About Hinayana, Pure Land and Non-Duality
 |
| Amitabha Buddha |
The word Hinayana (hiin-a-yaana) is actually formed of hīna meaning "poor", "inferior", "abandoned", "deficient", "defective;" and yāna meaning "vehicle". The "vehicle" means "a way of going to enlightenment". The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (1921–25) defines hīna in even harsher terms, with a semantic field that includes "poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible," and "despicable."
This word appears both in print and in Mahayana Dharma Centers throughout the United States. It is either consciously or unconsciously meant to be disparaging and make a claim that that one school of Buddhism is superior to another. It follows then, that the other school must be inferior. What an outrageous claim for Mahayana to make considering that the School is famous for its position on “non-duality”.
Non-duality is a strange concept if one is immersed in the Pali Canon. The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, agree to maintain the hypothesis that seems to edging the astonishing. This is the claim that there is no definitive difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, that is, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana Schools, the enlightenment, which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken, consists precisely in the realization of a non-dualistic perspective. The authenticity of conventional reality in which dualities exist is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."
Where does this teaching actually come from? Historically, it comes out of the Hindu Vedic Schools. The "non-dualistic" contemplative traditions best represented by Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. Advaita Vedanta is a philosophical concept where followers seek liberation/release by recognizing identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman). This is usually done through long preparation and training under the guidance of a guru. Originating in India before 788 AD, Advaita, literally “non-duality, Vedanta is considered the most influential and most dominant sub-school of the Vedanta, literally meaning, “end or the goal of the Vedas”.
No school of Buddhism recognizes the possibility of an “atman” or a Supreme god Bhraman for that matter. Any presentation of “selfhood” is done in consideration of a compound of transient, conditioned phenomena. It is an instance of the most basic fetter that binds beings to the round of rebirths we call samsara. The attainment of liberation, for Buddhism, does not come to pass by the realization of a true self or absolute "I," but through the dissolution of even the most basic sense of selfhood in relation to the five aggregates. Liberation is the abolition of all “I making”, “me- making”, “mine making”, and all underlying tendencies to egotism.
The teaching of the historical Buddha, as found in the Pali canon, does not support a philosophy of any variety of non-dualism, but neither can a non-dualistic perspective be found within the body Buddha's discourses. The Buddha's intent, as represented in the Canon, is pragmatic not speculative. Pragmatism, however, does not maneuver in a philosophical void. It operates in the nature of actuality as the Buddha discovered it in his enlightenment.
In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or underneath our experience of the world. It takes the tangible fact of human experience, with all its confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and structure. It endeavors to analyze the central problem at the center of human existence and to offer a way to its resolution. There the objective of the Buddha’s Dhamma is not a final unity but the end of suffering, which brings the resolution of the experiential predicament at its most radical level.
The Suttas were enumerated and ratified within 1 year after the Buddha’s death. The Suttas are divided into the Ananda Suttas and the Šariputra Suttas, depending on who said them. The Sariputra Suttas dealt primarily with wisdom. All of the Ananda Suttas begin “Thus have I heard,” Because they are closest to the life of the Buddha, we assume that they are the most accurate transmission. They are written in Pali, the written form of the Magadha Prakrit language that pre-dates Sanskrit. There are 84,000 lines, approximately 6,000 pages.
The Mahayana Sutras, on the other hand, are written in Sanskrit and are classed as being written by anonymous authors. No scholars actually claim that they are the Buddha’s words. Many Mahayana teachers, most often in the US, make the claim that Mahayana was taught to the gods during the Buddha’s Second Turning of the Wheel years after he experienced enlightenment. (Vajrayana, incidentally, was the third turning – man, his arms must have been tired!). Basically it seems to be an attempt to “improve” on the sayings of the Buddha. The early Mahayanists, and Zen teachers in the US, say that the Pali sayings were written for people too stupid to understand the truth. They also claim that the Pali is overly simplified. Of course, they have never actually read the 84,000 lines of the Pali.
The earliest of these Mahayana writings appear around 200 CE, about 650 years after the Pali Canon. There is some evidence that Mahayana scripture began to appear as early as 50 BCE, but there is no hard evidence, merely anecdotal evidence.
When the Buddha predicted the end of the Dhamma, he said it would be because of a counterfeit Dhamma being preached. A few influential Theravadin teachers believe Mahayana is that counterfeit teaching. I’m not sure I am willing to go that far, but there is compelling evidence that this might be true. The Buddha was not interested in religion. He wanted to develop a culture of Dhamma, much like you find in Thailand today.
Take for instance Pure Land Buddhism; it is by far the most interesting form of Buddhism. It is definitely a religion dependent on an entity that lives in a heavenly realm out there somewhere. This is the way Asian Buddhists understand Pure Land Buddhism. It is not very different than Tantra/Vajrayana in that respect. It is presented to the disciple as such. Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu are adamant about this “other power” teaching. Unfortunately, it runs counter to what the Buddha actually taught. The Buddha’s last words were "Behold, O monks, this is my advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."
Nowhere in his teachings is there anything about “other power” except to say, "By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone, by oneself is one purified. Purity and defilement depend on oneself; no one can purify another" (Dhammapada verse 165).
Zen comes closer to the original intent of the Buddha. Zen, however, has its own issues. They believe that the Buddha, Founder of Buddhism, still continues to exist in another realm and can still interact with and help mankind and answers prayers. Compare that to his last words. There is also the belief in a Big Self and a Little Self. The Roshi, I spoke about above, that ordained me even said that in the Pali there exists a citta written with a capital “c” and a citta written with a small “c”. I pointed out to her that this was a ludicrous statement. Pali has no punctuation or capital letters. That was the beginning of the end for our relationship. It was truly over when she claimed that Zen came from the dhyana practice and had nothing to do with jhana. When I demonstrated that she was wrong I had apparently committed an unforgiveable sin against the Sangha. We parted when she claimed she was enlightened and no one else was and then added a fellow priest of mine was an arahant but not fully enlightened. An arahant is by definition, fully enlightened. If one is enlightened why would they mention it? That is proliferation of thought and anti-Buddhist.
Then there is Vajrayana. This was a secret doctrine that Tibetans and Hindus found written on buried stone tablets a la John Smith and the Book of Mormon. It came about during the 12th century CE but probably goes back to the 8th century if one is conservative, during the final and 5th period of Indian Buddhism. They claim that the Buddha taught it in secret 16 years after his enlightenment and wanted it to be kept secret. The Buddha contradicts this idea.
Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus? (Emphasis added)
"Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his body is more comfortable.
"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
Mahaparinibbana Sutta vv 32 & 33
These last words of the Buddha pretty much negate, at least on the surface, the authenticity of at least part of the Mahayana and Vajrayana assumptions.
Now, does this mean that the Sutras are not valuable? The Mahayanists have fabricated over 5000 pages of new discourses of the Buddha so a Mahayanist doesn’t know which words are the Buddha’s and which did others put in his mouth later. This explains why the entire Mahayana Heart Sutra is such a long book. The Avatamsaka ‘sutra’ is 39 books long. Only by cross-referencing with the authentic Pali sutras can any Mahayanist, in good conscience, claim to know what the Buddha said about anything. This is my method of dealing with the Mahayana Sutras. I always filter them through the Pali Canon.
In the Heart Sutra the protagonist in the setting of this major Mahayana discourse is Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion, also known as ‘the white Buddha’. Avalokiteshvara is not supposed to be a real historical person, but a deity. The Tibetans call him Chenrezig and some Chinese schools have feminized this deity as Quan Yin. The explanation for this is that Avalokiteshvara is on such a high level that Avalokiteshvara has transcended sexual identity and sexuality altogether. That is why some statues of this principal deity look confusingly half female and half male. In the Heart Sutra venerable Sariputra asks Avalokiteshvara a question and this deity of compassion does the talking so this indicates how high up Avalokiteshvara is, in their view. It suggests that Avalokiteshvara is at a level between Sariputra and the Buddha himself. In the Pali Canon Sariputra has the Buddha’s seal of approval and actually teaches the anatta, “no self”, doctrine.
Even Shakyamuni became a supernatural superstar. The teaching of these supernatural bodhisattvas supports a false view. The cult of Avalokiteshvara seems to have been invented as a result of the new Mahayana Buddhism mixing with the Zoroastrian religion around 150 CE. This Iranian interaction occurred in northwestern India during the time of the Kushana Empire that bordered both India and Iran. This clumsy mix resulted in what we call Pure Land Buddhism that invented several artificial deities such as Amitabha Buddha, the Medicine Buddha, Manjushri bodhisattva, and hundreds of others previously unknown to Buddhism.
The methods associated with the practice, however, are valid, enriching and can lead one to calm, insightful practice. It is the teaching around the deity that is a problem. Chanting, single-minded focus, the realization that the deity is an object of meditation but not really real is all good practices. If you contemplate a verse from the Dhammapada during meditation it is still a proliferation of thought if you start analyzing it. It is the proliferation of thought that is the problem.
If during the day I begin to wonder, “Am I a Theravadin or a Mahayanist?” “I haven’t been to Germany is over 20 years, can I still call myself a German?” “Am I an American even though I think like a Indo-European?” “Am I a socialist?” “Amitabha will help me change my karma. I must pray to him.” All of these are proliferations of thought and a total waste of time that takes me away from enlightenment and not bringing me closer to it.
Look at the Shin thinking, “We have degenerated since the time of the Buddha. We need help to go to the Pure Land to become enlightened. I cannot do it on my own. I shall pray to Amitabha.” This is missing the point. To even seek enlightenment is missing the point.
The Buddha was clear, “there is nothing out there.” We literally “download” information from the universe, reformulate it in our brain, then project it onto the world, reabsorb it and interact it as if it were real. The brain knows exactly what we are going to do a full 6 minutes before our mind becomes conscious of our actions. This is not non-duality, this is Abhidhamma. This is the projection process, Buddha called it kamma. We change our kamma and we make different choices. Here the Yogacara teachings and the Madhyamika along with the Abhidhamma are a tremendous help to us in explaining the reality of the universe.
Nagarjuna, originator of Madhyamika, Asangha and Vasubandhu, originators of Yogacara, were Theravada monks of the Sarvastivadin Order as well as Abhidhamma scholars, even if they were important contributors to what became known as Mahayana. Their commentaries are part of both Theravada and Mahayana. So there is innate value in many of the Mahayana teachings. The practices are almost identical but culturally biased. Zen is a combination of Shinto and Buddhism; Vajrayana is a blend of Hinduism, indigenous religion (Bön) and Buddhism without the Nikayas; Pure Land a blend of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. The teachings of the Buddha are often made subservient to the cultural influences. Still, the practices are valuable.
The argument that Buddhism must evolve to be better is a falsehood. The Dhamma is valid for everyone. We don’t have to change it to improve on it. When we change it we begin to lose sight of the truth. We are again engaging in a proliferation of thought and missing the Point.
.jpg)
