A Mara-yana Sutra

It had been a few years, maybe 20 of them, since I read the Mahayana version of the Brahma Net Sutra. It is very different from the Pali Canon’s version although they touch on similar subjects. That brief touching and the name are the things they actually have in common aside from the claim that they were both taught by the Buddha. The odds that the Buddha spoke both are slim. The two teachings are not actually related.

There is so much wrong with the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra that one hardly knows where to start. Of course, the answer to any criticism might be, “You don’t understand the Sutra” or “You don’t appreciate the Mahayana teachings” or even “You don’t grasp the significance of the bodhisattva.” These are all standard defense of those who actually like the Sutra and want it propagated. As a matter of fact, I do appreciate the bodhisattva teachings but only when they are correctly portrayed. I appreciate the Mahayana as I have gained much from it. As to whether I understand the Sutra in question, I plead guilty – I do understand it. I hope this sutra was meant to be taken with a grain of poetic salt, because if it were I could ignore the almost hysterical hyperbole and focus on the externalist teaching encased in threats of bodily harm, visions of self-mutilation and massive episodes of psychedelic hallucination. I actually enjoyed this last bit.

The Background

The background of the Brahma Net Sutra of the Mahayana is very well known. It is not related to the Brahmajala Sutta of the Theravada Buddhist Pali Canon in pite of the names be identical. While the sutra was traditionally regarded as having been recorded in Sanskrit and then translated by Kumarajiva, scholars now attest that unknown authors in China wrote the text in the mid-5th century CE. The sutra itself claims that it is the final chapter of a much longer Sanskrit text, but there is no clear evidence that such a text ever existed except the Sutra’s own claim. Kumarajiva was also said to be responsible for the shape and form of the Amitabha Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, the Maha Prajnaparamita Sutra and the Diamond Sutra. It was believed his outstanding genius as a linguist and scholar was largely responsible for the introduction of his particular vision of Buddhism into China.

Today a very different picture of Kumarajiva emerges. Kamarajiva (either 334 – 413 CE or 344 – 409 CE) was a Kuchean Buddhist monk, scholar, and translator. He first studied teachings of the Sarvāstivāda schools, later studied under Buddhasvāmin, and finally became a Mahāyāna adherent, studying the Madhyamaka doctrine of Nagarjuna. For the sake of clarity, Kuchea was a small kingdom in far Western China. The Silk Road ran through it. It was a famous center of Buddhism, which reached the Chinese province just prior to the 1^st century CE. One biographer claims he was born in Kashmir India and died in Chang’an China. Another biographer has him born in Kucha, what is today Xinjiang, China. He grew up in centers of Sarvastivada Buddhism, but he was converted to Mahayana Buddhism in his teens and became a specialist in Madhyamika philosophy. In 383, Chinese forces seized Kucha and carried Kumarajiva off to China. From 401 he was at the Ch'in court in the capital Chang'an (the modern Xi'an), where he taught and translated Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. More than 100 translations are attributed to him, of these only about 24 can be authenticated, but they include some of the most important titles in the Chinese Buddhist canon. Kumarajiva's career had an epoch-making influence on Chinese Buddhist thought, not only because he made available important texts that were previously unknown, but also because he did much to clarify Buddhist terminology and philosophical concepts. He and his disciples established the Chinese branch of the Madhyamika, known as the San-lun, or "Three Treatises" school.

Now, there are several things happening at once in this biography and it’s all about the timing. The Mahayana period was in its apparent infancy and the child was ill. The transition from Mahasanghika to Mahayana was not an easy one. The Mahasanghika were “conservatives” unlike the Mahayanist who were “reformers” much like the Theras, Old School Buddhists. Yes, I know this is confusing but it is the way it is – or was. In reality Mahayana would have died out between 100 CE and 500 CE were it not for some fortuitous events.

One of these events was the appearance of Nāgārjuna in Kumarajiva’s life. Very little is reliably known of the life of Nāgārjuna, since the surviving accounts were written in Chinese and Tibetan, centuries after his death. According to some accounts, Nāgārjuna was originally from Southern India. Some scholars believe that Nāgārjuna was an advisor to a king of the Satavahana Dynasty. Archaeological evidence at Amarāvatī indicates that if this is true, the king may have been Yajna Sri Satakarni, who ruled between 167 and 196 CE. On the basis of this association, Nāgārjuna is conventionally placed at around 150–250 CE. According to a 4th/5th-century biography said to have been translated by Kumarajiva, Nāgārjuna was born into a Brahmin family, and later became a Buddhist.

