Aemilius wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:40 amYou must understand that there is no continual tradition reaching us from the time of Pythagoras, subtle things are always subtle, it is true of any tradition that says "reincarnation" or "consciousness" etc.. that the mind can and will reify them to be self-existing eternal entities. It is in the nature of language.
Who says this? One thing is what the various scholars publish in papers, another thing is what they say in lectures, and the third is what they say in private conversations. I think it is clearly evident from the things that exist, and that I referred to. You must be able to think for yourself also. I really can't say that it is my own theory that the Indo-Aryan peoples had a world view, and had spiritual traditions, before they migrated to different parts of the world. This has been said many times, emphasizing different things and diffrent ideas, depending on the person.
Thor Heyerdahl had the idea that Odin was a historical person, who lived somewhere in the area around the Black sea. I have a similar kind of view, namely that Odin is the same parson as the Oddiyan guru or Padmasambhava, and that he lived in Georgia, which is the original Urgyen (Ge-orgyen) i.e. the Oddiyan country. Guru of Orgyen was assimilated into Christianity as Saint George, the Patron Saint of Georgia.
Heyerdahl studied his ideas concerning Odin for many years.
Asko Parpola is a well known researcher in this area, his emphasis is on the hindu ideas:
"Books
1994: Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge University Press,
2015: The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization, Oxford University Press,
Selected articles
1988: The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dāsas, Studia Orientalia, Vol. 64, pp. 195–302. The Finnish Oriental Society.
2008: Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system? In: Airāvati: Felicitation volume in honour of Iravatham Mahadevan: 111–31. VARALAARU.COM, Chennai.
Reception
Parpola's long journal article The Coming of the Aryans is widely cited by historians and scholars of Indo-European Studies. Colin Renfrew, who has reviewed the article, called it a "richly annotated and well-illustrated essay," which brings together a number of different lines of arguments, including literary and archaeological. It contains rich and interesting insights into a variety of topics, including the "amalgamation of the Aryan and Dasa religions," and the Nuristani language.
Awards
Asko Parpola received the Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Award for 2009 on June 23, 2010 at the World Classical Tamil Conference at Coimbatore. In 2015, he was awarded India's Presidential Award of Certificate of Honour in Sanskrit. He is an honorary member of the American Oriental Society."
In the early (, middle or late) 1900's the issue was a dangerously political one, and thus the early translators like Rhys-Davids or Edward Conze didn't say anything about the possible connection of Dharma to the Indo-Aryan culture. Earlier Max Muller had said something about, for example in his book: F. Max Müller (1888) Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas. Kessinger Publishing reprint, 2004.
Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
I thought this was a thread about books on early Mahayana?
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
You opined:
So - should I assume it's your own theory, then?
If it is - if you assert a Bodhisattvayana prior to Gautama Buddha, then you will need to show that that yana wasn't just an idea of reincarnation involving an eternal soul, because as we all know, there are no Bodhisattvas in that zip code.
BTW - Thor Heyerdahl was a childhood hero of mine, but he's really not someone with credibility on the topic of Odin, his work on that bizarre hypothesis was roundly condemned as nonsense.
And I asked:Aemilius wrote: I have the impression that the Bodhisattvayana is older than the time of Siddhartha Gautama, i.e. it existed in India already at time of his propagation of the doctrine.
You further opined:PeterC wrote: Would be interested to hear who asserts this, and on what textual / archeological / other basis.
And I persisted:
You then offered:PeterC wrote:Sure, but still: would be interested to hear who asserts this, and on what textual / archeological / other basis. Or is it your theory?
Also the examples you offer also talk about some sort of eternal soul, which is definitely not the Bodhisattvayana.
...and various other things that didn't answer my question.You must understand that there is no continual tradition reaching us from the time of Pythagoras, subtle things are always subtle, it is true of any tradition that says "reincarnation" or "consciousness" etc.. that the mind can and will reify them to be self-existing eternal entities. It is in the nature of language. ...
