History of Mahayana Buddhism: Innovation and Perfection
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- We'll take a quick overview of the history of Mahāyāna Buddhism, beginning with its earliest developments and how it separated from the rest of mainstream Buddhism. Then we'll look at a few of its later developments that came to define the Mahāyāna approach. It's a huge topic so this video only can provide an introduction!
If you get benefit out of these videos and would like to lend a hand in exchange for fun benefits, check out my Patreon page at / dougsseculardharma
You can also make donations through: paypal.me/doug...
Sutta mentioned:
Uttara on Failing (AN 8.8): suttacentral.n...
Other references:
Anālayo, "The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal": www.buddhismus...
Johannes Bronkhorst, Buddhist Teaching in India: amzn.to/2rKw4wo
Rupert Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism: amzn.to/2KswYER
Richard Gombrich “How the Mahāyāna Began” in Paul Williams Buddhism: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies (Routledge, 2005).
jayarava.blogsp...
Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd Ed.: amzn.to/2wOB8VQ
Paul Williams, et al., Buddhist Thought: amzn.to/2GiCZ4w
Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism...
Disclaimer: any Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
Hello, 16 year old male here. I've decided to take upon Buddhism and begin to practice. I just wanted to say that these videos have been a tremendous help in learning about it so far. Much appreciated good sir!
Great! Glad to hear it Clasherface!
I have compiled many videos about practice. If you so choose, it is there for you. Namaste.
as a 31 yr old who also started practicing and going for refuge at 16, I cannot say how joyful it makes me to read your comment bro.
@@BakerBikerGeshe thank you for telling me this, I still try to practice but lately life has been getting the better of me. I have been thinking about Buddhism a lot lately and you’ve inspired and well reminded me I guess to focus on what is important right now and keep practicing. Thank you friend!
@@clasherface7227
Thank you for your videos. I am new to Zen practice and my new sangha is in the Western school of Buddhism. I am trying to understand Zen in the larger historical context and your videos have been very illuminating. Like you I am more on the secular side and it is interesting to me that Zen appears in many ways different than other Mahayana traditions. It's fascinating to see how Buddhist ideas have evolved throughout history.
Yes I find it fascinating as well!
I am traditional Buddhist from Burma . I grew up in Buddhist culture . We have to recite Buddhist prayer for 5-10 mins before school started . But all in Pali words and I never understood. I don’t even understand “ Arahan”. Only thing I understand from Buddhist teaching was “ don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t indulge in drug and alcohol, don’t commit adultery, don’t lie “ . These basic teaching works for me to live in life. You explained really well about Buddhism .
🙏😊
This is very informative.Being a Theravada Buddhist ,I went to Wutaishan mountain, Shanxi province in China.I saw huge number of monks and pilgrims from various sectors of Mahayana Buddhism.I thought to get an idea about what is the Mahayana Buddhism.This helped a lot.
Thanks for your kind comment Madhura Senevirathna. I’m glad you found the video useful. 🙏
I’m a Mahayana Buddhist from China. Namo Amituofo🇨🇳🙏🏻🌹❤️
Nice to have you here! Thanks for your comment Jiayang Gao. 🙏🙂
Mike Wisconsin Yes，and pure land is more popular.
Mike Wisconsin namo amituofo🙏🏻❤️
Mike Wisconsin 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Mike Wisconsin That’s great and you should watch Master Chin Kung’s video, he talks a lot about pure land and Chan Buddhism. His videos are in Chinese but you might find some with English subtitles
I don't know if you've read it but a follow up video you might wanna consider is the Lotus Sutra. It's impact on Mahayana cannot be understated and it introduced the concept that no distinction exists between vehicles, all roads lead to Buddhahood. It further asserts the Tathagata only seems to die, but really the Buddha lives forever, though not physically. It also most boldly is where schools got the notion that Buddhahood is inherent to reality itself and therefore Tathagatagarbha would be found here too. Loved the video and thank you!
You're very welcome greenobeeeno! Yes I'd like eventually to do a video on the Lotus Sutra.
For some time I've been thinking about how should I perceive Mahayana Buddhism with its emphasis on bodhicitta, six paramitas, two truths and so on in comparison to the in my view more conservative Theravada tradition, centered around the Noble Eightfold Path. I had the feeling that I must somehow resolve this relationship to be able to practice Buddhism correctly, but then I remembered what the Buddha said to the kalamas in Kesamuttisutta:
"Please, Kālāmas, don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned contemplation, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after consideration, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up."
Finally I came to the conclusion that I shouldn't let my practice be restrained by from which traditions the teaching come and judging the traditions' correctness, because that's entirely irrelevant when considering the value of the teachings.
Exactly so Dr. Shuppet. There are many routes to skillful practice. Each of us has to find the route that fits us best.
I think your approach here makes perfect sense
It is extremely fascinating watching a non-religious man analyze religious texts from such a non-religious point of view. Thank you for your intriguing perspective
🙏😊
Thank you. Very helpful. I look forward to watching a number of your other videos. Buddhism will always be interesting to me, because of its very substantial influence on other Indian traditions. As an adopted-faith Hindu who deeply values history while also inhabiting wholeheartedly what I regard as the mythic/imaginal "tirtha" of a reality that is indeed metaphysical, I am immensely grateful to those who have done the painstaking work of tracing (as far as possible) the cultural history of the stories, images, developed ideals, and philosophies that today facilitate the spiritual experience of hundreds of millions of people.
Thanks for the comment, it's my pleasure! 🙏
Curious to know what sect of Hinduism are you following?
@@rushiljain9423 Namaste. Jai Jinendra. Apologies if I am mistaken, but I presume from your name that you might have some association with Jain Dharma, the other tradition besides Buddhism that has had an enduring impact on Hindu spirituality.
With respect to your inquiry: There are two aspects of my religion-the philosophical and the devotional. My guiding philosopher is Utpaladeva (ca. 900-950 CE, Kashmir) the principal developer of Pratyabhijna (the “recognition” school of nondual Shaivism, aka Kashmir Shaivism).
As for my devotional focus, it is the family of Shiva, which includes his wife Parvati, his son Ganesha, and his brother-in-law Narayana. Briefly stated, I regard these four as avatars, aspects, and cosmogenic factors of Paramatman, the Original Self of all selves. Practically speaking, they are the devatas of my heart.
Been looking for a video like this for ages. Thank you so much.
You're very welcome Bjarku! Thanks for watching.
I’m a Mahayana Buddhist and the way I always describe it for myself to people who aren’t familiar is that we are like the Unitarian Universalist of the Buddhist world in that we don’t think different schools are wrong just a different path. I personally find that the Lotus Sutra and Heart Sutra especially speak to me, though I appreciate and learn from all schools.
Thanks for the great video Doug! I have been focusing on Theravada so much without really knowing much about Mahayana. I kind of like aspects of both.
Glad it was helpful! Yes they are both very interesting.
absolutely fascinating - so grateful for these overviews of the different schools!
You're very welcome asliuf! 🙏
Excellent exposition on Mahayana Buddhism,thank you very much Dr.Doug for this enlightening commentary,Richard D CRUZ,Malaysia.
My pleasure, Richard. 🙏
One more excellent explanation opening paths and clarifyng important aspects of Buddhism to begginer students like me. Thanks one more time!
You're very welcome Eduardo, thanks for the comment!
Great Video! The quality and information are amazing. Thanks bud
You’re very welcome Kelvin, thanks for watching! 😄
From a bud in the mud the gem can be found in the heart of the lotus. ^_^
Thank you for your very wellspoken informative balanced videos. I learn a lot from them. I also find it too complicated for my desire and conviction that reality, stripped of all embellishment turns out to be simple and pure. I like the idea that I only sit and breathe (which is the essence of my Zen practice). I had experiences of deep meditation. I felt one with everything, even the lowest non-living thing. The question of emptiness never occurred to me. Rather it felt as fulness. Was it me that felt? It never occurred to me that it was not me. Rather it was the essence of me. 😀
Yes a lot of interesting experiences can come from deep meditation.
