What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
-
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:07 pm
What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
So I'm trying to understand how the different teachings relate to each other. I started with tientai's 5 periods but quickly realised that it wasn't historically accurate.
Realizing that the Mahayana doctrines aren't the words of the literal Buddha but later innovations, I wonder what the real Buddha, Sakyamuni would have thought about the Mahayana sutras? Do they hold true to the Buddha's meaning or would he have thought of them as wrong? What do you guys think?
Realizing that the Mahayana doctrines aren't the words of the literal Buddha but later innovations, I wonder what the real Buddha, Sakyamuni would have thought about the Mahayana sutras? Do they hold true to the Buddha's meaning or would he have thought of them as wrong? What do you guys think?
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
Of course Mahāyāna is the word of the Buddha.nichiren-123 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:52 pm So I'm trying to understand how the different teachings relate to each other. I started with tientai's 5 periods but quickly realised that it wasn't historically accurate.
Realizing that the Mahayana doctrines aren't the words of the literal Buddha but later innovations, I wonder what the real Buddha, Sakyamuni would have thought about the Mahayana sutras? Do they hold true to the Buddha's meaning or would he have thought of them as wrong? What do you guys think?
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
There’s a perspective where Enlightenment has no discernment whatsoever. Both the appearance of a Buddha and his teaching of the Dharma is spontaneous. He doesn’t assess what is the correct teaching to give, but because of the rightness of the Buddha Nature appearing amongst the causes and conditions, whatever is the appropriate teaching for the karma of the beings present automatically happens.
I don’t know how that relates to this thread, but I think it’s a cool idea so I thought I’d share.
I don’t know how that relates to this thread, but I think it’s a cool idea so I thought I’d share.
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Tue Oct 10, 2017 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
An article relevant to your question: http://purelanders.com/2011/12/17/whose ... is-truest/
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
It’s fun to imagine that Sakayamuni might have wanted to debate later Buddhist teachers as to what he “really” meant, but I think this is ultimately unanswerable.nichiren-123 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:52 pm So I'm trying to understand how the different teachings relate to each other. I started with tientai's 5 periods but quickly realised that it wasn't historically accurate.
Realizing that the Mahayana doctrines aren't the words of the literal Buddha but later innovations, I wonder what the real Buddha, Sakyamuni would have thought about the Mahayana sutras? Do they hold true to the Buddha's meaning or would he have thought of them as wrong? What do you guys think?
I personally prefer to believe he would have recognized the attainments and philosophical insights of many later Buddhist teachers and writers as valid, even if he disagreed with some of the presentation.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
This is probably as accurate as we could imagine. In the early suttas, the Buddha describes no discernment in seeing, hearing, etc. He takes no position relative to any phenomenon. This is amazingly difficult for most to understand so there will be endless interpretations. His explanation of dependent origination is pure genius.smcj wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:59 pm There’s a perspective where Enlightenment has no discernment whatsoever. Both the appearance of a Buddha and his teaching of the Dharma is spontaneous. He doesn’t assess what is the correct teaching to give, but because of the rightness of the Buddha Nature appearing amongst the causes and conditions, whatever is the appropriate teaching for the karma of the beings present automatically happens.
I don’t know how that relates to this thread, but I think it’s a cool idea so I thought I’d share.
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
There's also the matter that Dependent origination is perfectly consonant with Mahayana teachings. What is ironic is those who proclaim the Pali Canon is the earliest body of work yet deny rebirth and karma have missed the core genius of the Buddha's teaching in Dependent origination.
Namu Amida Butsu
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
What Buddhist denies rebirth and karma?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:53 pm There's also the matter that Dependent origination is perfectly consonant with Mahayana teachings. What is ironic is those who proclaim the Pali Canon is the earliest body of work yet deny rebirth and karma have missed the core genius of the Buddha's teaching in Dependent origination.
- conebeckham
- Posts: 5707
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
- Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
No Buddhist.Anonymous X wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:41 pmWhat Buddhist denies rebirth and karma?Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:53 pm There's also the matter that Dependent origination is perfectly consonant with Mahayana teachings. What is ironic is those who proclaim the Pali Canon is the earliest body of work yet deny rebirth and karma have missed the core genius of the Buddha's teaching in Dependent origination.
(By my definition..... )
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།
"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
Very often people who question the validity of the Mahayana sutras instead uphold the supremacy of the Pali Canon while paradoxically rejecting rebirth/karma.
The "Why Secular Buddhism Is Not True" thread is fresh on my mind, so that's where my response came from.
Sorry for the tangent!
The "Why Secular Buddhism Is Not True" thread is fresh on my mind, so that's where my response came from.
Sorry for the tangent!