So - should I assume it's your own theory, then?
If it is - if you assert a Bodhisattvayana prior to Gautama Buddha, then you will need to show that that yana wasn't just an idea of reincarnation involving an eternal soul, because as we all know, there are no Bodhisattvas in that zip code.
BTW - Thor Heyerdahl was a childhood hero of mine, but he's really not someone with credibility on the topic of Odin, his work on that bizarre hypothesis was roundly condemned as nonsense.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Is this an attempt to support a hypothesis which appears to be entirely yours by allying it to an equally weird idea of Heyerdahl's? I can see no connection between the two.Aemilius wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:40 am I have a similar kind of view, namely that Odin is the same parson as the Oddiyan guru or Padmasambhava, and that he lived in Georgia, which is the original Urgyen (Ge-orgyen) i.e. the Oddiyan country. Guru of Orgyen was assimilated into Christianity as Saint George, the Patron Saint of Georgia.
Parpola's ideas are interesting and better-supported, but again, I can see no connection between his works and that which you are trying to prove.
Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:12 pm I really can't say that it is my own theory that the Indo-Aryan peoples had a world view, and had spiritual traditions, before they migrated to different parts of the world. This has been said many times, emphasizing different things and diffrent ideas, depending on the person.
tingdzin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:03 pm It would of course be a mistake to think that Shakyamuni was operating in a cultural vacuum, and that his teachings had no precedents of any sort.
One is also entitled to his own interpretation of historical evidence. But if one stretches the evidence too far to fit one's own preconceptions or intuitions on how things should have been, one cannot expect anybody else to get on board.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Lest there be some confusion, the quote attributed to Malcolm in the post immediately above is not his, but rather Aemilius's.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Mahayana only please. No Odin. No Witches and Warlocks. Mahayana, Buddhism, let's stick to that please.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
It is not my own theory that the Indo-Aryan peoples migrated to different directions, and that they were a strong culture, so much so that they taught their language and customs to the peoples living there previously. They also brought the castes which equals the estates in Europe, what else they brought with them is under discussion and polemic, but the basic principle is certainly true. Maybe they had more developed weapons, new social organisation or some other new technology, and because of this they prevailed in India. It is quite logical that they also brought their Gods and their philosophy to the different places where they went. Like the other conquering peoples, as for example Romans, Europeans, Chinese, North Americans or Japanese, have done in later times.PeterC wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:17 pm You opined:
And I asked:Aemilius wrote: I have the impression that the Bodhisattvayana is older than the time of Siddhartha Gautama, i.e. it existed in India already at time of his propagation of the doctrine.
You further opined:PeterC wrote: Would be interested to hear who asserts this, and on what textual / archeological / other basis.
And I persisted:
You then offered:PeterC wrote:Sure, but still: would be interested to hear who asserts this, and on what textual / archeological / other basis. Or is it your theory?
Also the examples you offer also talk about some sort of eternal soul, which is definitely not the Bodhisattvayana.
...and various other things that didn't answer my question.You must understand that there is no continual tradition reaching us from the time of Pythagoras, subtle things are always subtle, it is true of any tradition that says "reincarnation" or "consciousness" etc.. that the mind can and will reify them to be self-existing eternal entities. It is in the nature of language. ...
So - should I assume it's your own theory, then?
Thousands of pages, or hundred thousands of pages, have been written in this theme of Indo-Aryan migrations. It just escapes me how You could think that it is my idea, that they also had an ideology or several ideologies with them, when they came to different new countries.
The Jatakas do not mention eternal soul or the lack of it, but they are still an essential Buddhist teaching. If you read the Jatakas, you will likely and automatically assume or project an eternal soul, because "person X was the same person as that person Y in a previous life, thousand, hundred thousand or ten million years etc.. ago".
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
All largely irrelevant to the question of whether there was a bodhisattvayana preceding Gautama. That’s four times I’ve asked and you haven’t responded, so I’ll assume you don’t have any evidence for this.