As a new Buddhist been practicing for about 2 years now. Mahayana Buddhism has been my main practice but I’ve been learning about Theravada Buddhism.
Cool! So happy to have you here. Enjoy the ride!
Even in Zen most teachers/masters reify "emptiness" or "Buddha nature" and understand it as a kind of "Brahman". I prefer the approach of the few who don't regard "emptiness" as an entity, but as the absence of any kind of inherent or persistent self.
Great video! 🙏🏻
Thanks xiao mao, I agree with your point! 😄
Lol that's the miracle of your true nature. Its. Nothingness yet it's a sentient nothingness.
@@damianflores8601 Sentient Nothingness. That's a really nice term.
The All-Aware Nothingness. :)
Why do we call compassion good? Why do we call suffering evil? Maybe we suffer when we see things as evil? If that is so then why does Buddhism put lack of suffering as the highest? Because maybe by doing so we create exactly suffering? Maybe Buddhism is a self fulfilling prophesy? I don't find Buddhism answering why it values its values. It seems to me the Buddha took for granted what came before him, that he just tried to answer the questions that existed in his time, instead of questioning those questions.
This is my 5th video today - I'm very grateful for all the education (I've subscribed). I feel like it would take an entire lifetime to chip away at one square foot of the Buddhism iceberg, so it's a good thing there's reincarnation :0)
😄 Thanks for watching RM S! You're right, there is a huge amount to learn and practice. Stick with it!
Very clear exposition. You might want to have a second video where you expose from Tathāgatagarbha and Yogacara, to Dzogchen, and the Nature of Mind, dhamadātu and Dharmakāya (and if, you have enough time, the other kāyas - Sambhogakāya and Nirmanakāya). Even rangtong-shentong, the difference of Prasangika interpretation of Madhyamaka and the one of Shantarakshita, who claimed to have unified Madhyamaka with Yogacara (or Cittamatra). Shantarakshita's work is a philosophycal ground to Dzogchen and Tathāgatagarbha.
I do enjoy your videos. Keep it pushing!
Thanks Gustavo! Yes there is still SO much to get into. 🙏
Hi Doug. New subscriber here.
Interesting info on Buddhism.
Appreciate your enthusiasm ☺
Thanks Kenneth, welcome aboard!
Wonderful video as always. Thank you Doug. My two cents: I understand the emptiness teaching not to mean that self and phenomena do not exist, but that they are empty of self-nature. Our thinking mind discriminates and applies fixed identifications to phenomena, but in the ultimate level of reality, no such distinctions between phenomena exist. Emptiness doesn’t mean that the phone I’m holding doesn’t exist, just that it does not exist with self-nature independently of my hand or the surrounding air or the planet Venus et cetera.
Right, there are many different interpretations of emptiness and you've touched on one of the central ones. 🙏
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your reply Doug. Hope you are having a great day!
In the example you give about the existance of the telephone, I also think about the materials needed to ensamble the product, the companies that produced each of those materials, all the persons that participated (including administrative and operative) in each company and so forth; then I see the interelationship of everyone and the dependent arising of every phenomena in this and other universes known and unknown.
I am a Theravada Buddhist from Thailand and the Thai forest tradition is the only one that makes sense to me. (I have not made much progress in my practice though - I'm just too lazy!)
I find Mahayana Buddhism harder to understand than Christianity, Judaism or Islam and my attempts to learn more about it by reading have not been fruitful. Your videos have been a lot more helpful and I'm very grateful.
My pleasure!
May you succeed bhante🙏
Maharaja is more of a philosophy than a practice of Buddhism .
I was raised in a Christian family as I'm South American but as I started to think by myself and discover different aspects of life I've realized that my beliefs tend to naturally match Buddhist beliefs.
It's been a while since I've started my research (even though i don't know much due to the lack of correct information about Buddhism in Spanish therefore I have to learn English in order to access to more information) and I have realized that it's difficult for me to choose a school. For me it's easier to comprehend Buddhism as a religion without deities and god/goddesses and take it more as a philosophy and lifestyle in order to achieve the state of a bodhisattva and later on a buddha scaping the cycle of life and achieving Nirvana. I have mixed beliefs between the Theravada school and the Mahayana school, do you believe thats it's possible to have mixed beliefs or should i strictly follow only one school?
By the way bodhisattvas make sense to me as a group of beings who are "in the door" of nirvana but don't enter it yet because they need to fully experience being able to put themselves in someone else's shoes and "light" the path for them but not "walk it" for them. For me they work in the same way that teachers do, mentally they're illuminated but they still reincarnate in order to help others comprehend things that they find difficult to comprehend all by themselves. I could never pray to and ask a bodhisattva to enlight me with compassion but i would rather thank them for achieving compassion and therefore inspiring me to do so and maybe help me comprehend how compassion works if i ask them
Many Buddhists I think tend to blend ideas from different schools. So long as you can do that without becoming confused, I think there's no real issue to it.
*My Conviction of Theravada & Mahayana*
Before any sects of Buddhism, there was only one Dharma called as Buddha Sasana or Vaca (Buddha’s teachings or words) and Tipitaka or Pali Canon is Buddha Sasana. Theravadian follow only Tipitaka. Theravada sect is the oldest and closest to the Dharma taught by Buddha himself. The most common and popular translation of the word thera is elders but “Thera” actually means elder monks who were Buddha’s companion; hence the belief by the theravadian that the lineage of ordination of monks can be traced back to Buddha’s disciple and ultimately to Buddha Himself.
On the other hand, even though Mahayana accepts Tipitaka as the Buddha Sasana but Mahayanist also believe in the teachings of the Boddhisattvas and they give more importance to the teachings of Boddhisattvas than to Buddha’s teachings. According to Theravadian, there’s nothing to be added or nothing to be taken out from the teachings of Buddha; the Dharma taught by Buddha is perfect. Yes, changes can be made to the teachings of Buddha because Buddha is not a god or his teachings a dogma; if there’s any changes to be made, it can only be changed by a Samma-SamBuddha and not by an Arhant or Mahayana Boddhisattvas such as Yogacara, Nagarjuna, Padmasambhava and so on...
Furthermore, Mahayana also added too many local rituals & traditions in their practice and these local rituals & traditions are very important to Mahayanist. Thus, you’ll find different version of Mahayana in different countries. A good example is the Vajrayana which is basically a version of Mahayana. There are so many rituals and ritual objects in Vajrayana which I find it to be more Hinduism rather than Buddhism; to name some: Vajra, human skull, Bowl, dagger, rosary and so on; they also have so many ceremonies where monks wear costumes & masks, play instruments and dance to the music but the most ridiculous of all is the chanting of prayers and mantras. The Tibatan really believe that one can achieve Nirvana by chanting “Om Mane Padme Hum”
In Mahayana, Buddhism is obscured because of excessive importance to Boddhisattvas’ teachings, rituals and traditions.
Thanks for your thoughts Charles. 🙏
What are the holy scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism apart from the Tripitikas? Does Dhammapada figure in the list of Mahayana Buddhist scriptures? What is the difference between Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism? Which sect in India follows Mahayana Buddhism? Thanks.
Just came back to refresh my mind on this subject. You mention the jataka tales here. Would you ever consider doing a video or video series on some of the more popular tales? I know I would be very interested in that. Thanks, Doug!
It's possible babushka, though the general focus here is on the early teachings, and the Jātakas are a bit later.