Some sources attest that Nāgārjuna lived on the mountain of Śrīparvata in his later years, near the city that would later be called Nagarjunakonda, the "Hill of Nāgārjuna". Nāgārjunakoṇḍa was located in what is now the Nalgonda/Guntur Distrit of Andhra Pradesh. The The Caitika and Bahusrutiya Nikayas are known to have had monasteries in Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.

That’s enough of the biography. What made Nāgārjuna important is that he breathed some life into the flaccid movement called Mahayana, so much so, that he is called the Second Buddha and usually depicted in a way similar to Shakyamuni. It is unclear if there was just two or more people named Nāgārjuna writing at different times. It is clear that he wrote

·      Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way)

·      Śūnyatāsaptati (Seventy Verses on Emptiness)

·      Vigrahavyāvartanī (The End of Disputes)

·      Vaidalyaprakaraṇa (Pulverizing the Categories)

·      Vyavahārasiddhi (Proof of Convention)

·      Yuktiṣāṣṭika (Sixty Verses on Reasoning)

·      Catuḥstava (Hymn to the Absolute Reality)

·      Ratnāvalī (Precious Garland)

·      Pratītyasamutpādahṝdayakārika (Constituents of Dependent Arising)

·      Sūtrasamuccaya

·      Bodhicittavivaraṇa (Exposition of the Enlightened Mind)

·      Suhṛllekha (Letter to a Good Friend)

·      Bodhisaṃbhāra (Requisites of Enlightenment)

But it is not clear that he wrote any of the 54 esoteric teachings attributed to him. They have signs of being counterfeit writings merely assigned to him to give them validity.

So what we are seeing is some esoteric and Vedic influence wandering into Buddhism. Nāgārjuna was not a Mahayanist in the sense of Mahayana we toss about today. He was also not quite a Theravadin either. There was no Theravada or Mahayana during Nāgārjuna’s lifetime. There were simply many different forms of the original teachings. Kumarajiva decided to become an expert in all things Nāgārjuna. Since Nāgārjuna lived at about the time the first Mahayana Sutras were being composed and Nāgārjuna was brilliant, it seems that Kumarajiva took Nāgārjuna to be one of the founding fathers of Mahayana. Many at the time did.

Another thing that was happening at the time Kumarajiva was “translating” was the rise of China. Kumarajiva suddenly found himself with new employers, the Royal Court. Technically he was a slave, a very talented one but still a slave. Kumarajiva was probably not very pleased with his social status and wanted to please his new masters. When he “translated” he seems to have added elements of Chinese society and philosophy to his writings, sorry, “translations”. Elements of Taoism and Confucianism crept into the sutras he “translated”. This becomes very evident in the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra.

It wasn’t very long before his captivity that Kumarajiva had converted from Sarvāstivāda to Mahayana. We do not know the circumstances of the conversion. We do not know how he actually felt about Sarvāstivāda Buddhism. Sarvāstivāda was on of the 19 original sects of Old Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism was just formally inaugurated in Sri Lanka. Sarvāstivāda differed little from the others in forms and teaching but it did have one peculiarity. It embraced what was seen as a heresy among the other schools. It taught that all phenomena existed in the past and the future as well as in the present. In some form or another, this view is embraced by almost all of the Mahayana schools. Most often it exists as the teaching surrounding the notion of Buddha Nature. The Sarvāstivāda did not teach Buddha Nature as far as anyone knows, but the heretical view of the eternal existence of something is definitely in line with that teaching. The term Buddha Nature appears in many of Kumarajiva’s “translations”.  So does the idea that a Buddha exists here, there and everywhere in all times and places. This notion arises in the Brahma Net Sutra as well.

Even though Vajrayana Buddhism would not come into being for another 700 years, esoteric Indian ideas were slowly emerging within the body of the new Mahayana Buddhism. Amitabha Buddha, for example arose as a major figure at around the beginning of the Common Era. Pure Land Buddhism was being formulated as a separate branch of Buddhism at the time of Kumarajiva. In fact, Kumarajiva played a role in this emergence. He literally wrote, oops, “translated” the books. While not yet formulated as a distinct class of Buddhas, the Dhyani Buddhas were beginning to take shape. Kumarajiva plays a role in this as well where he introduces Vairocana Buddha to the world.