We do know, and it’s very well documented, that there were sramana movements before, during and after his life. But to claim that a bodhisattvayana existed, you need more than just beliefs in reincarnation and spiritual practices.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Further to this^^ please note the Academic Discussion Forum Guidelines
Academic Discussion Forum Guidelines wrote:The aim of academic argument is to explore a question, a proposition or an area of knowledge and achieve reasoned mutual understanding. It is not important who "wins". What matters most is the quality of the argument itself. Please offer your opinion complete with reason and support from academic sources.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
I have said before that there are no academic proofs for this claim or view, but there are spiritual proofs, and these are not accepted by the academic world view. I.e. the Five eyes and the Six supernormal powers, these have been accepted as a basis of knowledge in the Dharma for 2500 years. Next arises the question whose extraordinary perceptions will be accepted ? I believe that You you have been a member in a modern Buddhist movement, so that you would know that there still is knowledge passing around that comes from supranormal perceptions. Different traditions accept different authorities, who are then relied on and quoted in these matters.PeterC wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:15 amAll largely irrelevant to the question of whether there was a bodhisattvayana preceding Gautama. That’s four times I’ve asked and you haven’t responded, so I’ll assume you don’t have any evidence for this.
We do know, and it’s very well documented, that there were sramana movements before, during and after his life. But to claim that a bodhisattvayana existed, you need more than just beliefs in reincarnation and spiritual practices.
The supranormal perceptions can be, and quite often are, in opposition to the prevailing academic views. In this case all we can do, in the academic field, is to say that it is possible that the Mahayana has existed as an oral tradition, long before the writing down of the Mahayana sutras.
There is also a spiritual necessity for the existence of the Mahayana. You would know this only when you are quite advanced on the spiritual path, so this also doesn't count as an academic proof. Which is unfortunate.
I hope this discussion has not been in vain.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Ok let’s pause there. Is this a personal insight you have developed? Or has a teacher told you this? If so, who?Aemilius wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:43 pm I have said before that there are no academic proofs for this claim or view, but there are spiritual proofs, and these are not accepted by the academic world view. I.e. the Five eyes and the Six supernormal powers, these have been accepted as a basis of knowledge in the Dharma for 2500 years. Next arises the question whose extraordinary perceptions will be accepted ? ...
Actually this is not a spiritual but a textual insight. The disappearance and reappearance of the Buddhadharma over time is discussed extensively in many places.There is also a spiritual necessity for the existence of the Mahayana. You would know this only when you are quite advanced on the spiritual path, so this also doesn't count as an academic proof. Which is unfortunate.
But are you asserting that you are quite advanced on the spiritual path and can therefore perceive this directly in a way that those of us in the cheap seats cannot?
That depends on whether you plan on providing backup for your assertion or not.I hope this discussion has not been in vain.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
There is a difference between personally accepting tenets of faith on the one hand and asserting them as empirical facts on the other. If the former are asserted as the latter, that is the pathway of fanaticism.Aemilius wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:43 pmI have said before that there are no academic proofs for this claim or view, but there are spiritual proofs, and these are not accepted by the academic world view. I.e. the Five eyes and the Six supernormal powers, these have been accepted as a basis of knowledge in the Dharma for 2500 years. Next arises the question whose extraordinary perceptions will be accepted ? I believe that You you have been a member in a modern Buddhist movement, so that you would know that there still is knowledge passing around that comes from supranormal perceptions. Different traditions accept different authorities, who are then relied on and quoted in these matters.PeterC wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:15 amAll largely irrelevant to the question of whether there was a bodhisattvayana preceding Gautama. That’s four times I’ve asked and you haven’t responded, so I’ll assume you don’t have any evidence for this.
We do know, and it’s very well documented, that there were sramana movements before, during and after his life. But to claim that a bodhisattvayana existed, you need more than just beliefs in reincarnation and spiritual practices.
The supranormal perceptions can be, and quite often are, in opposition to the prevailing academic views. In this case all we can do, in the academic field, is to say that it is possible that the Mahayana has existed as an oral tradition, long before the writing down of the Mahayana sutras.