@@DougsDharma yes, of course. I thought about amending my question to include that caveat. Thanks for the reply!
Mahayana philosophy is amazing, if interpreted not ontologically but phenomenologically it makes a lot of sense. And we can only access the world phenomenologically, there's no escape to it, so ontology, the real nature of things is empty even of emptiness, according to Nargajuna. It's not an ontological assertion of nothingness or no existence, but a deny of ontological essences. It's a great unknown and unknowable. We inhabit our own inner spaces (that probably codependenty arise with the external world) and interpret, judge and communicate them by the lens of our culture, giving rise to believes and worldviews to wich we cling and form an identity, thus being constantly reborn, in a sense, even in this life, that rebirth happening through karma, that is conditioned action and reactions with intention and clinging creating our identities. The Boddhsatva can be thought of someone who through compation enter and inhabit many bubbles of conceptual reality to help those that suffer but isn't reborn into it, don't cling to them and don't turn away from day to day life, like a Nietszchean eternal return, but more compassionate and less self-centered. Also accordingly to Nagarjuna conditioned reality is inescapable, Nirvana is itself conditioned, so it's not like you have a choice to leave the cycle and decides to become a Boddhsatva, but the cycle is inescapable and Nirvana is the realization of the nature of the cycle that free you of cravings, even the craving of escaping the cycle. It's not a denial of importance of conventional knowledge either, without conventional knowledge we can't live our daily lives, nor can we be awake, it's just because there's Samsara that Nirvana is possible, and Samsara is ultimately inescapable. The Madyamaka school was great, but them came the Budah-nature idea, there are a lot of interpretations of that, as a symbol of how interdependence, impermanence and emptiness of self-nature permeates everything I think is great. A finger pointing to the moon. And it's also within us though we don't realize how much we ourselves are empty of self, interdependent and impermanent. There's also the idea of Budah-Nature as a constioness field permeating everything, though. There are ways to conceptualize it that make more sense, but we don't know and I tend to be more of an emergentist in that regard and I'm also agnostic about literal rebirth and don't buy the whole cosmology, though I find it fascinating, self-consistent and symbolically beautiful, I think it's a great narrative but that lacks rigorous evidence.
Thanks for your thoughts Gabriel!
thank you for your time explaining Mahayana.
My pleasure! 🙏
Thank you Doug - great teaching as ever. Do you think that there is a conflict between the Buddha Nature concept of pure mind or consciousness, devoid of formations, as Nirvana, and on the other hand, the teachings of the Five Skhandas/Aggregates in the Pali Canon, the fifth of which clearly states that consciousness itself is conditioned, and only arises when there is contact with a mental object? No object of consciousness, no consciousness… I originally came to dharmic study with the idea that there was a field of consciousness, and then various formations arose in the field of consciousness, and there was then clinging or aversion to these formations, leading to concepts of self, and therefore dukkha. So non-self still left this unadulterated field of consciousness, which aligns with the idea of Buddha Nature. But on recently realising that the early teachings clearly state that consciousness itself is a conditioned arising, and that it cannot therefore be the unconditioned, this has left me a little unsure. I will examine this more in meditation. But it seems to me that many deep meditation masters must have come to different conclusions on this point. Or am I missing some way that these teachings can work together? Many thanks once again 🙏🏻
It all depends on how these ideas are interpreted. But yes, on one interpretation they are in direct conflict. We can also understand this later idea of "consciousness" as just another name for emptiness or non-self, in which case it's sort of a roundabout way of describing the same thing we find in the early suttas.
@@DougsDharma Hmmm - not sure I’m completely convinced by defining “consciousness” as emptiness 😂. I think it’s pretty clear it means something like “awareness”. If we argue that everything is empty, then awareness is too, but does that not then take us back to the Nargujana “nihilism” perspective that they were trying to get away from with this consciousness thing in the first place? The late Gaia House teacher Rob Burbea was defining consciousness as “knowing” in a dharma talk I was listening to yesterday. That makes the conditioned nature of consciousness make sense - you cannot know without something to know. But if we think of it as pure awareness, it’s less clear (to me at least) that it can’t exist without an object to be aware of. As you say - that takes us towards a more Vedic perspective. But maybe that is correct? Either way, there is no self in the sense that we normally think of, and all other “objects” are empty of identity also.
@@DougsDharma though, perhaps if we define the fifth aggregate, Vinnana, as knowing, as per Burbea, that is clearly conditioned, but it also leaves room for pure awareness as unconditioned? Anyway - probably not too important for daily practice. Thanks again 🙏🏻
I’m doing a Mahayana study group (currently into the weeds of Madyamaka) on Zoom and your presentation provides an overview that helps greatly - many thanks!
You’re very welcome! Glad to help.
Do you still conduct these on Zoom? I am interested ☺
How did you find It I’m a new Buddhist at this time im in Sgi but I want to explore all aspects before I commit to it how do you like the study group
Postscript to previous remark. Replaying several times your remarks on prajna paramita (luminous state, beyond sensation, ideation, and other mental formations), I was suddenly reminded of ancient dualistic Sankhya with its notions of Purusha.
My knowledge of formal philosophy is superficial and quite possibly mistaken; but as a religious person it’s my impression that, with mixed effects, a certain "kaivalya aesthetic" (which itself is born of deep meditative absorption) has insinuated itself in several “non-dual” schools of Indian spirituality, both Hindu and Buddhist. Paradoxically, "kaivalya quietism" may actually contribute itself to particular experiments of Tantra that pursue an antinomian deconstruction of conventional reality. For another example, with the ascendancy of Shakta conceptions, it was necessary to impute a type of kaivalya quietism to Shiva, despite his fame as Foremost Dancer. Again introducing dualism.
Interesting, yes I don't know a lot about these systems. They can get pretty complicated!
Thank You for a clear western style explanation!
I am interested in nowadays serious attempts of practice in the cities (in opposition to monasteries). I see how Vipassana (taught by Goenka) is rooted in a wider school - Theravada (ex. 38 more objects of meditation), although paramitas are also reminded.
Few scholars of neuroscience claim to rediscover Dhamma there. We have very interesting times.
You're very welcome Tobiasz, thanks for watching. Yes, we do indeed live in very interesting times!
Thank you so much for this succinct summary. It is so concise and easy to understand the flow of thought that occurred which led to Mahayana ideas.
Though I must say, the Buddha had already perfected the Dhamma in his ministry; 'innovation' is more of diversion.
I think each of us has to find the proper path that speaks to us and inspires us.
What I've read from an archaeological perspective seems to show that both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism preserve aspects of early Buddhism respectively. And so for practitioners it would be of benefit to investigate and learn something about both schools. From my perspective, if we believe that the Buddha taught truths about the nature of ourselves and the world, then the ever present nature of those truths means that later teachers and contemplatives are equally capable of expounding about those truths. So exactly when and where a Buddhist teaching comes from is not absolutely important :)
Thanks for that Scott. Sure, Buddhist teachings from different time periods can be useful and interesting to us today, including material being written right now!
" if we believe that the Buddha taught truths about the nature of ourselves and the world, then the ever present nature of those truths means that later teachers and contemplatives are equally capable of expounding about those truths" - Indeed and it also means that we don't need the Buddha as the source of authority. However, it's a pretty hard and vast territory to navigate efficiently. Time on this Earth is limited, so...
11:57 somewhat glossed over the point. As you said earlier, the mahayanists believe the texts to have been memorized for much longer before being written. Impt pts here 1) some texts come from the time of buddha 2) some were inspired ie the monk in med is told them or visits heaven etc to learn them, or perhaps even visits the "time" in heaven when they were spoken 3) the latter timing of release of these texts are inspired as in accordance w dharma. These r what I've heard on the Chinese side of things
Yes this is rather like the Theravāda belief that the Buddha taught the abhidhamma to his mother in heaven. They are important pious stories but are not taken to be historically accurate in contemporary scholarship.
@@DougsDharma belief perhaps, but based on textual authority, the mahamaya sutra, where it is stated in factual terms, while the contemporary scholarship u mention is more out of the west and interpretative rather than referenced? Note also that enlightened men in most traditions are said to have supernatural powers, whether raising dead, transversing heavens or vanquishing demons, and their mothers tend to also have a certain level of purity or divinity (mother of god, mary) etc
One thing I’ve never understood is how zen is Mahayana. I grew up with completely backwards ideas of Mahayana and Theravada because I assumed the ideas in zen were much more representative of Mahayana than they perhaps are. I’ve heard S Suzuki also say that zen has a lot of Theravada elements to it. A video addressing that would be great!
To my knowledge Zen was not influenced by Theravāda, except very recently, and in some isolated parts of SE Asia. There are similarities of practice but their teachings are really very different. Have you seen my video on the history of Zen? ua-cam.com/video/lRAW-GN4TUA/v-deo.html
The notion of "that which is well said, is the word of the Buddha" is a fascinating meme with two opposing results:
On one hand, it should help individuals reclaim agency in their own lives in the sense that they wouldn't feel dependent on finding supporting scripture to accept an idea that is well-reasoned (by their own efforts of reasoning, or heard from others).
On the other hand, it opens the door for a new kind of authority by anyone sufficiently cunning, charismatic, or simply powerful.
Yes that's right!
nicely explained. thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
I have practiced mostly in the Theravada tradition and have found it to be extremely valuable. It really has transformed my life, though I no longer believe there is such a thing as enlightenment or rebirth, as I noted in a comment on another video (in light of the paucity of enlightened westerners around 50 years in). I often have wondered if what jump started Mahayana was the lack of enlightenment following the Theravada path. If no one is getting enlightened, it makes sense that a path would develop that deemphasized enlightenment. I would be curious about your views in that regard.
It's hard to say for sure, though Bhikkhu Sujato has argued that one source of early schism in the sangha was around the status of the arahant and whether one could "backslide". So I do imagine that there may have been disagreements and concern about whether certain people were really enlightened or not.
Ya it is very helpful to many people. Just that break the threshold and reach the first level of enlightenment t will be kinda didficult.
The lotus sutra is a key text for many Buddhist, especially of the Mahayana school. This text appears to renounce earlier texts. As a follower of early texts, how do you view the lotus sutra?
Hi Dusan, yes the Lotus Sutra is a key text in the development of the Mahāyāna. It's not one that I have spent much time with because as you note it does not reflect the early teachings. While I know it in general outline, it would take a lot of detailed study for me to have a reasoned opinion about it.
@@DougsDharma My curiosity and confusion comes from the fact that it is attributed to the Buddha, but puts the earlier teachings into context and even dismisses them to a degree. Some branches of Buddhism are based solely on it and not on earlier, apparently provisional and incomplete, teachings. It is said that the Lotus Sutra is the final teaching of the Buddha and that it's sufficient for salvation.
Right but this has to be taken in the context of a sectarian dispute between members of the sangha at the time who followed the early teachings and other members who did not. The latter group framed the early teachings as “provisional” even though originally they were not.
In Kaguy tradition - there's a text in meditation: form is emptiness, emptiness is form, form and emptiness are inseparable. there're many statements that people saw as 16 Karmapa got transparent while they were talking to him or just seeing him. That could be some form of explanation - you see its form, now there's no form and here again... I also heard stories that 17 Karmapa Thaye Dorje when was a child played with a glass cup transforming it as if it was plastic, the same with knife. If true - it's kind of supports the idea of emptiness. From my students perspective I would like if someone can do this things would openly do them and explain.. like you see it is this and that's how it works. But they don't do it.. Maybe they dont want, maybe they cant and most people only hear stories...
Yes I think these kinds of stories would benefit from doing them openly so they can be tested properly. The text you mention I assume is the Heart Sutra. 🙏
@@DougsDharma we have it i the meditation on the 8th Karmapa that is considered very profound (only after Ngendro). At the moment I'm a little confused in taking refuge in Dharma before meditation. Because there are different approaches to what is real Dharma. In Kaguy they study texts mostly of Leanage masters, like Gampopa, 9th Karmapa, etc, And lots of meditations are from these masters not Budda. It's not bad, just everyone says its Buddhism but includes different things in it.
Hi Doug, I hope you see this comment. Your channel is my favorite Buddhist channel on UA-cam thank you so much for your work. I would love to get your opinion on Thich Nhat Hanh and his order. Even though my focus in on early Buddhism I am deeply influenced by Thay’s teachings and fairly modern approach. I would love to hear your opinion on Thich Nhat Hanh if possible. Thank you for all you do. Metta.
I don't know a lot about Thich Nhat Hanh or his order but I do enjoy his dharma books and teachings, he seems like a wonderful presence.
Doug's Dharma thanks so much for replying. I understand, I got my start in Buddhism through Thich Nhat Hanh which grew into an interest in Zen but eventually became disillusioned with some parts and through Stephen Batchelor I developed an interest in early Buddhism which fit better with my secular point of view. That being said I saw your video on Zen and noticed you only mentioned the Japanese sects any plans on speaking on other forms of Zen like Chan Buddhism for example?
@@punkairnomad Actually I was talking about Chan Buddhism in that video; Chan and Zen are the same for purposes of an intro. I was mostly using Japanese terminology because it is more familiar in the West.
Thanks Doug. I was not clear where the “Buddha nature” concept came from and now I understand. The self is a creation of the mind governed by greed, hatred and ignorance. The Buddha trained his mind and got free from these three poisons. He awakened his mind to a luminous state where he could be over Suffering and saw reality as it really is. I guess that state of enlightenment corresponds to Buddha nature. What do you think?
I understand that we should all be careful understanding that Buddha nature is not a purified version of the Self. What’s your opinion?
Well it’s complicated Jorge. Buddha nature can be seen in various ways. We can understand it as our innate *potentiality* to become awakened. We can also understand it as the emptiness or non-self inherent in all things. It is also often understood as that we are already inherently awakened and only have to understand that fact. I’ll get into some of this a bit more in future videos. 🙂
Doug. The Buddha nature is a possibility to be awakened , and it lies in us but it is not us. Better?
I don’t know about “lying in us” either Jorge. To me it is a confusing concept.
@@DougsDharma Thank you Doug for your teachings. Would it be better to think that Buddha nature is a potentiality in everyone to be awakened that reveals itself along the way when we follow and practice Buddha's teachings?
Can you do more elaborate insights and how Mahayana Buddhism was spread across Malaysia?
A venerable under the traditions of the Chinese venerable Yin Shun once told us, mahayana can be generalized into 2 classifications: 1. The Emptiness sect （空宗）2. (有宗）The Existence sect (tathagatagarbha). However he cautioned us that these should not be taken ontologically but merely as practice strategies. So for people attuned to the empty sect, they should practice viewing non-self and impermanence. For others who work better with the existence sect they should look at purifying their defiled minds to reveal the shining Buddha nature within them.
Yes that's an interesting duality handy, I can see how it makes sense.
12:55 Which Mahayana sutras actually say that bodhisattva vow is to remain in this world until ALL beings are being able to be enlightened?
Good question, I'm not sure. Though it is a central part of the fourfold vow taken in Zen centers with which I've been familiar. One example of this vow online: www.upaya.org/teachings/liturgy/four-great-bodhisattva-vows/
@Slo Mo you can read the Diamond Sutra. It states this very thing.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your reply. I didn't see it until today.
Shantideva also says that in his Bodhisattva ideal.
Dong Jiang
bodhisattva vow is a method of teaching perhaps sutra of the past vows of earth store bodhisattva can be helpful ..
Interesting and visceral take on the belief systems.. i dont think anybody genuinely believes buddha didnt die, fron what i understand buddha mind is the exact same concept as omnipresence in christianity. Realizing this mind within ourselves is the path.
awesome , clear thank you for sharing w/Metta Robert
You're very welcome Robert!
I have a quick question: I have always heard in Theravada Buddhism that there are 10 perfections that one needs to fulfill in order to become an arahat. Is this mentioned in early Buddhism? Thank you very much! 🙏
I discuss that a little in this video: ua-cam.com/video/TjpBEsrN8HQ/v-deo.html
Oh and thanks to author for this GREAT video :)
Thanks for the kind words Kr Gr! 🙏
Thanks for this video. I've been wondering for a while how the concepts of Tathagathagharba, Brahma and Dharmakaya are related.
About Nagarjuna though, he vehemently defended himself against the accusation of being a nihilist.
Yes, for sure Zöpa. You're very welcome!
Och, that's explains a lot! When I was reading Seung Sahn, the way he was writing about The Absolute felt a bit like atman = brahman kind of doctrine. Well, I was not alone feeling like this :)
Wao. Om Mhaney Padmey hung 🙏🙏
🙏
The ideas of a pure non-dual reality that exists prior to concept, where our concepts merely distort our understanding of that non-dual reality, comes off as really Kantian to me.
Yes there are similarities there, for sure.
Buddha said, even our own father and mother cannot save us from the consequences of our wrongly directed mind. How can a Bodhisattva do what Buddha himself cannot do?
Thanks for your thoughts Susmita. 🙏
Actually...the matter is very deep and kind of hard to explain only on an intellectual/logical (therefore "dualistic"..) way...but...you see...from the mahāyāna viewpoint, "beings" are actually never saved at all to begin with.
Because "being" is a concept itself, and, therefore, empty (śūnyatā).
And on the other hand, it is more correct to say that bodhisattvas, if ever, only help "beings" realize their true "buddha nature" so that they finally stop to wrongly identifying themselves with a personal self (attā) and be free from life and death (Nirvāņa). So...this doesn't mean that there is no pain, suffering, birth, ageing, sickness and death, but just you finally see that there is no such really fundamental "self" that actually comes or goes, no self that suffers the pains of life or enjoys its pleasures...
I know it might sound all to "paradoxical"...and I certainly know that, seen under the everyday "light of reason", it actually is paradoxical...but you see...seems that Nirvāņa itself is inconceivable...so...well...this would only like to be a brief and certainly incomplete explanation (especially "incomplete" because there cannot be a "complete" one when dealing with matters like this)...only...remember the simile of the finger pointing at the moon...
Finally...I would like to point out that I am Buddhist, and study and practice both "mahāyāna" and "theravāda", but that, in the end, I find them two (only) "seemingly different" paths leading to the same goal...
therefore they are, to me, one and the same path: the Buddha Dhamma!
@@hokintrailblazer4267 Thank you for explaining. Still I ask how can 'Bodhisatta help others realize their own Buddha nature, by postponing his own direct 'realization'? Realization happens only within Oneself (see video around 18 min.)
@@NewEarth25 - postponing Buddhahood to stay within human domain so as to be able to teach , guide, explain the principles and ways to realisations
Susmita Barua Perhaps I think if one has such compassion and view then one is more able to abandon the idea of that self from where all our afflicting emotion arises.
I might be misinformed. But isn't the claim that the development of anatta implies that objects etc are unreal misleading? Non-self can be read as lacking an intrisic essence or self-existing nature unbound from causes and conditions. That emptiness and non-self don't mean that things don't exist but that they are non-things, that concepts, categoties and our everyday cognizing of them always come out lacking? Thanks for your videos, I enjoy them 🙏
These are deep questions, impossible to answer quickly. But in a nutshell, "unreal" can mean many different things, and it all depends on what we mean by it.
Would it be right to take the Buddha's concept of non-self as that with specific reference to 'this' being composed by the 5 aggregates which as the Buddha said are "impermanent, suffering and not fit to be considered as self", and that there is 'that (reality)' something beyond our 'worldly' range of comprehension, perception or conception; that which can only be grasped by one who is enlightened?
Well this is something of a controversial point in Buddhism. Some might say that nirvana is a kind of separate reality, but personally I wouldn't take it that way. Nirvana is simply the complete nonattachment from the five aggregates, the worldly range of things, which are all we can say there is.
thanks for helping me out with my buddhism exam
and the wisdom ofcourse
Sure, you're very welcome Midas, happy to help!
Hi, your teaching is really beneficial ,could you make a video on Davidson book, Tantric Buddhism in India
You may want to see this video and the show notes that includes the citations: ua-cam.com/video/YVZGzgFbnGg/v-deo.html
I'm curious about the word "reify" as I've seen it in another Buddhist text, but I haven't been able to locate it in an English dictionary. Can you provide a clear definition or direct me to a place where I can find it? Thanks!
Ah, my dictionary has : reify | ˈrēəˌfī | -- verb -- make (something abstract) more concrete or real.
@@DougsDharma Thank you!
The rise of Mahayana Buddhism came from the last Greek Kings of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek cultures that were the remnants of the Hellenistic empire of Alexander the great. Around 120BC The Emperor and all the subjects converted to Buddhism and introduced Greek religious ideas. This is where the first representative sculptures of Buddha in human form begin. Before this time, he was represented as a tree. Even Hercules is represented as his guardian. They codified the texts and even translated them into Greek from Sanskrit.
I’m a Chinatown grantee writer, focusing on Chinese folks dance. I tried to incorporate influencers such as Kushan and other pre-Islamic entities into traditional Chinese art representations. I am talking about these Buddhist fairy dances. Bactria heritage still lives on…
Weird. Now I have an idea why maharaja is like a philosophy than a practice. Propably inherit from Greek philosophy.
THIS CHAPTER IS VERY MUCH INTENSE, SOLID, AND DEEP WISDOM. I TOOK NOTES AND MUST IMPORTANT CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MAHAYANA BUDDHISM THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORT. I WISH I CAN COMPENSATE YOU WITH A GIFT OF ONE OF MY PAINTINTGS ILLUSTRATION I DID ABOUT BUDDHISM. TELL ME HOW TO SEND IT TO YOU.. MAYBE E MAIL? THANKS SO MUCH A.G.
Thanks Ana, no worries! 🙏😊
Really good. Im a Theravadin practioner. To me truth is truth just put in different contexts. I can see emptiness, nirvana, Buddha within, Christ Consciousness, fullness in Hindu thought, union with God Christian context as basically all leading to deepest truth. To me the universe both exist and doesn't. Particles pop on and out of existence for instance. In meditation a state of arising and passing away can occur.
I'm lean more naturally to a non dualistic idea. Everything being interdependent as Thich Nat Hahn says. So nothing separate. A pond = myself. Both only concepts but appear to "exist" because of certain conditions coming together. And then those conditions change.
🙏😊
Can you make a video on the Trikaya bodies of Buddha Doctrine please. Thank you
Thanks for the suggestion. Mostly my focus is on early Buddhism, and that doctrine is rather later, though I might do something on it eventually. That said, I did talk a bit about the dharmakaya in this video: ua-cam.com/video/wi2sd65l95o/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma okay there are other things like the Four Guardian Kings and Yakshas And Manifestations of Buddha qualities as Vajrapani and other Bodhisattvas, and the role of Devas in Buddhist traditions and Buddha's miraculous power That can be explored and they were part of early Buddhism. And protection chants called Paritta and the concept of Sacca-kiriya is also good topics.
Mahayana Buddhism is still practise in Newari culture of Nepal. Swayambhunath temple is one of the biggest stupa or temple which was built around 3rd century. If you visit Nepal there are different bahal i.e. where you learn about Buddhism more than 20 that i know of were built before 10th century. You can google and have read on Wikipedia and different website about "Newari Buddhism", "swayambhunath temple", "bajracharya", "kwabahal", "bahal".
Yes, thanks Bishal!
What a fascinating talk! I especially enjoyed the discussion of emptiness and how that might be coming full circle.
Great, glad you enjoyed it photistyx! 🙏
Not necessarily. It can be in many other languages as well, including Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.
Emptiness and non/not-self are very interesting topics of discussion. There seems to be a divide in both schools as to whether there is a true/real self or not. In the Lankavatara, the Buddha says that the tathagata-garbha is not a reified self. I've heard from certain Theravada Buddhists that not-self doesn't actually mean that the true self doesn't exist, only that the skhandas themselves are not the self, and that the implication is that there is the true self underlying them. I'm not sure if this has any textual basis, though. I say that to say that maybe the divide in interpretation of not-self occurred before the Mahayana development of emptiness
Well, the Buddha discourages any sort of search for a "true self" that underlies the phenomena. There is a self of a kind, but it's basically a convenient concept that encompasses the ever-changing phenomena of body and mind.
After the strong foundations of Mahayana were built in East Asia, did any Mahayana scholars or monastics then come into contact with Theravada practitioners and then re-evaluate their own ideas? Perhaps this was something that happened in a more modern context as transportation became more convenient. Were there any attempts at some "ecumenicalism" among different schools of Buddhism, and what came out of those exchanges?
Great question, and something I don't know much about. Certainly there must have been contacts over the centuries.
I want to make one point clear, Hinayana is not a derogatory or derisive term, it is only "lesser" than Mahayana in scope, not importance.
Well it is generally taken to be derogatory Frotex, and avoided in scholarly circles nowadays.
That may be so, (personally I prefer the translation Individual Vehicle for Hinayana, and Universal Vehicle for Mahayana) Those who use the term Hinayana with disrespect are not practicing right view. The Universal Vehicle would not and could not exist independently from the Individual Vehicle.
Doug please give me a reference site where i can check all the original texts of the theravada teachings
There are several sites with translations of the early texts and even with the Pāli. One is Sutta Central. suttacentral.net
@@DougsDharma thanks!
Great video Doug! I cannot help but see this 'staying in this world to help to awaken all sentient beings' as quite paradoxical, and to some extent, dare I say, harmful. For it implies that sentient beings are limited in number, and then there's the paradox in the idea of how everyone stays to help everyone else to be awakened, and I assume 'awakened' here means to be a perfect Buddha instead of a 'mere' arahant. Let us hypothetically imagine that at one time, due to this teaching, finally all sentient beings in all universes already became Boddhisatvas, now come the real conundrum of who will be awaken (i.e. become the perfect Buddha they aspired to be) first? Since each and everyone of these Boddhisatvas vowed to stay unawakened until every sentient beings are awakened. Well, it's just my two cents, but of course correct me if I took this concept wrongly. :)
Guttacaro it is one of the paradoxes, yeah. There are two other things to inquire. If Gotama was a Bodhisattva before being a Perfect Buddha, then two questions natrually arise:
1. Why he did become a Buddha before all other sentient beings got perfectly enlightened themselves? Basically the question goes on the lines of asking why Gotama broke his own Bodhisattva vows.
2. If Gotama was a Bodhisattva aiming to get perfectly enightened for the altruistic goal of getting all the other sentient beings to get perfectly enlightened themeselves, why he offered resistance to teach after getting enlightened? Remember Brahma needed to beg him thrice for the Buddha to accept do teaching.
Thanks for the kind words Guttacaro and the great points and questions from both of you! I think there are lots of oddities and paradoxes in these later teachings, which one has either to accept and come to terms with or one will not be entirely satisfied with them. 🙏
Gustavo Muñoz Wow, I've never even tried to think of it that far to question those 2 points you mentioned.. Personally these paradoxes is why I somehow find this concept of Boddhisatva ideal is incongruous and, in some way more than the others, fallible, as you have to circle around, extrapolate and contradict some integral points of early teachings to validate this concept. Perhaps that's why I rather just don't bother to ponder it further after coming into the first paradox I mentioned.. Well.. :)
I should add that Anālayo’s short book on the development of the bodhisattva ideal is highly recommended if you want to learn about its history. I’ve got a link to it in the description box. 🙏
Doug's Secular Dharma Thank you, I'll be sure to check it out :)
I have a hard time understanding the bodhisattva ideal. If bodhisattva is a person (?) determined NOT TO BECOME A BUDDHA until everyone is saved, - either Shakyamuni did not become a buddha or everyone is saved or Shakyamuni buddha has never been a bodhisattva... Or, in other words .. how could Gautama become a fully enilghtened buddha 2500 BCE if, clearly, everyone hasnt gotten enlightened? How do we ever get a buddha at all? until last being is enlightened, everyone should become an ever-returning bodhisattva-not-yet-buddha, right?
Yes Kr Gr, thanks for the great question! The bodhisattva vow is weird. Given that the history of Buddhism tends to proceed towards higher and higher aims, my guess would be that the idea of the bodhisattva began as one simply trying to emulate the historical Buddha, but that in time that ideal expanded to one trying to become greater than the historical Buddha and more like a deity.
Thanks for the answer! Inspired by Your video, felt immediate need to ask this before I even bothered to read the other comments, haha. Glad to see others questioning this too.
😄 Yes, I think it’s difficult for a lot of folks to understand!
@@DougsDharma A bodhisattva is a person who generated spontaneous bodhicitta. To put it simply, bodhicitta is the aspiration to become a Buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings. We say that if the wisdom of emptiness is not conjoined with bodhicitta, it cannot cause budhahood. To put things less simply, there are three types of Bodhicitta. As Geshe Jampa Gyatso puts it:
It is said that there are three types of mind of enlightenment: the mind of enlightenment like a king, the mind of enlightenment like a boatman, and the mind of enlightenment like a shepherd. Just as a shepherd first puts his animals in their stalls and only then goes home, similarly someone with this mind of enlightenment wishes to first set all other sentient beings in buddhahood and then attain buddhahood himself. Just as a boatman travels together with the people in his ship, similarly someone with this mind of enlightenment thinks to travel together with all other sentient beings to enlightenment, that is, he does not think to go to enlightenment first and then to bring them to enlightenment, nor does he think to bring them to enlightenment first and then at the end to attain enlightenment himself. Just as a king thinks to become king in order to take care of his subjects (or someone thinks to become president in order to take care of the population), someone with this mind of enlightenment thinks to attain enlightenment first in order to then set all sentient beings in enlightenment.
But it does not mean that someone who has generated bodhicitta that is like a shepherd will not attain enlightenment before all sentient beings. His bodhicitta and the six perfections (or 10, or 11, or 16) will eventually cause him to reach enlightenment before all sentient beings.
Thanks very much for your information Dorje Tenzin. 🙏
Two versions, first the Indian Mahayana version. Buddha taught secret knowledge to 200 monks who were to keep it alive till the time to reveal it. Second a book appeared a terma, no doult the Tibetian version. The book was called 'The Great Debate', it's the dialogue between Buddha and the Hindu pantheon. The plot was that Buddha's mother had passed on as a Hindu so for his mother's sake he ascended into Heaven to convert the Gods, the winning arguement being only those that face death, only mortals can achieve Enlightenment. So the Gods decided to re-incarnate as mortals and the comotion awoke Shiva, it being early Kali yuga and when he found out what the Gods had done Shiva turned to the Buddha and said; "If the Gods became mortal they will commit the sin of killing a brahman" and he went back to sleep.
