Ren: Are you a Mahayanist?
Yah: Yes and no.
Ren: Meaning?
Yah: Yes, because I believe in the Mahayana sutras and strive to uphold the spirit of their teachings in my everyday life. No, because I believe all the Buddhist traditions are interconnected with not one less, and I strive to live up to them on the whole.
Ren: Some think Mahayana sutras are not authentic teachings from the Buddha.
Yah: I guess they have not studied the Pali Canon well enough yet.
Ren: Huh? How so?
Yah: It’s obvious ‘some’ have no Kalama spirit, as taught in the Kalama Sutta!
Ren: What’s that?
Yah: In Kalama Sutta, the Buddha said to the Kalamas:
“Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘these things are good; these things are not blameble; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”
Unless ‘some’ have found the Mahayana teachings to be blamable, not beneficial or to cause unhappiness, how can ‘some’ just discredit them? Where’s the Kalama Spirit when it’s needed? Unless the Kalama Sutta, that all Buddhists treasure is not taught by the Buddha!
Ren: hmm…
Yah: And from Mahaparinibanna Sutta (DN 16) – in the Pali Canon, the Buddha is quoted as saying:
“There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: ‘In the Blessed One’s presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One’s presence have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the Suttas (discourses )and tally them against the Vinaya (monastic rules). If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it’ — and you should reject it. But if… they stand with the Suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.'”
Found online: Mahayana Buddhists traditionally believe that the Mahayana sutras, with the possible exception of those with an explicitly Chinese provenance, are an authentic account of the life and teachings of the Buddha. These sutras form the basis of the various Mahayana schools, and devotees of Mahayana Buddhism accept them as transmitting the genuine doctrines of Gautama Buddha.
Mahayana Buddhists believe the Mahayana Sutras present the more profound teachings of the Buddha and the path he revealed (Buddhadharma). Mahayana Buddhists accept both the older sutras from the Tipitaka as well as the new Mahayana sutras as original teachings, even though they generally do not study the teachings of the older sutras well since the Mahayana Sutras teach that the older sutras are incomplete.
The traditional telling about the transmission of the Mahayana sutras claims that many parts were actually written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred years in the realm of the nagas (serpent like supernatural beings who dwell in another plane of being). The reason given for the late disclosure of the Mahayana teachings is that most people were initially unable to understand the Mahayana sutras at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE) and suitable recipients for these teachings had still to arise amongst humankind.
Other teachers take the view that all teachings that stem from the fundamental insights of Gautama Buddha constitute Buddhavacana (the Buddha’s speech), whether they are explicitly the historical words of the Buddha or not.
Dear Atomant,
In the Kalama sutta, the Buddha also said that we should not simply go by tradition. If so, what you found online (which is a traditional account of how Mahayana comes about) can’t be simply accepted as well.
Dear Author,
The Kalama sutta (all suttas in fact) needs to be read fully and in the given context. The Kalamas are an intelligent grp of people who were visited by many teachers. The Buddha gave a list of reasons why one should not simply accept a teaching, but only when you know “these things are good…. then enter upon and abide in them”.
In the sutta, the Buddha then gave a series of examples, which basically says that whether or not there is heaven, hell, karma, after life, when you do good you bring good and happiness to yourself and others. when you can see that these things are good… then enter upon and abide in them.
Kalama sutta can be used as a guide in daily life, but can’t be used to “verify” whether Mahayana is authentic teachings of the Buddha.
However DN16 is a very good guide of whether certain teachings are the words of the Buddha. Personally i have read some of the major mahayana sutras, like lotus sutra, pure land sutras, earth store bodhisattsa sutra. My personal conviction after reading them is that… they are not the words of the Buddha.
However Mahayana do embrace teachings like 4 Noble Truth, 8 Foldpath, 5 precepts, generosity, letting go of self n ego, in that sense, Mahayana also contains the essense of the Buddha’s teachings.
May I invite you to my next Pureland class to learn more about the precious and profound Pureland teachings, which to some, represent the epitome of Buddha’s compassion and wisdom in the Mahayana teachings. (Will inform you of class later.) Almost everyday, I’m learning something remarkable about them. In the mean time, please feel free to see posts at http://tinyurl.com/namoamituofo for articles on Pureland Buddhism with an open heart and mind. When we meet in person, I’ll share with you more on why I’m 100% convinced by experience that the Pureland teachings are valid.
As an MA grad in Buddhist Studies, who had studied recommended key texts in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Canon, I have to honestly admit that Mahayana compassion and wisdom is so complex and complete that I cannot imagine them not being teachings of the Buddha, or them being teachings of non-Buddhas.
Your summary of the Kalama Sutta is incomplete. It’s best for readers to read it completely. The Sutta excerpts above can be used to assess the worth of ANY teaching. Amituofo
Related Articles:
An interesting example on the Theravada-Mahayana tension
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amituofo/message/120
When is So-Called “Buddhism” not Buddhism?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-realisation/message/343
Erm, the sutta excerpts were quoted to remind Buddhists not to simply discredit the worth of the Mahayana teachings; not use it to verify anything else. Even the Kalama Sutta cannot be verified 100% to be taught by the Buddha but Buddhists treasure it because it makes great sense. To me, there’s no need to verify whether Mahayana teachings are from the Buddha or not, because it simply can’t be from anyone else.
