Forbidden Archeology

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Forbidden Archeology

Post by Serenity509 »

Forbidden Archeology is a controversial book that sets out to historically demonstrate the truth of Hindu religion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Archeology

I haven't read the book and I'm not particularly interested in Hinduism, but I'm wondering if a similar book has been written for Mahayana Buddhism. More often than not, I read that the Mahayana sutras are not historical.

Is there a book that makes a serious case that Mahayana Buddhism, in fact, contains the teachings of the historical Buddha and that the Mahayana sutras are, in some sense, historical?

Also, what did early Mahayana teachers such as Nagarjuna believe about the historicity and origin of the Mahayana sutras?
tingdzin
Posts: 1947
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by tingdzin »

There are several reasons that belief that Sakyamuni Buddha in human form directly preached the "Mahayana sutras" in India 2500 years ago is very difficult to sustain if looked at critically. One of these is that there are different (very different) versions of some of these sutras. The Avatamsaka, for example, is AFAIK accepted by all Mahayana schools, but only parts of it have ever been found in Indic languages, and in Chinese it exists in several different versions, translated at different times and of very different lengths. We really have no way of knowing if the shortest one represents the "original" , with the longer ones being a result of accretions (a common and easy but not necessarily correct assumption). There are some sutras, such as the Surangama, which the Chinese accept as canonical but other Mahayanists do not, seeing in them elements of Chinese culture that are not found in Indic scriptures. Some historians have also pointed out that certain Mahayana sutras were evidently present in Central Asia earlier than in India. Historically, texts are pretty flexible things, really. There is one Tibetologist who is now working on the assumption that tantric texts have been very fluid and evolving, and that two texts with the same name may not be in fact the same text.

More could be said, but as far as a book like the one you are looking for, the closest I can think of is one published a long time ago which attempted to demonstrate that the major doctrinal points of the so-called Mahayana were all present in the earliest Buddhist scriptures; unfortunately, I've forgotten the name, but another of this board's older denizens may recall it. If it comes back to me, I'll post again.

Ah, wait: it was "The Twilight Language" by Bucknell and Fox
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Serenity509 »

tingdzin wrote: More could be said, but as far as a book like the one you are looking for, the closest I can think of is one published a long time ago which attempted to demonstrate that the major doctrinal points of the so-called Mahayana were all present in the earliest Buddhist scriptures; unfortunately, I've forgotten the name, but another of this board's older denizens may recall it. If it comes back to me, I'll post again.

Ah, wait: it was "The Twilight Language" by Bucknell and Fox
Thank you for the recommendation. My honest opinion is that we have no way of knowing for certain that the Pali sutras are any more historical than the Mahayana sutras. The traditional Mahayana belief, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, is that the Pali sutras were given by the Buddha at an earlier phase of his ministry, and the Mahayana sutras at a later phase. This would make sense, given that he taught for forty years.

Though the sutras may not have come into written form until the first or second century, there's reason to believe that they came from an earlier oral tradition originally spoken by the Buddha himself. We must not forget that ancient India was an oral culture, and important religious texts such as the Rigveda were passed down for hundreds of years before taking a written form.

To me, then, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, it seems that there would be a double-standard if we accepted the Pali sutras as historical but the Mahayana sutras are not historical. What I'm curious about is how early Mahayana teachers such as Nagarjuna viewed the historicity of the sutras, and whether or not there are books written in the last hundred years or so that support their view.

I'm not claiming that the Mahayana sutras were word-for-word the words of the historical Buddha, but that their teachings go back to the historical Buddha. How can we, for example, believe that Amitabha exists or that Avalokiteshvara exists if the historical Buddha never really mentioned them? On the flipside, he are we able to prove that he didn't mention these things?