There is also a spiritual necessity for the existence of the Mahayana. You would know this only when you are quite advanced on the spiritual path, so this also doesn't count as an academic proof. Which is unfortunate.
I hope this discussion has not been in vain.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Nagarjuna says in Bodhicittavivarana (or in Bodhisambhara) that one should not doubt the authenticity of Mahayana. Perhaps it needs to be said that the Mahayana movement considered Mahayana sutras to be authentic teachings of Buddha. Mahayana sutras also begin with "Thus have at heard at one time...", which means that they were recorded and remembered by Ananda or Vashpa. Redpine says in his Diamond Sutra translation that the speaker of "Thus have I heard..." could also be Vashpa, whom the Mahayana tradition regards an oral recorder of Mahayana sutras.PeterC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:50 pmOk let’s pause there. Is this a personal insight you have developed? Or has a teacher told you this? If so, who?Aemilius wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:43 pm I have said before that there are no academic proofs for this claim or view, but there are spiritual proofs, and these are not accepted by the academic world view. I.e. the Five eyes and the Six supernormal powers, these have been accepted as a basis of knowledge in the Dharma for 2500 years. Next arises the question whose extraordinary perceptions will be accepted ? ...
Actually this is not a spiritual but a textual insight. The disappearance and reappearance of the Buddhadharma over time is discussed extensively in many places.There is also a spiritual necessity for the existence of the Mahayana. You would know this only when you are quite advanced on the spiritual path, so this also doesn't count as an academic proof. Which is unfortunate.
But are you asserting that you are quite advanced on the spiritual path and can therefore perceive this directly in a way that those of us in the cheap seats cannot?
That depends on whether you plan on providing backup for your assertion or not.I hope this discussion has not been in vain.
Vasubandhu defends the authenticity of Mahayana in his commentary to Maitreya's Mahayanasutralankara, actually the original verses of Maitreya also defend the authenticity of Mahayana sutras.
sources:
Robert A. F. Thurman, Asaṅga:
Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature (Mahāyānasutrālamkāra) (Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences) Hardcover – January 5, 2005
by Maitreyanatha / Aryasanga (Author)
Red Pine says the above in his introduction to his Diamond sutra translation.
Lamotte writes about the compilation of sutras that was done by the Mahasamghika headed by Arhat Vashpa, that Red ine is refering to, in HIstory of Buddhism in India.
Master of Wisdom: Writings of the Buddhist Mastar Nagarjuna (Tibetan Translation Series) Paperback – January 1, 1997
by Christian Lindtner (this includes a Bodhicitta vivarana translation)
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Aemilius wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:57 am
Nagarjuna says in Bodhicittavivarana (or in Bodhisambhara) that one should not doubt the authenticity of Mahayana. Perhaps it needs to be said that the Mahayana movement considered Mahayana sutras to be authentic teachings of Buddha. Mahayana sutras also begin with "Thus have at heard at one time...", which means that they were recorded and remembered by Ananda or Vashpa. Redpine says in his Diamond Sutra translation that the speaker of "Thus have I heard..." could also be Vashpa, whom the Mahayana tradition regards an oral recorder of Mahayana sutras.
Vasubandhu defends the authenticity of Mahayana in his commentary to Maitreya's Mahayanasutralankara, actually the original verses of Maitreya also defend the authenticity of Mahayana sutras.
Virgo
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Ratnavali, actually.Aemilius wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:57 amNagarjuna says in Bodhicittavivarana (or in Bodhisambhara) that one should not doubt the authenticity of Mahayana.PeterC wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:50 pmOk let’s pause there. Is this a personal insight you have developed? Or has a teacher told you this? If so, who?Aemilius wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:43 pm I have said before that there are no academic proofs for this claim or view, but there are spiritual proofs, and these are not accepted by the academic world view. I.e. the Five eyes and the Six supernormal powers, these have been accepted as a basis of knowledge in the Dharma for 2500 years. Next arises the question whose extraordinary perceptions will be accepted ? ...
Actually this is not a spiritual but a textual insight. The disappearance and reappearance of the Buddhadharma over time is discussed extensively in many places.There is also a spiritual necessity for the existence of the Mahayana. You would know this only when you are quite advanced on the spiritual path, so this also doesn't count as an academic proof. Which is unfortunate.
But are you asserting that you are quite advanced on the spiritual path and can therefore perceive this directly in a way that those of us in the cheap seats cannot?
That depends on whether you plan on providing backup for your assertion or not.I hope this discussion has not been in vain.
Yes. But thus does not prove your points. All this proves is that someone said something.Vasubandhu defends the authenticity of Mahayana in his commentary to Maitreya's Mahayanasutralankara, actually the original verses of Maitreya also defend the authenticity of Mahayana sutras.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
In the Bodhisattva precepts there is a precept which says that the Mahayana sutras are a teaching of Buddha Shakyamuni, if you express a contrary opinion you are breaking this precept. Why should this precept exist? The White Lotus sutra describes a schism in the Sangha that took place during the Buddha's life time.
This precept is included in both collections of the Bodhisattva precepts, see for example:
Bodhisattvabhumi
1.Praising oneself or belittling others due to attachment to receiving material offerings, praise and respect.
2.Not giving material aid or (due to miserliness) not teaching the Dharma to those who are suffering and without a protector.
3.Not listening to others' apologies or striking others.
4.Abandoning the Mahayana by saying that Mahayana texts are not the words of Buddha or teaching what appears to be the Dharma but is not.
There is also the oral tradition of the Mahasamghika school, that collected sutras headed by Arhat Baspa. Right after the Buddha's Parinirvana. The transmission of the Sravakayana sutras is not the only one:
Etienne Lamotte tells in the History of Indian Buddhism that there was another assembly headed by Baspa (or Vaspa) that collected another version of the Tripitaka. Baspa is one of the first five disciples of Shakyamuni. This version of the beginning of the canon is also told by Red Pine in the introduction of his translation of the Diamond sutra. Red Pine thinks that the PrajnaParamita sutras probably were included in the Mahasamghika tripitaka.
Lamotte, page 286:
"Chi tsang and Paramartha , a century before Hsuan tsang, had already proposed quite a close version of this event. According to these authors, two months after the decease of the Buddha, on the Gdhrakuta at Rajagriha, Mahakashyapa and his five hundred Arhats, who made up the Sthavira school, had compiled the Tripitaka. A number of monks, who had not been admitted to this task, gathered outside the disciplinary limit (simi) with the intention of compiling the Tripitaka too; their leader was the Arhat Baspa and, since they were ten thousand in number, they took the name of Maha-Samghika. Therefore, the year 1 after the Nirvana was marked by a purely nominal scission between Kashyapa's Sthaviras and Baspa's Maha-Samghikas; however, it was only 116 years later, in the reign of Ashoka, that the controversies provoked by Mahideva transformed the scission into a doctrinal schism which resulted in the formation of two separate schools : that of the Sthaviras and that of the MahaSamghikas
1. Schism in the year I after the Nirvana (short chron. 368 B.C.), according to Hsuan tsang (T 2087, ch. 9, p. 923a 2-10). - In the neighbourhood of Rajagriha, twenty li to the west of the cave where Mahakashyapa and his thousand (sic) Arhats had held the first council in the year 1 after the Nirvina, Hsuan tsang visited an Askhokan stupa erected on the spot where the MahaSammghika canon had been compiled. Some monks in training (Saiksa) and some fully trained (Asaiksa), numbering more than several hundred thousands, who had not participated in Kashyapa's council, assembled in that place. They said to one another : "While the Tathagata was alive, we all had one and the same master; now that he is deceased, we are cast aside like strangers. In order to display our gratitude to the Buddha, we must compile a Dharmapitaka". Thus, wordlings (prithagjana) and holy ones (arya) united and composed five Pitakas : Sutra-, Vinaya-, Abhidharma-, Ksudraka- and Dharani-pitaka : they were called the Collection of the Mahasamghikas because wordlings and holy ones had formed the assembly which drafted them."
This precept is included in both collections of the Bodhisattva precepts, see for example:
Bodhisattvabhumi
1.Praising oneself or belittling others due to attachment to receiving material offerings, praise and respect.
2.Not giving material aid or (due to miserliness) not teaching the Dharma to those who are suffering and without a protector.
3.Not listening to others' apologies or striking others.
4.Abandoning the Mahayana by saying that Mahayana texts are not the words of Buddha or teaching what appears to be the Dharma but is not.
There is also the oral tradition of the Mahasamghika school, that collected sutras headed by Arhat Baspa. Right after the Buddha's Parinirvana. The transmission of the Sravakayana sutras is not the only one:
Etienne Lamotte tells in the History of Indian Buddhism that there was another assembly headed by Baspa (or Vaspa) that collected another version of the Tripitaka. Baspa is one of the first five disciples of Shakyamuni. This version of the beginning of the canon is also told by Red Pine in the introduction of his translation of the Diamond sutra. Red Pine thinks that the PrajnaParamita sutras probably were included in the Mahasamghika tripitaka.
Lamotte, page 286:
"Chi tsang and Paramartha , a century before Hsuan tsang, had already proposed quite a close version of this event. According to these authors, two months after the decease of the Buddha, on the Gdhrakuta at Rajagriha, Mahakashyapa and his five hundred Arhats, who made up the Sthavira school, had compiled the Tripitaka. A number of monks, who had not been admitted to this task, gathered outside the disciplinary limit (simi) with the intention of compiling the Tripitaka too; their leader was the Arhat Baspa and, since they were ten thousand in number, they took the name of Maha-Samghika. Therefore, the year 1 after the Nirvana was marked by a purely nominal scission between Kashyapa's Sthaviras and Baspa's Maha-Samghikas; however, it was only 116 years later, in the reign of Ashoka, that the controversies provoked by Mahideva transformed the scission into a doctrinal schism which resulted in the formation of two separate schools : that of the Sthaviras and that of the MahaSamghikas
1. Schism in the year I after the Nirvana (short chron. 368 B.C.), according to Hsuan tsang (T 2087, ch. 9, p. 923a 2-10). - In the neighbourhood of Rajagriha, twenty li to the west of the cave where Mahakashyapa and his thousand (sic) Arhats had held the first council in the year 1 after the Nirvina, Hsuan tsang visited an Askhokan stupa erected on the spot where the MahaSammghika canon had been compiled. Some monks in training (Saiksa) and some fully trained (Asaiksa), numbering more than several hundred thousands, who had not participated in Kashyapa's council, assembled in that place. They said to one another : "While the Tathagata was alive, we all had one and the same master; now that he is deceased, we are cast aside like strangers. In order to display our gratitude to the Buddha, we must compile a Dharmapitaka". Thus, wordlings (prithagjana) and holy ones (arya) united and composed five Pitakas : Sutra-, Vinaya-, Abhidharma-, Ksudraka- and Dharani-pitaka : they were called the Collection of the Mahasamghikas because wordlings and holy ones had formed the assembly which drafted them."
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Aemilius wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:23 am In the Bodhisattva precepts there is a precept which says that the Mahayana sutras are a teaching of Buddha Shakyamuni, if you express a contrary opinion you are breaking this precept. Why should this precept exist? The White Lotus sutra describes a schism in the Sangha that took place during the Buddha's life time.
This precept is included in both collections of the Bodhisattva precepts, see for example:
Bodhisattvabhumi
1.Praising oneself or belittling others due to attachment to receiving material offerings, praise and respect.
2.Not giving material aid or (due to miserliness) not teaching the Dharma to those who are suffering and without a protector.
3.Not listening to others' apologies or striking others.
