Paul Williams (2008), Mahayana Buddhism: The doctrinal foundations.
….. From about the first century BCE the changes occurring within Buddhism seem to have issued in a new literature claiming to be the word of the Buddha himself. This literature is not the product of an organized or unitary movement, and appears to have been produced by monks well within the existing Buddhist traditions. Much of the literature is concerned with the supremacy of the Buddha and his perception of things, and advocates the path of the Bodhisattva, the aspirant to full Buddhahood, as a noble and higher path to be pursued by all who can. As aiming at Buddhahood this was frequently said to be for the benefit not just of the practitioner himself but for all sentient beings. The production of these sutras, at least in part, seems to have had something to do with the activities of forest hermit monks. The monks, nuns, and perhaps a small number of lay practitioners who accepted this new literature may have formed a series of Mahayana or Bodhisattva-type groups, probably based on different sutras and their attendant practices.
It is likely that for some time they had little or no direct and regular connection with each other, and how much they had in common still remains unclear. In some cases the followers may have felt themselves in direct contact with a Buddha, or perhaps some other supernatural source, who inspired them in meditation visions or in dreams. Sometimes they proclaimed the Doctrine itself, embodied in the text, as the body of the Buddha, his Dharma-body, superior to that found and worshipped in stepas. Our early Mahayanists may certainly have perceived themselves as a righteous bulwark against moral and spiritual decline. The evidence suggests that, whether in established monasteries or in forest hermitages, these enthusiasts were very much in the minority within Indian Buddhism.
It appears to have been some centuries before the followers of the Mahayana began to identify themselves in everyday life as in the fullest sense a distinctive group within Buddhism, and it is not clear how far in general they differed throughout this period in public (as opposed to group cult or individual) behaviour from non-Mahayana practitioners. As time passed Mahayanists identified their aspirations more and more clearly as a ‘Mahayana’, a Superior Way, and eventually the literature begins to show greater animosity towards those who failed to heed or understand properly the Mahayana message.
In time animosity also grew particularly towards those who failed to appreciate and themselves adopt the Mahayana and still insisted on following what was now said to be an ‘Inferior Way’, a Hinayana. Eventually, after what was in historical terms a considerable time from its origins, we begin to find monasteries associated with a self-conscious ‘Mahayana’ affiliation, and perhaps (although this is by no means clear) it was from this time onwards that more overt cultic activities such as public devotion to Buddhas and great Bodhisattvas began to take place. Thence we find the seventh-century CE Chinese pilgrim’s observation that the Mahayanists were the ones who ‘worship the Bodhisattvas’. Even so, it seems that fewer than 50 per cent of the monks encountered by Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang; c. 600–664) on his visit to India actually were Mahayanists.
*
….. From about the first century BCE the changes occurring within Buddhism seem to have issued in a new literature claiming to be the word of the Buddha himself. This literature is not the product of an organized or unitary movement, and appears to have been produced by monks well within the existing Buddhist traditions. Much of the literature is concerned with the supremacy of the Buddha and his perception of things, and advocates the path of the Bodhisattva, the aspirant to full Buddhahood, as a noble and higher path to be pursued by all who can. As aiming at Buddhahood this was frequently said to be for the benefit not just of the practitioner himself but for all sentient beings. The production of these sutras, at least in part, seems to have had something to do with the activities of forest hermit monks. The monks, nuns, and perhaps a small number of lay practitioners who accepted this new literature may have formed a series of Mahayana or Bodhisattva-type groups, probably based on different sutras and their attendant practices.
It is likely that for some time they had little or no direct and regular connection with each other, and how much they had in common still remains unclear. In some cases the followers may have felt themselves in direct contact with a Buddha, or perhaps some other supernatural source, who inspired them in meditation visions or in dreams. Sometimes they proclaimed the Doctrine itself, embodied in the text, as the body of the Buddha, his Dharma-body, superior to that found and worshipped in stepas. Our early Mahayanists may certainly have perceived themselves as a righteous bulwark against moral and spiritual decline. The evidence suggests that, whether in established monasteries or in forest hermitages, these enthusiasts were very much in the minority within Indian Buddhism.
It appears to have been some centuries before the followers of the Mahayana began to identify themselves in everyday life as in the fullest sense a distinctive group within Buddhism, and it is not clear how far in general they differed throughout this period in public (as opposed to group cult or individual) behaviour from non-Mahayana practitioners. As time passed Mahayanists identified their aspirations more and more clearly as a ‘Mahayana’, a Superior Way, and eventually the literature begins to show greater animosity towards those who failed to heed or understand properly the Mahayana message.
In time animosity also grew particularly towards those who failed to appreciate and themselves adopt the Mahayana and still insisted on following what was now said to be an ‘Inferior Way’, a Hinayana. Eventually, after what was in historical terms a considerable time from its origins, we begin to find monasteries associated with a self-conscious ‘Mahayana’ affiliation, and perhaps (although this is by no means clear) it was from this time onwards that more overt cultic activities such as public devotion to Buddhas and great Bodhisattvas began to take place. Thence we find the seventh-century CE Chinese pilgrim’s observation that the Mahayanists were the ones who ‘worship the Bodhisattvas’. Even so, it seems that fewer than 50 per cent of the monks encountered by Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang; c. 600–664) on his visit to India actually were Mahayanists.
*
No comments:
Post a Comment