New History of Religions special issue on Mahāyāna sūtras

[atmiller]

Hi all,

I want to draw your attention to a new(ish) History of Religions special issue on Mahāyāna sūtras, titled "History, Performative, and Solidarity in the Study of Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature." Introduced by Adam Miller (that's me), the issue contains pieces by David Drewes, Natalie Gummer, and Christian Wedemeyer—names with which many of you are likely familiar.

Here is a link to the University of Chicago Press page for the special issue: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/hr/2021/61/2

Miller (introduction)—"The Long Arm of the Law: The Generative Power of Metatextuality in Mahāyāna Sūtras" (https://tinyurl.com/27y22nts)
Drewes—"The Problem of Becoming a Bodhisattva and the Emergence of Mahāyāna" (https://tinyurl.com/w53y68dh)
Gummer—"Speech Acts of the Buddha: Sovereign Ritual and the Poetics of Power in Mahāyāna Sūtras" (https://tinyurl.com/3stdxf3n)
Wedemeyer—"Rhetorics of Solidarity in Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature: or, 'You're So Vain, I Bet You Think This Sūtra Is About You'" (https://tinyurl.com/bdfvntsd)

If you do not have access through an institution, please feel free to contact authors for PDFs.

-Adam

[Aemilius]

I don't feel they have much value, [they are] like some one writing about marathon running, who has never run a marathon.

[Leo Rivers]

I don't feel they have much value, [they are] like some one writing about marathon running, who has never run a marathon.

In cases of practice and view your statement makes sense, even if the tone is a tad harsh, BUT history is context and context matters.

I know research in history has been uncomfortable for many religions as regard linage matters, but discovery do to academic endevors is a good thing.

[Zhen Li]

Sounds interesting.

I think we should read the articles and address each individually.

[Malcolm]

Sounds interesting.

I think we should read the articles and address each individually.

I dont know. I like Wedermyer as a person, having met him and shared drinks. He is smart. Drews (whom I never met) on the other hand is a bore, and comes up with stunning conclusions like this one:

Rather than being the product of a preexisting bodhisattva tradition, it thus seems most likely that Mahāyāna sūtras were responsible for bringing a bodhisattva tradition into existence for the first time.

[Leo Rivers]

About Drew's statement.... wow.

Maybe he defined the later Jatakas as proto- Māhayāna Suttas.

Hmmnnnn...

[Malcolm]

About Drew's statement.... wow.

Maybe he defined the later Jatakas as proto- Māhayāna Suttas.

Hmmnnnn...

You have to read the article. Basically, he argues, correctly, that the bar was set so high in the nikaya and agama tradition that no one could have thought of themselves as bodhisattva until the advent of sutras like the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. However, this is obvious from traditional Mahāyāna accounts as well, where it is fully acknowledged that Mahāyāna sūtras only began to circulate hundreds of years after the Buddha's passing, having been gathered and arranged in S. India by Mañjuśrī, etc., and then "published."

For example, he points out that the reason one knows one is an irreversible bodhisattva is that one when one hears a text like Aṣṭasāhasrikā, one is not afraid, one sheds tears upon the mention of emptiness, and so on. All these things occurred for me personally, when I first read the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. It moved me in a way that Nāgārjuna did not, though Nāgārjuna blew me away at 24 years of age and set me firmly on this path. Also Nāgārjuna points out in the Ratnavali that the agamas do not teach the bodhisattva path, well, because they do not. If one wants to follow the bodhisattva path, one must follow the Mahāyāna.

[Zhen Li]

About Drew's statement.... wow.

Maybe he defined the later Jatakas as proto- Māhayāna Suttas.

Hmmnnnn...

You have to read the article. Basically, he argues, correctly, that the bar was set so high in the nikaya and agama tradition that no one could have thought of themselves as bodhisattva until the advent of sutras like the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. However, this is obvious from traditional Mahāyāna accounts as well, where it is fully acknowledged that Mahāyāna sūtras only began to circulate hundreds of years after the Buddha's passing, having been gathered and arranged in S. India by Mañjuśrī, etc., and then "published."

For example, he points out that the reason one knows one is an irreversible bodhisattva is that one when one hears a text like Aṣṭasāhasrikā, one is not afraid, one sheds tears upon the mention of emptiness, and so on. All these things occurred for me personally, when I first read the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. It moved me in a way that Nāgārjuna did not, though Nāgārjuna blew me away at 24 years of age and set me firmly on this path. Also Nāgārjuna points out in the Ratnavali that the agamas do not teach the bodhisattva path, well, because they do not. If one wants to follow the bodhisattva path, one must follow the Mahāyāna.