If you know please tell us abt avalokitesvara of mahayana buddhism and avalokitesvaras relation to hindu gods. Some say present hindiusm was inspired by mahayana buddhism
My channel focuses on early Buddhism, and Avalokitesvara is a later development, though I would like to research its history in the future. Hinduism mostly arose out of Vedic Brahmanism, though there were some Buddhist influences.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your response
Doug, question is Nagarjuna negation ldealism, neither this nor , that sort of logic correctly stated here, if it’s call anything that might have label. In the is way any name that identifies one tradition of result or cause , a mistake from the Nagarjuna school view. Similarly spoken of dzogchen that it is neither this or that kind of language.
It’s seems the labeling of things leads in the zen tradition something call” zen sickness “ or otherwise termed an uncoupling of for example being a householder and yet the sense of an owner and holder are empty .
Only ask to clarify. Thank you for this wonderful channel👏🙏
If you're talking about "non-dualism", this is a subject I've been meaning to deal with for years now, but it's complicated. I'll get to it eventually! 🙂
Ancient Gandhara (Pakistan) looks like a place that provides an interesting take on the development of the Mahayana tradition. 'The region has yielded the Gandhāran Buddhist texts written in Gāndhārī Prakrit the oldest Buddhist manuscripts yet discovered (1st century CE).' Wiki
Yes, Gandhāra seems to have been one of the foci of Mahāyāna development, at least according to analysis of those early texts.
Wiki is wrong. The oldest manuscript in Ghandara was from around 200 A.D . Don't believe everything you read in wiki. Search it online for book itself from the scholars of that manuscript. Together with that they found early text similar to the pali I didn't check the year of that. The thing some website seem to support Mahayana alot
@@ivritisrael5080
"Still, the discovery of a Perfection of Wisdom sūtra [Madhyamaka] in Gāndhārī is a major event, first of all in that it confirms the accuracy of the overall picture of the history of early Mahāyāna literature as it had been previously constructed indirectly from Chinese sources. The Gāndhārī scroll has been subjected to radiocarbon testing, which indicated a probable range of dates between 47 and 147 CE. This falls well within the range that has been generally suggested for the earliest Mahāyāna texts, namely in or around the first century CE.
Richard, Salomon [the expert on all things Gandharan]. Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhara: An Introduction with Selected Translations (Classics of Indian Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 5464-5468). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.
Parenthetically, Gandhara is where early buddhism encountered and responded to both the Persian God(s) and the Greek Gods, and the Mahayana seems to have been the result.
The Madhyamaka (Nagarjuna), you will find, is inseparable from Bodhidharma and Chan Buddhism. (see Bodhidharma Anthology)
According to Richard Salomon in his recent book The Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhāra the texts recently discovered date to between the 1st c. BCE and the 3rd c. CE. (p. 1).
@@DougsDharma
"...The Gāndhārī scroll [a Perfection of Wisdom sūtra [Madhyamaka] in Gāndhārī ] has been subjected to radiocarbon testing, which indicated a probable range of dates between 47 and 147 CE. This falls well within the range that has been generally suggested for the earliest Mahāyāna texts, namely in or around the first century CE..."
Richard, Salomon [the expert on all things Gandharan]. Buddhist Literature of Ancient Gandhara: An Introduction with Selected Translations (Classics of Indian Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 5464-5468). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.
I have to disagree with the conclusion on this one. The Mahasangika faction that arose out of the first schism, which would eventually become Mahayana, arose because a group of monks that weren't serious about their practice wanted laxer rules to live by. They wanted to eat after midday and wanted to be able to accept monetary donations. They simply borrowed a bunch of ideas from the India of their time about devotion, knowing it would lead lay people to give them more charitable donations, and denigrated the end goal of the Buddhism of their time (Arhatship) to justify their schism.
I have high respect for Zen as a practice, but the Mahayana belief structure didn't come out of deep meditative wisdom, it came out of bad monks that didn't want to follow the monk's rules. Mahayana is simply not what the Buddha taught.
I think this is one of those things that both compassion and honesty have to be present. It's not doing anyone any good to tell them the Buddha was a godlike figure. That pulls people away from liberation, not toward it.
I think you left one important story of debating. There was debating even during the Buddha was alive. Today, it only exist in Tibetan Buddhism or what you called Mahayana..
Yes thanks Tenzin Tharpa Wangyal! Indeed there is a very strong tradition of debate in Tibetan Buddhism. The difference with debate during the Buddha’s day is that earlier debate was between the Buddha and non-Buddhists, where as contemporary debate in the Tibetan tradition is between Buddhists, at least as I understand it.
Hi Doug! I've seen it said a few times now that Bodhidharma took Buddhism to China. I thought that Buddhism was already in China but that Bodhidharma introduced Chan Buddhism. Could you shed some light please? 😀
Hi Patrick, Bodhidharma is basically a semi-legendary figure. If he was responsible for introducing anything to China it was Ch'an. I spoke a bit about him in my video on the history of Zen: ua-cam.com/video/lRAW-GN4TUA/v-deo.html 🙂
can you tell something about kanishka's rewriting of pali cannon and what major changes under him plausible in the 4th buddhist council in in kashmir for the mahayana tradition, please tell.
To do so would require a large amount of research. Maybe eventually!
I really like the way you explain things concerning Buddhism. Easy to understand. I subscribed and hit the bell.
Thanks very much Kuya! 🙏
Why there is mahayana sutras,but no theravada suttas. If khuddaka nikaya's some part is not included in earliest text,why sutta like 'tirokuttha sutta' is not called theravada sutta?
There are Pāli suttas that are not attested in other recensions. Some of these at least might be considered Theravāda suttas. And indeed, some books in the Khuddaka Nikāya are to my knowledge usually considered Theravāda, such as the Niddesa or the Paṭisambhidāmagga.
@@DougsDharma In theravada countries, a tradition of merit sharing is practised by saying that it is buddhas word.But merit sharing is based on tirokuttha sutta,which is included in kuddhakapatha of khuddhaka nikaya of pali canon.
An interesting, recent, work regarding the death of the Buddha is Thanissaro Bhikkku's "The Mind, Like Fire, Unbound", which explores the context in which the idea of Nirvana arose. His conclusion appears to be that, according to the way "Nirvana" was understood that the time in suttas like the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, that parinirvana should not be thought of as death. At least, not in the way that regular people die. Thanissaro translates the word "Nirvana" as "unbinding".
Yes, thanks SonofSethoitae, Thanissaro's book is interesting, but somewhat controversial I think in its understanding of Nibbāna, as well as in his translation of the term. Thanissaro has a number of idiosyncratic interpretations and translations. I am also thinking of his translating "dukkha" as "stress".
@@DougsDharma It's true that Ven.Thanissaro is often atypical in his translations, and I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but I think in this case he supports his interpretation fairly well. At the very least, it is an interesting interpretation to consider when discussing how Mahayana-specific doctrines could have arisen; it's not hard to believe that early Mahayana monks understood the canon in a similar way!
Indeed these are all very interesting things to consider, thanks!
My first in depth investigation into the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) was through the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist order founded by Chan Master Hsing Yun. Ruminating through their extensive library I quickly realized the influence of Taoism on the Chan (Zen) teachings even to the extent where in some scripts and commentaries I noted that "The Way" (Tao) was sometimes transcribed with "The Buddha Way" (Dharma).
Yes, Tao and dharma tended to be used interchangeably. However researching Zen's historical background I wasn't able to find much about the supposed influences between Taoism and Zen. It may be that they are just similar viewpoints, which helped Ch'an/Zen take hold in China.