Vairocana Buddha

This sutra introduces Vairocana Buddha and his relation to Shakyamuni Buddha and states the Ten Major Precepts for the Bodhisattva and the Forty-Eight Minor Precepts one should follow to advance along the path. These precepts came to be treated in China as a higher ethic a monk would adopt after ordination, in addition to the monastic rules. In Japan, they came to displace the monastic rules almost completely starting with Saicho and the rise of the Tendai sect. When the Japanese Meiji government allowed monks to marry, there weren't vinaya rules to forbid it and as a result most Japanese clergy now being married. The name of the sutra derives from the “vast net” that the god Brahma hangs in his palace, and how each jewel in the net reflects the light of every other jewel:

At that time, he [Shakyamuni Buddha] contemplated the wonderful Jewel Net hung in Lord Brahma's palace and preached the Brahmajala Sutta for the Great Assembly. He said: "The innumerable worlds in the cosmos are like the eyes of the net. Each and every world is different, its variety infinite. So too are the Dharma Doors (methods of cultivation) taught by the Buddhas.

The initial speaker is Vairocana. He is a very interesting character. In contemporary Hindi the name is feminine. The origin of the words comes from the Sanskrit for “shining upon” or “making bright”. The name itself is taken to mean “one who came from the sun.”  He seems to have had a longish history in the Indian esoteric traditions and Indian magic then was imported into Buddhism about 1,000 years after the Buddha’s death. Vairocana played various roles in many religious sects both Buddhist and non-Buddhist. Today he is usually seen as a universal Buddha, the personification of the “dharmakaya” and the very illumination of wisdom.

There is no Buddha by this name in the original and orthodox suttas (Pali Canon). In fact, this is the first time there is any mention of Vairocana Buddha. He is also mentioned in the Flower Garland Sutra; however, the doctrine of Vairocana Buddha is based largely on the teachings of the Mahavairocana Sutra (also known as the Mahāvairocana-abhisaṃbodhi-tantra) and to a lesser degree the Vajrasekhara Sutra (also known as the Sarvathāgatattvasangraha Tantra). He is also mentioned as a soubriquet of the Sakyamuni Buddha in the Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Universal Virtue, who dwells in a place called "Always Tranquil Light".

Vairocana is the Primordial Buddha in the Chinese schools of T’ian T’ai and Hua-Yen Buddhism, also appearing in later schools including the Japanese Kegon and esoteric lineages of Tendai and Shingon. In the case of Shingon and Hua-Yen schools, Vairocana is the central figure. In Sino-Japanese Buddhism, Amitabha Buddha, due in large part to the increasing popularity of Pure Land Buddhism, gradually superseded Vairocana as an object of reverence. Interestingly theAmitabha name also has to do with light, infinite light.

Vairocana is one of the Dhyana Buddhas or “Meditation Buddhas” or “Buddhas of Wisdom”. The term was coined by B.H. Hodgson in the 19th century to describe the figures that appear in the Mandala of the Five Jinas ("eminent ones" jina is related to the word Djin, Arabic for genie, a magical being). It is not a term used in any Buddhist literature, but has become a common term in the West. In Vajrayana Buddhism, the Five Dhyani (Sanskrit word for jhana meditation) Buddhas (Vairocana, Aksobhya, Amitabha, Ratnasambhava, Amoghasiddhi) are representations of the five qualities of the Buddha. These five Buddhas are a common subject of Vajrayana mandalas.

The Five Wisdom Buddhas are a later development, based on the Yogacara elaboration of concepts concerning the jhana of Buddhas, of the Trikaya (Skt. Tri is "three", kaya is "body") theory, which posits three "bodies" of the Buddha. This concept arose around the year 1200 CE. These Wisdom Buddhas are all aspects of the dharmakaya or "reality body", which embodies the principle of enlightenment. Initially two Buddhas appeared which represented wisdom and compassion - they were, respectively, Aksobhya and Amitabha. A further distinction embodied the aspects of power, or activity, and the aspect of beauty, or spiritual riches. In the Sutra of Golden Light (an early Mahayana Sutra, also called “The King of Glorious Sutras called the Exhalted Sublime Golden Light A Mahayana Sutra”) the figures are named Dundubishvara, and Ratnaketu, but over time their names changed to become Amoghasiddhi, and Ratnasambhava. The central figure came to be called Vairocana.