Namu Amida Butsu
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
One must make a distinction between secular Buddhists and those who reject Mahayana sutras as many of the latter accept both rebirth and karma.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:21 pm Very often people who question the validity of the Mahayana sutras instead uphold the supremacy of the Pali Canon while paradoxically rejecting rebirth/karma.
The "Why Secular Buddhism Is Not True" thread is fresh on my mind, so that's where my response came from.
Sorry for the tangent!
That said, I agree with Malcolm's brief post.
"Meditation is a spiritual exercise, not a therapeutic regime... Our intention is to enter Nirvana, not to make life in Samsara more tolerable." Chan Master Hsu Yun
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
IME online and IRL, those people (secular Buddhists, YOLO Buddhists, whatever you want to call them) are a minority. They're just really loud on the internet so it's easy to get the impression they have a lot of support.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:21 pm Very often people who question the validity of the Mahayana sutras instead uphold the supremacy of the Pali Canon while paradoxically rejecting rebirth/karma.
The "Why Secular Buddhism Is Not True" thread is fresh on my mind, so that's where my response came from.
Sorry for the tangent!
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
YOLO Buddhists? now that is a term I've never heard!Mkoll wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:39 amIME online and IRL, those people (secular Buddhists, YOLO Buddhists, whatever you want to call them) are a minority. They're just really loud on the internet so it's easy to get the impression they have a lot of support.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:21 pm Very often people who question the validity of the Mahayana sutras instead uphold the supremacy of the Pali Canon while paradoxically rejecting rebirth/karma.
The "Why Secular Buddhism Is Not True" thread is fresh on my mind, so that's where my response came from.
Sorry for the tangent!
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
Credit goes to Monlam Tharchin: I heard it from them first.TharpaChodron wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:08 amYOLO Buddhists? now that is a term I've never heard!Mkoll wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:39 amIME online and IRL, those people (secular Buddhists, YOLO Buddhists, whatever you want to call them) are a minority. They're just really loud on the internet so it's easy to get the impression they have a lot of support.Monlam Tharchin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:21 pm Very often people who question the validity of the Mahayana sutras instead uphold the supremacy of the Pali Canon while paradoxically rejecting rebirth/karma.
The "Why Secular Buddhism Is Not True" thread is fresh on my mind, so that's where my response came from.
Sorry for the tangent!
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9437
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
The words of the Buddha taught weren't even written down until a century after he spoke them...
...in a language he didn't speak...
...5,000 miles south of where he spoke them!
If Mahayana teachings (or any buddhist teachings) are practiced, and they lead to realization, then the teachings are authentic.
It's not like a religion where you have to believe that a miracle occurred centuries ago.
It doesn't really matter if the words in the dhammapada are Buddha's, or if the Lotus Sutra was made up during the time of King Askoka.
If you can practice secular Buddhism and attain realization, then it's authentic.
It's like, who invented fire by rubbing two sticks together? Nobody knows.
But, if you rub two sticks together properly, you can produce fire. It's aliving tradition.
You can do what somebody did centuries ago and get the exact same result. So, like that.
...in a language he didn't speak...
...5,000 miles south of where he spoke them!
If Mahayana teachings (or any buddhist teachings) are practiced, and they lead to realization, then the teachings are authentic.
It's not like a religion where you have to believe that a miracle occurred centuries ago.
It doesn't really matter if the words in the dhammapada are Buddha's, or if the Lotus Sutra was made up during the time of King Askoka.
If you can practice secular Buddhism and attain realization, then it's authentic.
It's like, who invented fire by rubbing two sticks together? Nobody knows.
But, if you rub two sticks together properly, you can produce fire. It's aliving tradition.
You can do what somebody did centuries ago and get the exact same result. So, like that.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
It won't happen. One cannot practice with wrong view and expect anything other than error as a result.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:30 am If you can practice secular Buddhism and attain realization, then it's authentic.
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:28 amIt won't happen. One cannot practice with wrong view and expect anything other than error as a result.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:30 am If you can practice secular Buddhism and attain realization, then it's authentic.
Kalama Sutta says:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:..."'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
Is this right view? I think Kalama Sutta is creed of secular Buddhism.
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
Although I have no stance in this argument, I think it is worth noting that the kalama Sutta was aimed at non-Buddhists
Re: What would Buddha have thought of Mahayana?
Given that the Buddha taught the Mahayana Sutra Pitaka, I guess he must be okay with it. Do you mean what would he think about later interpretations (by others) of his teachings?nichiren-123 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:52 pm So I'm trying to understand how the different teachings relate to each other. I started with tientai's 5 periods but quickly realised that it wasn't historically accurate.
Realizing that the Mahayana doctrines aren't the words of the literal Buddha but later innovations, I wonder what the real Buddha, Sakyamuni would have thought about the Mahayana sutras? Do they hold true to the Buddha's meaning or would he have thought of them as wrong? What do you guys think?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde