Aemilius wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:35 am
Queequeg wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 3:48 pm
According to the Princeton Dictionary, teachings on the five eyes are found in the Pali Tipitaka, so I would presume these are teachings that date to the earlier, pre-Mahayana strata of Buddhist teachings.
You cannot automatically make that kind of conclusion, because the first Mahayana sutras in a written format were written down approximately at the same time as the Pali nikayas or the agamas of Sarvastivada, Mahasamghika etc.. were written down. They all derive from pre-existing oral teachings. This opinion is held for example by Peter Della Santina.
It is evident from the writings of Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu that they regarded Mahayana to be a teaching of Buddha. One reason which Vasubandhu gives for this is that it requires the authority of a Buddha to teach the Mahayana.
The idea is also that the three turnings of the Wheel of Dharma did actually take place. "Pre-Mahayana" would thus mean "before the second and third turnings of the Wheel of Dharma".
Of note, from a Mahayana point of view, it makes sense that there would be a sort of organization of the teachings, and for certain individuals, it may actually make sense - from a Mahayana point of view - for them to not work with Mahayana teachings.
Of course, from a Mahayana point of view, the great arhat disciples - Shariputra, Moggallana, Ananda, and the rest - were all extremely well versed in Mahayana, as evidenced by their inclusion in the list of retinue in many, many Mahayana sutras.
To me, from a Mahayana point of view, it kind of makes sense to think like this - say you were all students of some brilliant mathematician. This mathematician was well versed in arithmetic, algebra, calculus, advanced calculus, getting into extremely subtle mathematics.
These fortunate students were able to receive teachings on the entire scope of mathematics. The mathematician him/herself did not really discriminate or hold anything back, but taught in accord with the needs of the situations.
In preserving the teachings of this mathematician after they died, it would make sense that the students would organize the teachings in a coherent way - there would be texts on arithmetic, alegebra, calculus, and so on.
Similarly, in preserving the Buddha's teachings, it would make sense that these great disciples, versed in the scope of the Dharma, would preserve the teachings in various ways - there are certain teachings that are basically acceptable to a mundane, ordinary human conception, that withstand analysis, etc. These teachings serve to basically establish the foundational doctrine, and can be passed down within the human realm in such a way that there is relatively little corruption over time.
There are other teachings, however, which are a bit harder to understand properly, which are capable of being misconstrued, corrupted more easily. These teachings may not be best passed down within the human realm in the same manner. Of course, in the case of a Buddha, one might consider that there is some prescience in terms of knowing future events, and it may be for instance that it is appropriate to hold certain teachings in another realm until such a time that it is appropriate to spread them within the human realm, so as to combat certain misconceptions that had creeped in.
Anyway, point being that there is a function to having the nikayas and agamas as they are, the sort of 'first turning' teachings, which are passed down in a particular way. There is a function to having various mahayana sutras passed down in their particular ways as well, for their particular audiences who are suited to using them. It is not the case that everyone who works with the nikayas/agamas can, or even should, work with the mahayana sutras at that particular time and context.
There are nuances perhaps not discussed here, but generally I think that's all reasonable enough to consider, if we consider that the great arhats were in fact knowledgeable about the scope of the dharma, including the 2nd, 3rd turnings, etc, and considering that they were well connected with, say, other realms of beings, etc.
Of course, from a non-Mahayana point of view, much of this might be just discarded as crap. But again, from a Mahayana point of view, that may actually be appropriate enough for some people do (provisionally) do.
We keep the funk alive by talking with idioms.
Del the Funky Homosapien
