Talk:Mahayana

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)