If the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism that make it distinct from Theravada don't go back to the historical Buddha, then why be a Mahayana Buddhist? My goal, and I'm sorry if it's misguided, is to learn what the early Mahayana teachers believed and taught regarding the sutras. They were closer in proximity and time to the historical Buddha than any of us are, so I think we should at least give their position some consideration. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone in sharing these things.
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Serenity509 »

Please keep in mind that my primary purpose in starting this thread is not to rehash old debates, and I'm sorry for giving a wrong impression. What I am honestly seeking is book recommendations in support of the historicity of the Mahayana tradition reflecting the actual teachings of the historical Buddha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai#Five_Periods

Is there a scholarly book today that more or less accepts the Five Periods theory on the Mahayana sutras or something similar to it?
User avatar
BrianG
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by BrianG »

Serenity509 wrote: I'm not claiming that the Mahayana sutras were word-for-word the words of the historical Buddha, but that their teachings go back to the historical Buddha. How can we, for example, believe that Amitabha exists or that Avalokiteshvara exists if the historical Buddha never really mentioned them? On the flipside, he are we able to prove that he didn't mention these things?
Because the Buddha can deliver discourses to arya-beings. For instance, Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta reported hearing the Buddha's voice while in meditation. This is corroborated by thousands of other reports throughout history.

When the Buddha first appeared, he was able to give discourses to non-aryans, which is critical for setting the wheel of dharma in motion. After the break-up of his physical body, he remained accessible only to aryans.

I believe the Pali Canon is probably a reasonably close approximation of what the Buddha actually taught during the first turning. There may have been some proto-mahayanic elements that got edited out, but mostly in the right ballpark. The later Mahayana sutra's are probably snippets of discourses that were delivered to aryans, along with improvised sections to bring everything together.
Telepaths - I like to kill them
Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Huseng »

Serenity509 wrote: Is there a scholarly book today that more or less accepts the Five Periods theory on the Mahayana sutras or something similar to it?
Anything academic and published as such will come from a secular angle.
Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Urgyen Dorje »

I'm curious... why is establishing the historicity of a specific section of dharma teachings useful for anyone other than scholars and historians who study such things? Looking at this from the vantage point of a vajrayana practitioner, as Thinley Norbu has said in his commentary on the Dudjom Tersar Ngondro, human history and it's interpretations are based on confusion, while the dharma is not. Our ability to locate a particular teaching in a historical context that perhaps supports it's authenticity as the word of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni (or not) is not only a different project than practice, but it's a project that certainly doesn't rely on the fruit of enlightened mind.

The reason I bring this isn't to quench anyone's dreams or hopes, but because in America at least, there is a very strong effort by fundamentalist Christians to orient their faith in a historical context, and that project, too, comes with its challenges and pitfalls.

Thoughts?
Huseng
Former staff member
Posts: 6336
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Huseng »

Urgyen Dorje wrote:Looking at this from the vantage point of a vajrayana practitioner, as Thinley Norbu has said in his commentary on the Dudjom Tersar Ngondro, human history and it's interpretations are based on confusion, while the dharma is not.
That's a convenient way to avoid or outright silence hard questions and contradictions either in texts or from the mouths of teachers.

The reason I bring this isn't to quench anyone's dreams or hopes, but because in America at least, there is a very strong effort by fundamentalist Christians to orient their faith in a historical context, and that project, too, comes with its challenges and pitfalls.
There's also people who want to believe that, somehow, the earth really is flat and comprised of Mt. Meru and the four continents, but we unenlightened beings see it otherwise. If we attain enlightenment, then we too shall see the flat earth cosmology, which should and must be true because it was or is believed to be so by purportedly enlightened individuals.

The study of history will inevitably deconstruct traditional narratives, but that's the value of those narratives as sacred stories need not be dismissed. Mythology is to train the mind, not to inform it. When you read about Indra out of greed casting asuras off Mt. Meru you don't need to read that as history. It is a story that requires interpretation and comment. The same can be said for any tales you read in sutra or elsewhere. It is the medium through which ideas, values and methods are conveyed. This is how they were intended to be used.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by dzogchungpa »

Urgyen Dorje wrote:Looking at this from the vantage point of a vajrayana practitioner, as Thinley Norbu has said in his commentary on the Dudjom Tersar Ngondro, human history and it's interpretations are based on confusion, while the dharma is not.
Well, the question then becomes: "What is the dharma?"
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Urgyen Dorje »

Well, I practice largely from one terma cycle. I'd have a tough time proving historically that the terton pulled it out of a specific cave, that the scrolls were indeed penned by Tsogyal, and authored by Guru Rinpoche after receiving them from the three kayas. If I were to apply linguistic analysis, I would probably conclude that the language was similar to the tertons other works, so it couldn't be a treasure as the language isn't from the period of the Tibetan kings. So if I go all historical-anthropogical-linguistic, it's all made up.

Which is why Thinley Norbu differentiates between knowledge that comes from karmic mind knowledge that comes from primordial wisdom.
dzogchungpa wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:Looking at this from the vantage point of a vajrayana practitioner, as Thinley Norbu has said in his commentary on the Dudjom Tersar Ngondro, human history and it's interpretations are based on confusion, while the dharma is not.
Well, the question then becomes: "What is the dharma?"
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by dzogchungpa »

Urgyen Dorje wrote:Which is why Thinley Norbu differentiates between knowledge that comes from karmic mind knowledge that comes from primordial wisdom.
OK, but how do you know which knowledge comes from primordial wisdom?

BTW, this is the academic discussion subforum. :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Urgyen Dorje »

Sorry. Please delete my post then.
dzogchungpa wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:Which is why Thinley Norbu differentiates between knowledge that comes from karmic mind knowledge that comes from primordial wisdom.
OK, but how do you know which knowledge comes from primordial wisdom?

BTW, this is the academic discussion subforum. :smile:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Malcolm »

Indrajala wrote: This is how they were intended to be used.
This notion of "intent" is very problematical.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Malcolm »

dzogchungpa wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:Which is why Thinley Norbu differentiates between knowledge that comes from karmic mind knowledge that comes from primordial wisdom.
OK, but how do you know which knowledge comes from primordial wisdom?

BTW, this is the academic discussion subforum. :smile:
Oh, right, which means it must by definition be confined to the materialistic myopia that infects Buddhist studies.
Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Urgyen Dorje »

Thanks actually.

Dharma aside, I can think of a spectrum of continental philosophers who would take exception to a materialist deconstruction being the only valid approach to reality-- academia included.
Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Urgyen Dorje wrote:Which is why Thinley Norbu differentiates between knowledge that comes from karmic mind knowledge that comes from primordial wisdom.
OK, but how do you know which knowledge comes from primordial wisdom?

BTW, this is the academic discussion subforum. :smile:
Oh, right, which means it must by definition be confined to the materialistic myopia that infects Buddhist studies.
Serenity509
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am
Location: United States

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Serenity509 »

I'm not very informed about these issues. How would a Mahayana Buddhist seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Mahayana sutras be different from a Hindu seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Bhagavad Gita or a Christian seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Gospels?

I don't, at the moment, have an opinion one way or another on these issues, but I would really appreciate a book recommendation or article that seeks to demonstrate that the teachings of the Mahayana sutras originated with the historical Buddha. That would be most helpful and much appreciated.

I don't believe that the sutras in their written form were word-for-word the historical Buddha's sermons, but I do consider it historically possible that the teachings contained therein were given by the historical Buddha. I must again admit that I'm not very informed about these issues.
User avatar
BrianG
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:59 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by BrianG »

Serenity509 wrote:I'm not very informed about these issues. How would a Mahayana Buddhist seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Mahayana sutras be different from a Hindu seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Bhagavad Gita or a Christian seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Gospels?
They'd more than likely be beaten in debate, as was the case with Adi Shankara. Buddhist scriptures written in local dialect vs Vedas written sanskrit - the win goes to the Vedas in terms of holiness.

The Buddha taught in accordance with what the audience needed. One teaching for non-aryan hearers, another teaching for arya-bodhisattvas, another teaching for unorthodox Buddhist yogis, and to humble people who think they are smart - the Kalachakra Tantra.
Telepaths - I like to kill them
Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Urgyen Dorje »

Out of respect for the forum being an academic one, I'll put my academic hat on.

"text" in Buddhism is a very pliant and fluid thing. A text can be a teaching, a history, a mantra, a tantra, an amulet, a refuge-- the list goes on. Because of that fluidity, I have always felt that a structuralist approach to Buddhist texts was very limited. I don't mean that in a critical and condescending sense. I have friends who are translators and Buddhist scholars and I appreciate what they do. There's a great deal one can do approaching "text" as a textual specimen. It's also natural that most Buddhist scholars approach texts as material textual specimens as many of them are also translators. And then there are the realities of the academic environments.

I personally find this approach intrinsically materialistic. The focus is on a person writing stuff on paper in a location in space and time. When one challenges the materialistic view of this, it's not a suggestion that texts don't have authors, and aren't authored in a historical and cultural context. It's just that there are other ways to look at texts.

For me personally I find a post-structuralist approach to Buddhism to be very helpful. While I'm an academic, I'm not a Buddhist studies academic, and thus I always take my academic hat off in these conversations. I'll keep it on for the sake of discussion.

The traditional approach to Buddhist texts is a structuralist one in additional to a materialist one. As such, the approach is to focus on the text's author, and to locate him or her in a larger system of historical and cultural interactions, and to contextualize them in a matrix of larger philosophical, literary, and religious works. The presumption is that the author has a fixed meaning or intention, and that intention can not only be located in physical space and time, but in a larger space of ideas and texts, and from that, connections can be made between the author's fixed intention and other works. This is where "archaeology" comes in. One can perform various forms of archaeology on these texts, perhaps locating them in a cave like Dunhuang, relating texts historically on the basis of textual analysis, or perhaps by looking at genealogies of ideas.

From post-structuralist vantage point, texts don't have fixed meanings. They are always polyvalent, and what is really interesting is less the intention of the author but the perception of the reader. Every reader actually creates a new meaning to the text, and as such, the centrality of the author dissolves. To approach texts from this vantage point, one focuses less on the author and his or her location in space, time, and the space of ideas, and more on the reader and his or her relationship to other texts and other systems of ideas. It's also a post-structuralist understanding that texts also cease to become "textual" in time. They become symbols in their own right-- and the meaning of those symbols is from the side of the perceiver, and prone to the same polyvalency as the texts themselves.

Personally, I find this approach to Buddhist texts very useful, if for no other reason, but the fact that Buddhist texts are all intended on the basis of practice, and that practice is grounded in my own subjectivitiy. This approach is useful to me, as it is consonant with how the wisdom of enlightened beings manifests according to their capacity. It's also an approach that seems very natural given the traditional relationship Buddhists have to texts in the course of practice. When one is prostrating to a text on the shrine, that text is a trans-textual symbol in itself. Good examples of texts as symbol-beyond-text are the Perfection of Wisdom sutras held in Manjushri's hand.

Another post-structural vantage point is deconstruction. Texts need to be liberated from the binary pairs imposed in the structuralist project. This seems to be a very natural approach for Buddhists who embrace nondual philosophy. In the context of Buddhist texts, there are various conceptual pairs that both Buddhist adepts and academics have employed to orient their texts and ideas. Two are these dichotomies of hinayana & mahayana, and sutrayana & tantra. The great masters would point out that there is only one yana, one final vehicle, one intention of the Buddha, and that is resonant with the deconstructionist view that these dichotomies of hinayana & mahayana, etc., are codependent and thus have no substantial or inherent hierarchy or foundation.

So I bring this up in this thread, because it's possible to locate using archaeology or textual analysis a certain school or a certain series of texts as the "real" or "truth" or "historical" teaching of the Buddha-- but what does that mean? It just means that this particular text found itself caught by a series of metrics imposed by the materialist. This was my point of referring to Thinley Norbu's teaching that human history is about confusion. But from a post structuralist vantage point, what *are* those texts? Well, it really depends upon the reader. As an example, if the Buddhist historians find that the Pali Canon is the "real" "historical" Buddhism, it is entirely possible that those texts were read as what we would call "mahayana texts" by disciplines and thus the development of later textual traditions. It's possible that the Pali Canon was read by disciples as tantra. This is resonant with Jigten Sumgon's statement that the lower vehicles have a seed of the higher vehicles in them.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by dzogchungpa »

So, now that we've got that straightened out, how do you know which knowledge comes from primordial wisdom?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Forbidden Archeology

Post by Malcolm »

Serenity509 wrote:How would a Mahayana Buddhist seeking to demonstrate the historicity of the Mahayana sutras...
What does historicity mean to you?
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”