4.Abandoning the Mahayana by saying that Mahayana texts are not the words of Buddha or teaching what appears to be the Dharma but is not.
There is also the oral tradition of the Mahasamghika school, that collected sutras headed by Arhat Baspa. Right after the Buddha's Parinirvana. The transmission of the Sravakayana sutras is not the only one:
Etienne Lamotte tells in the History of Indian Buddhism that there was another assembly headed by Baspa (or Vaspa) that collected another version of the Tripitaka. Baspa is one of the first five disciples of Shakyamuni. This version of the beginning of the canon is also told by Red Pine in the introduction of his translation of the Diamond sutra. Red Pine thinks that the PrajnaParamita sutras probably were included in the Mahasamghika tripitaka.
Lamotte, page 286
I am only responding to this because you caught me studying this very particular part of the history. From what I'm learning (Williams, Baruch) indeed, Mahayana Sutras predate the Canon, and the Prajnaparamita itself is quoting from the Mahayana sutras and the Mahasanghika's used the Mahayana sutras themselves.
Indeed, also, other schools have their own Canon. There is no preeminence of a certain canon like the one later to be called "Theravada Canon" or Pali Canon. In fact, at that time, Mahayana sutras have their own prestige.
Both Williams and Baruch admits that the Mahayana sutras were or contained within it teachings of the historical Buddha himself. Mahayanists were the ones preserving the teachings of the Buddha through tradition and practices. Whereas the institutional religious class seem to have been busy bickering over other schools, doctoring the 'canon', excluding things from it or adding things to it.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Anyway, I'm almost finished Baruah's book. What's next? Need more Mahayana history books.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Aemilius wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:57 amI hope this discussion has not been in vain.Nagarjuna says in Bodhicittavivarana (or in Bodhisambhara) that one should not doubt the authenticity of Mahayana. Perhaps it needs to be said that the Mahayana movement considered Mahayana sutras to be authentic teachings of Buddha. Mahayana sutras also begin with "Thus have at heard at one time...", which means that they were recorded and remembered by Ananda or Vashpa. Redpine says in his Diamond Sutra translation that the speaker of "Thus have I heard..." could also be Vashpa, whom the Mahayana tradition regards an oral recorder of Mahayana sutras.
Vasubandhu defends the authenticity of Mahayana in his commentary to Maitreya's Mahayanasutralankara, actually the original verses of Maitreya also defend the authenticity of Mahayana sutras.
Who is questioning the authenticity of the Mahayana sutras here? Certainly not me.
This has nothing to do with the question, which is: you asserted that there was a historical Bodhisattvayana preceding Gautama Buddha, I asked (several times) where you got this idea from. I'm still interested to hear the answer to this, whether it's scriptural authority, history of some form, or enlightened knowledge from some source.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
Isn't that Dipankara?PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:06 am
This has nothing to do with the question, which is: you asserted that there was a historical Bodhisattvayana preceding Gautama Buddha, I asked (several times) where you got this idea from. I'm still interested to hear the answer to this, whether it's scriptural authority, history of some form, or enlightened knowledge from some source.
Re: Books on Early Mahayana Development, History and Sutras
This was Aemilius' assertion:Padmist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:37 amIsn't that Dipankara?PeterC wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:06 am
This has nothing to do with the question, which is: you asserted that there was a historical Bodhisattvayana preceding Gautama Buddha, I asked (several times) where you got this idea from. I'm still interested to hear the answer to this, whether it's scriptural authority, history of some form, or enlightened knowledge from some source.
Clearly the Buddha Dipankara would have transmitted, in some form, the Bodhisattva vows, but by the time of Gautama, his Dharma would have left the world.I have the impression that the Bodhisattvayana is older than the time of Siddhartha Gautama, i.e. it existed in India already at time of his propagation of the doctrine. It was called Bodhisattva-gana or something like that, it was not called Sangha. Gautama joined the Bodhisattva-order at some point of his career. This ofcourse is difficult to prove and this view is not found in many books.