I have a deadline to meet today so I will get to reading the issue either tonight or tomorrow. I have read most of Drewes' work and found him to stubbornly hold to certain positions without fully defending them. But on the whole, I think he tends to find some interesting points in these texts and gives me a different perspective, even if I don't agree.

On Nāgārjuna, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra is attributed to him, but scholars tend to dispute this. I think that Nāgārjuna is a popular enough name that there were may have been more than one (or more than two). Anyway, if they are the same this statement on the bodhisattva path might be a contradiction, because the Śāstra presents the bodhisattva path according to the non-Mahāyāna, or at least according to the Abhidharma (I know this doesn't equal Āgamas in your statement):
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25069.html

I do think that before the Mahāyāna sūtras were revealed/emerged/redacted bhikṣus did attempt to become bodhisattvas, but that this path was not fully defined. There was thus a soteriological/doctrinal need for the Mahāyāna, a gap which it filled. I think some who held the pre-Mahāyāna understanding of the bodhisattva believed that you needed a prediction from a Buddha to become a certified bodhisattva—but the Mahāyāna sūtras starting with the Aṣṭasāhasrikā confirm that if you encounter the sūtra in question you have already undergone that process and are already an irreversible bodhisattva, thus bypassing that perceived requirement. So, in many ways, the Mahāyāna literature fills the gaps left by the bodhisattva path as taught in the Āgama/Abhidharma system, answers unanswered questions, and transcends the teachings of the earlier texts by insisting on practice without views of existence or non-existence. This is just one instance of the way in which the Buddha manifests in accord with beings' needs at particular places and times.

[Leo Rivers]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... mLsYf9RGMX

mañjuśrī and the cult of celestial bodhisattvas

Paul M. Harrison
Associate Professor, University of Canterbury

Summary
While it is clear that the bodhisattva ideal lies at the very heart of Mahāyāna Buddhist
doctrine and practice, in many respects its historical development remains obscure. In
an attempt to shed some light on this, the following paper examines the notion of the
“celestial bodhisattva.” Although this notion enjoys a wide currency in contemporary
Buddhist scholarship, it is appropriate to ask whether it is at all useful, or indeed
meaningful, and whether it corresponds to any indigenous Buddhist category.
Focusing on the first Mahāyāna sūtras translated into Chinese by the Indo-Scythian
Lokakṣema in the late 2nd century C.E., the paper explores the details of their
portrayal of Mañjuśrī, who may be regarded as a paradigmatic case of a so-called
celestial bodhisattva. It turns out that in these texts Mañjuśrī plays a very important
part, while Avalokiteśvara is a comparative non-entity. Using Mañjuśrī as a test case,
the paper concludes that the concept of the “celestial bodhisattva” is not a useful one,
and has no clear indigenous referent. It also offers some general hypotheses about the early history of the
bodhisattva ideal, and about the cult of the great bodhisattvas, which appears on the
basis of the evidence reviewed here to have been a later and secondary development.

Keywords：1.Mañjuśrī 2.Celestial Bodhisattva 3.Mahāyāna 4.Lokakṣema

[Zhen Li]

mañjuśrī and the cult of celestial bodhisattvas

Paul Harrison has a very sharp mind. But sometimes scholars stir up controversies where none exist in order to get a paper published.

In this case, the category of "celestial bodhisattva" is defined in a way that does not present itself to clear contradiction. Indeed, I am not sure whether Snellgrove, his target in this piece, really thinks that bodhisattvas like Mañjuśrī are just god-like and saviour-like in calling them celestial (after all, it is Snellgrove we are talking about; I think he knew what a bodhisattva was).

But let's take a look at the actual sources he relies upon. I just published a translation of the Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodhana (posted about it here: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 79#p623179) that he considers in that paper. If anything, in that sūtra Mañjuśrī, is more than god-like (bodhisattvas are often called devātideva, god surpassing gods) and definitely serves as a saviour for Ajātaśatru (and even for Śākyamuni). He is celestial if that is the definition of celestial.

[tingdzin]

I think that Nāgārjuna is a popular enough name that there were may have been more than one (or more than two).

Even more than this, I think his name was just invoked and set into unhistorical contexts as a legitimating device, as in the Zen patriarchs' lists.

[atmiller]

Another announcement in a similar vein: In September of last year, Oxford hosted a conference called "Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures." Video recordings of most of the papers, including Paul Harrison's keynote address, are now available.

http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/buddhist-studies-oxford

-Adam

[Malcolm]

I think that Nāgārjuna is a popular enough name that there were may have been more than one (or more than two).