@@DougsDharma Indeed Doug, I found the history became a bit indistinct. I pay admiration to the teachings of Bodhidharma, regarded as the first patriarch of Ch'an/Zen ..."The Way is basically perfect. It doesn't need perfecting".
The same vocabulary is not evident of external influence, but it is the issue of translation. The translation of buddhist texts borrow many vocabularies of existing terms in daoism, because that's what people in china already know. Later translation try to avoid this, but they end up creating many new words. It is not easy translating india - chinese
In my opinion, the concept of Emptiness is the key to understand the very core of the Mahayana teachings. Emptiness implies the detachment of all things, including our ego and the very concept of "emptiness" itself. In fact, everything we live by is merely a "concept".
Imagine "emptiness" being an empty space. An unit of empty space can host anything. All living beings as well as non-living things take up space. However, no living beings or even non-living things are permanent. Everything changes naturally either through chemical or physical means. Such is impermanence. When something occupying an unit of space disintegrates or is removed, what is left is the empty space. Such unit of space becomes available for a new form of living being or non-living thing to occupy. The cycle repeats over and over again.
To expand the above concept, we can imagine our thoughts, our temperament, or feelings, our ideas, etc., being impermanent things occupying the space in our minds. Our feelings come and go, our tempers flare up and dissipate, etc., they manifest and disintegrate very much like a physical form.
It becomes very clear that the empty space is always there. Things that occupy the space come and go. We can imagine the empty space being the Buddha Nature and all the things that occupy the space that hide the Buddha Nature are products of our attachments to our ego. Our attachment to our ego leads to attachments to everything else that we desire and fear.
Theravada Buddhism concentrates on eliminating desires and detachment from ego. However, the notion of detachment is itself a concept. If one is attached to the concept of "detachment from ego", one is still very much attached to his/her/its ego. In understanding the concept of "emptiness", one needs to realize that one must detach from the very concept of "detachment" itself. Mahayana teachings state that one must detach from all things including being detached from the concept "one must detach from all things" itself.
Well the general teaching of early Buddhism, which in this respect I believe persists in the Theravāda, is that the aim of practice is to release attachment to, and identification with, everything. That includes concepts, views, opinions, and so on.
@@DougsDharma Thank you Doug for clarifying!
You share wonderful , easy to comprehend . thank you .........w/ Metta Robert
You're very welcome Robert, thanks for the comment! 🙏
Buddhism and Sanatana Dharma were results of high-level meditations. Meditation experience is beyond words (wordless ). You have meditators trying to explain their experiences using verbal words. This is why differences occurred.
Advanced meditators of Chan school reported an experience of oneness with everything in the universe. "I" ("self") do not independently exist anymore. However, whenever meditation session ends, they open their eyes and realize that they're physically trapped in their human forms.
How to report that to others? Hence, they say: "no-self" and "no no-self".
Perhaps so Teresa, thanks!
Do you have any videos on tibetan bhudhism?
Not as such, though I do have a video on Vajrayāna: ua-cam.com/video/YVZGzgFbnGg/v-deo.html
Just a note on a big break in logic: the Buddha said stream entry guarantees no more than 7 more lifetimes in the human realm or above. Mahayana says to take a vow to remain in the world until all beings have been saved. The latter is not possible if the former is true. 1) unless one acquires stream entry, one may take birth in the animal or hell realms for aeons, with little or no ability to help save anyone. 2) unless one attains stream entry, one has no authority to teach how to attain stream entry, which is the minimal requirement for anyone to be saved from the rounds. So, such a vow fails on at least these 2 accounts. 3) the compassion of Mahayana is rooted in feelings, flesh. But the compassion the Buddha spoke about was rooted in the reality of the human (or animal, etc) condition. The reality of what a sorrowful state it is, and a decent respect due all because of that fact. Not anything rooted in feelings, flesh. At least, that is my understanding. There are 2 types of compassion: one emotional, passionate, rooted in flesh/mind, an attachment that binds; and one rooted in a proper respect for beings generally, without emotion, dispassionate, without attachment to flesh/mind. Without any ability to bind.
In order to help somebody out of the mud, one must be out of the mud themselves. But if one is out of the mud, it is impossible for them to return infinitely more times to keep helping people out of the mud. Nobody has the power to just stagnate at a certain level in the rounds of existence. SN 47.19:
The Acrobat Simile
Protecting oneself, bhikkhus, one protects others; protecting others, one protects oneself.
please let me know how many Buddhas are in Mahayana?
I always thought that Mahayana, or "the Greater Vehicle" was simply a reference to the notion of the boddhisattva's vows to delay their own entry into Nirvana until all sentient beings achieved enlightenment, whereas the Hinayana, or "Lesser Vehicle" was referred to this way based on it's more individualistic concern toward enlightenment. I never enterpreted it on a value system where one was perceived to be "greater" or better than the other. In geography, sometimes "Lesser" simply refers to a southern region, or a new region of a nation. Often people don't understand that. But you would know better than I in regards to Buddhism.
Always enjoy your videos. Thank you...
Thanks, Stone. Yes, "hinayana" was intended as a term of denigration.
This and the Theravada Buddhists I find very intriguing.
Hi sir,can I know what is the Doctrine of mahayana Buddhism?
And what is their Common beliefs and practices.,thank you:)
It’s too big a question Laleine, since there are very many schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism. That said, I did a video where I discussed some of the major differences: ua-cam.com/video/FAazFDC8m6M/v-deo.html
Upnishads were written after Buddhism, during the time of Ashok
So far as I know this isn't understood to be correct by current scholarship. The earliest Upanisads were composed prior to the Buddha's lifetime. Though indeed, they wouldn't have been written down until long after. They would have been part of an oral tradition, like the Vedas and the suttas themselves.
Another way of looking at it could go like this : An Arhat is someone striving for his own liberation; a Bodhisattva has noticed the trap and the paradox in this process. Mahayana is what arose in response to a dualistic idea of samsara and nirvana.
Right, but also in many Mahāyāna teachings a bodhisattva is someone striving for full Buddhahood. In neither case is it appropriate to think of these as "one's own liberation", except as a kind of temporary skillful means.
Sir,1st Mahayana monasteries were built by Kanishk during 2nd century CE.Kundalvan, Sanchi,pushpur are some examples.
It was common in eastern contexts to attribute ideas to an historical person through the use of fantastical or apocalyptic stories. Evidence of this is found in both Judaism and Christianity, and it's reasonable to think the same thing happened in Buddhism as well.
Indeed Magnulus, this happens in all cultures. Caesars were apotheosized after they died. George Washington and the cherry tree is a similar if subtler and more recent such myth.
Question, what is your opinion on Shin Buddhism? What do you think about Shin teachings?
Shin is a later form of Buddhism; I may have more to say about it in a video eventually.
Hello Doug, I was at the Temple last week . I had some questions for the Monk giving the Dharma. He mention faith , I asked a question about faith.......If your not sure, then faith comes into play ....... It was at the end of the Dharma . Thought I would email you. I also I have trouble w/the Monk's using Heaven and Hell. My bad I.....I was raised Catholic I thanks comes into play on my perception. I hope I was clear w/ Metta/Robert
Well Robert often the same words are used in Christianity and Buddhism but with different meanings and connotations. "Faith" in Buddhism is taken to mean something more like "confidence in the teachings". It doesn't mean "blind belief" as in Christianity, for example. Also, traditional Buddhism does include heavens and hell realms. These are believed not to be permanent but rather to be stages we go through depending on our past karma. However a secular approach like the one I prefer is to leave aside such speculative ideas and simply concern ourselves with a present-life practice.