This is the background of the Brahma Net Sutra. It is also the point of view of the Sutra as well. Because it is the basis of the Bodhisattva Vows it is important to look at it to see what the vows actually entail. Vows are extremely important in Mahayana Buddhism. Mara may as well have written the ones in this Sutra. Mara, the “devil” character in Buddhist mythology. His job is to keep people from enlightenment. He does a very good job in the Mahayana’s Brahma Net Sutra. It is one of the best examples of Mara-yana ever put into print.

In the first section of the Sutra Vairocana “concluded: ‘The Mind-Ground has been explained, is being explained and will be explained by all the Buddhas -- past, present, and future. It is also the Dharma Door (cultivation method) that all the Bodhisattvas of the past, present, and future have studied, are studying and will study.

"I have cultivated this Mind-Ground Dharma Door for hundreds of eons. My name is Vairocana. I request all Buddhas to transmit my words to all sentient beings, so as to open this path of cultivation to all." If the Buddha thought of himself as an emanation of Vairocana he might have told us when he was on Earth. Another interesting fact is that the Buddha stated that no one would see him after he passed into Parinibbana. Still, 1,000 years after his death this Sutra portrays him not only teaching but being infinite in number. Could the Buddha have time-traveled?

Mind-ground is another term for the mind. The mind is compared to the ground, which has two characteristics. First, all beings, animate or inanimate, are sustained by it; it does not discriminate. Second it accepts and absorbs everything equally, pure and dirty water alike. Likewise, all precepts and virtues are sustained by the mind; the mind of the Bodhisattva does not discriminate between auspicious or untoward events, praise or ridicule. Please remember this definition. It is the standard by which all Bodhisattvas are measured.

The Role of the Bodhisattva

The Sutra is written specifically for bodhisattvas. What is a bodhisattva?  Bodhisattva means “enlightenment being” and is a Mahayana concept. It is said to been meant to be the equivalent to the Pali term Bodhisatta. In any Middle Indo-Aryan language, the word would be bodhisatta but this word was Sanskritized as bodhisattva meaning "enlightenment being." We take this meaning for granted today but the Sanskritized version is very probably the wrong word to be using. For the Middle Indo-Aryan word bodhisatta should be represented as the Sanskrit bodhisakta, meaning "one intent on enlightenment," "one devoted to enlightenment," and this makes much better sense than calling an unenlightened Bodhisatta "an enlightenment being."

The word Bodhisattva was originally applied to a “method” or vehicle that might lead to enlightenment. Interestingly, the method was called “bodhisattvayana”. Mahayana was an honorific title for this movement. Later, the honorific Mahayana replaced the term Bodhisattvayana. Why would this happen? It is because the term bodhisattva cannot be logically locked down. It means many things, not all of them mean “enlightened being.” It only sometimes refers to one who is fully enlightened and is defined in the same terms as an arahant (compare Mahayana’s The Diamond Sutra and the Pali Anguttara Nikaya 6.55). In the section called “The Orthodox Doctrine of the Great Vehicle,” of Diamond Sutra, The Buddha is made to say, “Yet of the immeasurable, boundless numbers of living beings thus taken across to extinction, there is actually no living being taken across to extinction. And why? Subhuti, if a Bodhisattva has a mark of self, a mark of others, a mark of living beings, or a mark of a life, he is not a Bodhisattva.” This sounds very much like the definition of an Arahant.

Another translation puts it like this, “if anyone engages in conceptualizing a sentient being, or engages in conceptualizing a soul, or engages in conceptualizing a person, they are not to be called a ‘Bodhisattva.’” Of Arhatship, the same Sutra says, “the phenomenon called ‘Arhat’ does not exist whatsoever. Bhagavan, if the Arhat were to think, ‘I have attained the result of Arhatship,’ that itself would be a conception of a self, a sentient being, a soul, a person.” Now, these are definitions I can live with. They make sense as far as the Core teachings of the Buddha are concerned.

Both the Bodhisattva and the Arahant share the same qualities. The terms could be interchangeable. In the Brahma Net Sutra, however, a problem about the bodhisattva arises. He is no bodhisattva – not in terms of the Diamond Sutra, anyway.

Another concept introduced by the Brahma Net Sutra is the notion of some office or status of a “novice bodhisattva.” This would appear to be the bodhisakta mentioned earlier. For one, the novice bodhisattva is nothing like an “enlightenment being” but more of a pruthajjana, ordinary person who has the intention to become enlightened. Moreover, he becomes enlightened with a specific motivation – for the benefit of all living beings. That intention does not fit with the Diamond Sutra’s view of a bodhisattva who sees no mark (characteristic) of a sentient being.