Even more than this, I think his name was just invoked and set into unhistorical contexts as a legitimating device, as in the Zen patriarchs' lists.

All Mahayāna comes through Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna is the defining intellectual of Mahāyāna, hence his justly deserved title, "the second Buddha."

[Leo Rivers]

Harrison's keynote and this grasped my attention ... as did this short book by Prof. Osto who did lecture #4

The Supreme Array Scripture, Chapter 55: The Vow to Follow the Course of Samantabhadra Paperback – December 2, 2021
This work is an English translation of the final prose and verse sections of the The Supreme Array Scripture (Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra), a Mahayana Buddhist Sanskrit text. This final chapter (chapter 55) is called the "The Vow to Follow the Course of Samantabhadra (Samantabhadracaryāpraṇidhānam). The sixty-two verses that conclude the Sanskrit version of Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra (known as the Bhadracarī), are also found in the Tibetan translations and the Chinese translation by Prajñā (Taisho volume 293)

• Kindle 
$3.99 Read with Our Free App
• Hardcover 
$22.99 2 New from $22.99
• Paperback 
$11.99 3 New from $11.99

Home » Series
Buddhist Studies at Oxford

Subscribe:
Video RSS Feed
# Episode Title Description People Date
12 Thomas Newhall, ‘Partially in Accord with the Greater Vehicle: Reading the Four-Part Vinaya as a Mahāyāna text in Daoxuan's Commentaries’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Thomas Newhall 30 Mar 2022
11 Dr. Stephanie Balkwill, ‘Reading the Sūtra of the Unsullied Worthy Girl’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Stephanie Balkwill 30 Mar 2022
10 Dr. Reed Criddle, ‘Collective oral tradition in the musical recitation of the Medicine Buddha Sūtra’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Reed Criddle 30 Mar 2022
9 Dr. Rafal K. Stepien, ‘On Numen in Antinomianism, or Reading Religion in Irreligion’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Rafal K. Stepien 30 Mar 2022
8 Nic Newton, ‘Description, Visualisation, and Concatenation in the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Nic Newton 30 Mar 2022
7 Dr. Mikael Bauer, ‘Tracing the exoteric-esoteric in pre-modern Japanese Dharma Assemblies’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Mikael Bauer 30 Mar 2022
6 Dr. Gregory Adam Scott, ‘Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures in Modern China: The Role of Scriptural Presses, Distributors, and Buddhist Bookstores’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Gregory Adam Scott 30 Mar 2022
5 Dr. David Drewes, ‘How Many Mahāyānas Were There?’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 David Drewes 30 Mar 2022
4 Dr. D.E. Osto, ‘Virtual Realities: A Mahāyāna Interpretation based on The Supreme Array Scripture’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 D. E. Osto 29 Mar 2022
3 Dr. Charles DiSimone, ‘Identical Cousins? Insights on the Parallel Development of Prajñāpāramitā Families Gleaned from New Manuscript Discoveries in Greater Gandhāra’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Charles DiSimone 29 Mar 2022
2 Prof. Paul Harrison, Keynote: ‘Mahāyāna Sūtras: Reading As, Reading For, Reading Into’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Paul Harrison 29 Mar 2022
1 Dr. Berthe Jansen, ‘The Role of Indic Mahāyāna Scriptures in Tibetan Legal Texts’ Reading Mahāyāna Scriptures Conference, Sept 25-26, 2021 Berthe Jansen 29 Mar 2022

[tingdzin]

All Mahayāna comes through Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna is the defining intellectual of Mahāyāna, hence his justly deserved title, "the second Buddha."

[Queequeg]

All Mahayāna comes through Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna is the defining intellectual of Mahāyāna, hence his justly deserved title, "the second Buddha."

Is this controversial?

[Aemilius]

About Drew's statement.... wow.

Maybe he defined the later Jatakas as proto- Māhayāna Suttas.

Hmmnnnn...

You have to read the article. Basically, he argues, correctly, that the bar was set so high in the nikaya and agama tradition that no one could have thought of themselves as bodhisattva until the advent of sutras like the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. However, this is obvious from traditional Mahāyāna accounts as well, where it is fully acknowledged that Mahāyāna sūtras only began to circulate hundreds of years after the Buddha's passing, having been gathered and arranged in S. India by Mañjuśrī, etc., and then "published."

