of a buddha, and Anuttara Samyaksambodhi. Then she proceeds to teach the Mahayana Dharma to the entire assembly. Sariputra can only silently accept that he was wrong. In this way, the early abhidharmic view was refuted very directly.

Really, I'm not sure what actual evidence there is in Mahayana doctrine that women cannot be bodhisattvas or become buddhas. Important sutras even go out of their way to refute the earlier abhidharmic views that women cannot become buddhas. The Srimaladevi Sutra, Amitayurdhyana Sutra, and Ksitigarbha Sutra all come to mind as well-known Mahayana texts that have female main characters learning the bodhisattva path, who the reader is meant to identify with. Tengu800 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the three vehicles recognized in the Pali Canon?

In addition to the above clarification, may I offer some more points for careful consideration:

1. Dr. W Rahula belongs to the generation of western Buddhists who intend to present an ecumenical picture of Buddhism. His aim in presenting the points of unity between Theravada and Mahayana were intended for sending an inclusive message to other religions, without appearing to be internally broken by a schism.

1. The eminent position of Theravada Buddhists can be found in the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka, Burmese teachers and and the teachers of the Kammatthana Tradition in Thailand. Here are some of the quotations I have found:

In the early centuries after the Buddha's passing away, as Buddhism became a popular religion, the idea was formalized that there were three paths to awakening to choose from: the path to awakening as a disciple of a Buddha (savaka); the path to awakening as a private Buddha (pacceka-buddha), i.e., one who attained awakening on his own but was not able to teach the path of practice to others; and the path to awakening as a Rightly Self-awakened Buddha (samma sambuddho)...Those who believed that the perfections differed only quantitatively were able to take the early Buddhist canons as their guide to the path to Buddhahood, for they could simply extrapolate from the path of the arahant as described in those canons. Those seeking Buddhahood who believed that the perfections differed qualitatively, however, had to look outside the canons. People in this latter group often practiced a form of meditation aimed at inducing visions of bodhisattvas treading the path to full Buddhahood, along with Buddhas in other world-systems. These Buddhas and bodhisattvas — it was hoped — would provide an insider's knowledge of the full Buddha's path. The teachings that resulted from these visions were very diverse; not until the 3rd century C.E., with the development of the Yogacara school, was a concerted effort made to collate these various teachings into a single body — what we now know as the Mahayana movement — but the differences among these teachings were so great that the Mahayana never achieved true unity.

- The Ten Perfections: A study Guide

AutoInquiry (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The short summary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems more or less accurate to me. I don't know to what extent bodhisattvas followed only the Sutra Pitaka of Agamas, though. In early Mahayana sources, sravakas are often associated with the Four Noble Truths, pratyekabuddhas with the 12 Causes, and bodhisattvas with the Six Perfections, with the Buddha teaching each of these teachings according to individual capacity and wisdom. (Prajnaparamita was also taken to be the de facto central paramita from which all others naturally develop, and this is why Prajnaparamita sutras loomed large over Mahayana doctrine.) Tengu800 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mahasanghika and Mahayana

There were a number of incidents with Mahayana in Sri Lanka recorded in traditional Theravada records. Whether their ordination was in Mahasamghika or Theravada is subject to some debate. This occurred mostly with the monks at Abhayagiri and Jetavana, and Mahayana was referred to as Vetullavada in Sri Lanka. [4], 2

Tengu800 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)