To be fair, you mentioned you read the sutras, but did you study and contemplate on the sutras? By merely reading through once or even twice, most of us will not get their essence… unless one is like Ven Hui Neng, who was able to be enlightened upon hearing two lines from the Diamond Sutra. To be fair again, Mahayana teachings is a different genre from the Theravada teachings – taught to those who want to be Buddhas – which is not taught much in the Theravada teachings. The Buddha, will surely teach how to be Buddhas in detail. This is where the Mahayana teachings come in. One simply can’t compare, say, an action-themed movie with a comedy. Thus, the vast differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada teachings. But then, what’s the point of having the same genre of teachings for a great diversity of beings?
_/|\_ with metta.
Thanks for the response zzz.
I’ve read your post again. Because Ren says “Some think Mahayana sutras are not authentic teachings from the Buddha.”. In response zzz brings up the Pali Canon and then the Kalama sutta. This lead me to think that Yah is using the Kalama sutta to refute the argument that Mahayana sutras are not the authentic teachings of the Buddha.
I suppose what you meant is that people should not simply discredit (i.e. claim Mahayana are not words of the Buddha) without first conducting a careful study of the Mahayana teachings?
I’ve read the pureland sutras and the commentaries by a famous master (the yellow book with a lotus on it, I think) and wholeheartedly chant Amituofo + attended shian’s talks and we had discussions before over the years. There are strong arguments for, but I’ve yet to find what I would consider the ‘smoking gun’.
And precisely because Mahayana is a different genre, movies with different theme, all the more you cannot verify them with the DN16!
Yes, my explanation of kalama sutta is not complete because this is not the place to do that. How do you verify that the law of Karma is true with the Kalama sutta?
Erm, as explained, was talking about careless dismissal, not verification of authenticity. Let me put in another way – not to dismiss any teachings that are not blamable, that are praised by the wise, that when undertaken and observed lead to benefit and happiness.
As long as any teaching cannot be 100% verified to be not taught by the Buddha, one cannot just conclude they are not. When we don’t find a teaching appealing, this only means that particular teaching is not our calling – but that does not mean it’s definitely not by the Buddha. For example, I find the Mahayana teachings profoundly enriching, but it doesn’t mean I belittle the importance of the Theravada teachings.
Why can’t DN16 be used to accredit the Mahayana teachings? Unless you find the Mahayana teachings to be against the Vinaya and foundational Dharma, if not, like the Buddha said, “you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One.'”
_/|\_ with metta.
What zzz was saying is similar to what I mentioned – ‘I have to honestly admit that Mahayana compassion and wisdom is so complex and complete that I cannot imagine them not being teachings of the Buddha, or them being teachings of non-Buddhas.’ I have a point to add. I cannot imagine the Buddha not teaching the Mahayana teachings at all. For example, I can’t imagine the Buddha, being with perfect and endless compassion for all beings retiring forever after teaching for only 45 years (which is what many Theravada Buddhists believe). In the Mahayana teachings, he clearly reveals that he is always around, manifesting in various forms to teach. This teaching is found in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta too, but neglected by many.
Trust me… we have not studied Pureland sutras properly yet. I’m saying this based on 2 facts – (1) As someone who shares the Pureland teachings with a practice group almost every week with fresh material, I believe I have studied them more than you, yet (2) I can honestly say I have not studied all the Pureland teachings completely yet. Even for the very short Amitabha Sutra, something new is learnt almost every time I chant it. It is easy to assume one knows it all after reading a few books. It is a serious mistake I recovered from with serious repentance. The classics on Pureland teachings are voluminous and wonderful.
Practice plays a key role in verifying the teachings. When I first came across the Theravada teachings, I thought they were simplistic. But I was wrong upon deeper study and practice of meditation. Likewise, when I first came across the Mahayana teachings, I thought they were simplistic too. I was never more gravely wrong. The very few casual non-systematic discussions we had do not even stand for 1% of the Pureland teachings’ essence. From memory, you had not attended any of my formal discussions on Pureland Buddhism before. There are at least 6 lessons for each course I give on Pureland teachings – where I answer all the students’ doubts in person best I can. Do come for a proper class if you can. Still, the real proof of the pudding is in the tasting of actual practice’s results.
DN 16 never mentioned about the Buddha saying different styles of teachings cannot be taught by the Buddha. I can never imagine the Buddha teaching exactly the same way to kids, farmers, kings, monks, Bodhisattvas and devas. Surely, he will speak in different ways at times – just as we don’t speak the same way to all we come across.
If you study the Four Assurances in the Kalama Sutta, it is a sound proof on why it is wiser to believe in the law of karma. It is a powerful teaching: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thedailyenlightenment-excerpt/message/190
Came across this…
The Pali Canon itself is a reconstruction of the Buddha’s life, composed and organized to be easily chanted and transmitted orally, not to be a word for word record of what the Buddha said. The Pali contains a fair amount of “supernatural” and hagiographical material, and was finalized centuries after the Buddha’s death. On this basis it is arguable that the “fictional” aspect of the Pali Canon versus the Mahayana scriptures is a matter of degree, and the true criteria of what counts as the Buddha’s word is as said above in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta…
Amituofo
First I have to qualify myself. I am not saying I am 100% sure Mahayana is 100% not the teachings of the Buddha and that I want none of it. I do not claim or even imagine i have the wisdom to know that. Rather, what i am saying is that, based on the facts and information I don’t think they are the Buddha’s teachings. I would be happy if I can be proven wrong. There are also many things I can learn from the Mahayana.
Yes, the Pali canon are not really the words (transcripts) of the Buddha. The suttas have been re-edited and re-compiled. And the authors themselves have left behind their own “marks” just like a news reporter naturally would. This means one have to read the suttas with discerning and not simply and blindly follow the words. But taken together as a whole, the suttas still gives a very very good (best account we have) of what the Buddha taught.
Yes, the Buddha spoke differnetly to kids, farmers, kings and devas.. and many of these discourses have indeed been recored in the suttas.
Why DN16 cannot be used to verify some of the Mahayana teachings? because pureland are not mentioned in there! Or in the case of the lotus sutra; all that we learn about the Buddha and the major disciples is but a “play”, a “skillful means” to teach n guide ppl. How do you verify these teachings with DN16?
It is simple to prove personally if the Mahayana teachings are relevant or not, the Buddha’s teachings or not – practise them sincerely and enquire on their meanings likewise. It’s called the Ehipassiko way – don’t just believe or disbelieve – learn, practise and see.
I have not studied all of the Mahayana teachings yet, but from experience by practice, I have no doubts that the Pureland teachings are genuine, while I subscribe to the general Mahayana spirit, with great faith that the Buddha’s main intention is to directly and indirectly urge all to eventually, in this life or another, practise the Bodhisattva path to become Buddhas. This is expounded so little in the Pali Canon that I cannot believe it represents all of the Buddha’s teachings. (None of the Theravada friends I know want to be Buddhas with perfect compassion and wisdom to help all beings.) The only way for the Buddhadharma to spread endlessly without fall in quality is to become Buddhas, to have Buddhas teach it. Even Theravadins recognise the Buddha’s compassion and wisdom to be far vaster than Arahants’. For me, the Mahayana and the Pali Canon together form the Buddha’s complete teachings.
DN16’s words, as above, clearly show that they are not meant to be a checklist of specific teachings that qualify to be the Buddha’s teachings. They offer general guidelines. For example, DN16 never mentioned Metteya Bodhisatta, but that doesn’t mean he is not real – because he is mentioned elsewhere, in the Pali Canon too. DN16’s teachings are not to be stuck to word by word, but to be abided in the spirit of the teaching. We take it to be sound because it makes sense in itself – not just because it is supposed to be taught by the Buddha.
Here’s some simple logic to why Purelands are real and must exist by default. If beings with little wisdom who do much evil can ‘create’ hells for themselves, it is infinitely more possible for Buddhas with perfect and boundless merits, compassion and wisdom to create realms of purity (opposite of hells) and offer beings access to them to learn from them in person. I won’t go on at length on this. You can read the many volumes of Pureland practice testimonies in Buddhist libraries, of true practitioners’ fruitful experiences of the teachings. Still, the real proof must come from one’s personal practice; not anyone’s account; not even any Buddha’s.
The Buddha’s teachings in terms of dialogues with disciples are so comprehensive and complete that I personally cannot believe the key characters involved are not compassionate manifestations of great beings asking key important questions. It makes me more grateful to all involved, to treasure the teachings more. There is absolutely no down side in this belief. And there’s no need to verify this. I’m at peace with it :-] Amituofo (By the way, is this concept in the Lotus Sutra, or another one? Which chapter?)
If you read a friend’s excerpt of DN16, it clearly tell us to use the collect of suttas and vinaya rules as a guide to verify if a teaching is by the Buddha. In short, the collection of suttas n vinaya rules are the “checklist”. Metteya is mentioned in the suttas so it can be verified. The concept of Pureland is not found in the suttas, so it cannot be verified. That is what I meant.
I’ve heard your “simple logic” for pureland before. They are logical inference and deduction at best. I do not claim to know how rebirth, karma and power of the mind work in details. As a sceptic, it is not strong enough a reason for me. The testimonal of pureland practioners… you hear similar stories from chrisitan all the time as well.
For all we know Pureland may turn out to be some heavenly realm with lot of devas practicing the Dhamma. Similar methods (doing good karma + making vows or strong determination to be reborn in a better place) has been taught by the Buddha for ppl to be reborn in heaven.
The Buddha was born in a time where Brahma worship is very common. Pureland teachings is actually much easier for ppl to accept than most teachings in the suttas. make no sense why these teachings are kept for 500 years.
500 yrs marks the period where the Dhamma goes from the Pure stage to the semi-pure and yet ppl then are suppose to be more wise and can understand mahayana teachings, which are suppose to be more profound, while the ppl in the time of the Buddha could not??
Anyway, we’ve been down this tract before. Lets just say agree to disagree.