For example, he points out that the reason one knows one is an irreversible bodhisattva is that one when one hears a text like Aṣṭasāhasrikā, one is not afraid, one sheds tears upon the mention of emptiness, and so on. All these things occurred for me personally, when I first read the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. It moved me in a way that Nāgārjuna did not, though Nāgārjuna blew me away at 24 years of age and set me firmly on this path. Also Nāgārjuna points out in the Ratnavali that the agamas do not teach the bodhisattva path, well, because they do not. If one wants to follow the bodhisattva path, one must follow the Mahāyāna.

I have a deadline to meet today so I will get to reading the issue either tonight or tomorrow. I have read most of Drewes' work and found him to stubbornly hold to certain positions without fully defending them. But on the whole, I think he tends to find some interesting points in these texts and gives me a different perspective, even if I don't agree.

On Nāgārjuna, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra is attributed to him, but scholars tend to dispute this. I think that Nāgārjuna is a popular enough name that there were may have been more than one (or more than two). Anyway, if they are the same this statement on the bodhisattva path might be a contradiction, because the Śāstra presents the bodhisattva path according to the non-Mahāyāna, or at least according to the Abhidharma (I know this doesn't equal Āgamas in your statement):
https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25069.html

I do think that before the Mahāyāna sūtras were revealed/emerged/redacted bhikṣus did attempt to become bodhisattvas, but that this path was not fully defined. There was thus a soteriological/doctrinal need for the Mahāyāna, a gap which it filled. I think some who held the pre-Mahāyāna understanding of the bodhisattva believed that you needed a prediction from a Buddha to become a certified bodhisattva—but the Mahāyāna sūtras starting with the Aṣṭasāhasrikā confirm that if you encounter the sūtra in question you have already undergone that process and are already an irreversible bodhisattva, thus bypassing that perceived requirement. So, in many ways, the Mahāyāna literature fills the gaps left by the bodhisattva path as taught in the Āgama/Abhidharma system, answers unanswered questions, and transcends the teachings of the earlier texts by insisting on practice without views of existence or non-existence. This is just one instance of the way in which the Buddha manifests in accord with beings' needs at particular places and times.

The problem is that there is more than the conceptually explained paths, that lead you to the states of dhyana and insight. After that there are non-conceptual Dhyanas. There is non-conceptual direct communication of the higher paths. If you never attain any of the higher Dhyanas, you will not understand how the higher paths are taught and transmitted. There indeed is direct communication. It has always been there, even outside and before the Zen or Chan schools. The written instructions are only part of the existing Dharma instructions. When you have learned to swim, probably through conceptual instructions, you will learn further by seeing how others swim. You will learn by direct non-conceptual contact with others who can swim. This is a metaphor for learning the Dhyanas. The meaning is that you will not know the Dharmas that exist in the realms of higher Dhyanas, if you only have contact with the lower levels of Kamadhatu. There is also history that exists in the higher levels of Kamadhatu and in the Rupa- and Arupyadhatus.

[PeterC]

What is it with colons in academia? It seems that every single article published (outside of the sciences, which do not like colon use) has to follow the same format. "Bombastic and slightly vague title: partially-explanatory follow-up".

[Zhen Li]

What is it with colons in academia? It seems that every single article published (outside of the sciences, which do not like colon use) has to follow the same format. "Bombastic and slightly vague title: partially-explanatory follow-up".

It's just a trend, like authors using initials on book covers in the 1930s-50s. I think catchy titles are a thing that were really in vogue about 10 years ago, but now people are more accepting of simply descriptive titles.

I just wanted to say that I think there is value in Buddhist practitioners reading these kinds of articles. I just went through Drewes' article (Haven't gone through the others yet). Actually, I had known this argument before—I can't recall it if it is something that someone else argued, or if I just noticed it myself in reading Mahāyāna sūtras. But the knowledge of these arguments can actually help us in understanding our own tradition better as practitioners. The argument Drewes makes is that while Theravadans might suggest that you cannot become a bodhisattva without a Buddha's prediction or assurance of your awakening, the Mahāyāna sūtras pre-empt this by saying that those who are reading the sūtras right now, and who have faith in them, have already received their predictions aeons in the past. This is just a point of scholarly peculiarity for someone like Drewes, but might sound quite reassuring or helpful from the practitioner's perspective.

[FiveSkandhas]

All Mahayāna comes through Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna is the defining intellectual of Mahāyāna, hence his justly deserved title, "the second Buddha."

Is this controversial?

I don't see how it can be. Shunyata as developed through Nāgārjuna is the central linchpin that holds Mahayana together IMHO.

I do like me some Yogacara theory, though. And I don't see it as incompatible with Madhyamika whatsoever, although history shows many disagree strongly.