The Brahma Net Sutra then attempts to create a new mythology. The Pali Canon is very short on mythology. In those places where a mythology is presented the Buddha does not support nor deny the mythos built around him. In the Brahma Net Sutra, however, the new Shakyamuni Buddha not only supports the new mythos but also endorses it and plays along with it. In the Pali Canon there is no mention of a primordial Buddha or a primordial anything or even a Vairocana. Primordial implies a beginning to something. In original Buddhism the origin of the universe is irrelevant. In fact, the implication is that there was no beginning or first anything or anyone, there was only a change from one status quo to another.

The status quo for Mahayana was the “novice bodhisattva” (bodhisakta). What this individual is supposed to do is stated briefly as,

These precepts are recited by Vairocana, These precepts I recite as well. You novice Bodhisattvas Should reverently accept and uphold them. And once you have done so, Transmit and teach them to sentient beings.

Please notice is not the Buddha but Vairocana who recites the precepts. These precepts should be reverently accepted, upheld and transmitted to sentient beings. A "sentient being" (pani, satta) is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being.

The 10 Major and 48 Minor Precepts – In a Nutshell

The first five of the major precepts are the Five Upasaka Vows of anyone who has taken Refuge. The rest get a little confused. The acceptance, upholding and teaching are meant to bring one to the status of a full bodhisattva. According to the Mahayana “Sūtra of the Upāsaka Precepts”  

…it is not because of their attainment of bodhi that they are called Bodhisattvas. Why not? Because those who have attained bodhi are called Buddhas while who have not attained bodhi are called Bodhisattvas. Nor is it because of their bodhi nature that they are called Bodhisattvas.

    “Good man, sentient beings have no definite nature, whether bodhi nature or the nature of a god, human, lion, tiger, wolf, or dog. In their present lives, they are reborn as gods or humans through convergence of good karmic causes and conditions; they are reborn as animals, such as lions, through convergence of evil karmic causes and conditions. 
    “The same is true for Bodhisattvas. Those who activate the bodhi mind through convergence of good karmic causes and conditions are called Bodhisattvas. It is incorrect to say that all sentient beings have Bodhisattva nature. Why? Because if one had a [definite] nature, one would not need to produce good karmic causes and conditions by making offerings to the six directions. Good man, if one had a [definite] nature, one would not have an initiating mind and a regressing mind.

So, what is bodhi mind? Bodhi is usually taken to mean enlightenment or unsurpassed wisdom. In the Mahayana there are traditionally there are three forms of bodhi available to the human being, corresponding to the enlightenment of holy beings who ride the Three Vehicles: (1) the bodhi of a voice-hearer who has attained Arhatship; (2) the greater bodhi of a Pratyekabuddha (self-taught Buddha); (3) the greatest bodhi of a Buddha. The bodhisattva is said to develop this mind. In other traditions it is couples as bodhi + citta (mind) = the mind of a Buddha.

The bodhicitta prayer gives a very different view than the traditional definition. It reads

With a wish to free all beings
I shall always go for refuge
To the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha,
Until I reach full enlightenment

Enthused by wisdom and compassion,
today in the Buddhas' presence
I generate the Mind for Full Awakening
For the benefit of all sentient beings

As long as space remains,
As long as sentient beings remain,
Until then, may I too remain
And dispel the miseries of the world

This implied definition is much different than the traditional definition. In the traditional definition enlightenment is achieved and the round of rebirth is completed. The vow as stated in the prayer would mean the disciple could not even enter the stream to enlightenment because even as a beginning stream-enterer the disciple would only have seven or less lifetimes to be reborn. The prayer precludes enlightenment at all in the traditional sense of the word.

This kind of Refuge is interesting and even sounds altruistic. The question arises though, is this the Refuge of which the Buddha spoke? When the Buddha talked about Refuge he made a very important distinction between different types of Refuge. The formula of going to the Triple Gem is used in every Tradition of Buddhism and is the standard formula that we find here. These words are important if they are understood. Still, the Buddha had a greater refuge in mind. He said,

They go to many a refuge,             to mountains and forests,             to park and tree shrines:
people threatened with danger.
That's not the secure refuge,             not the supreme refuge,
that's not the refuge,
having gone to which,             you gain release             from all suffering & stress.      But when, having gone
to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge,
you see with right discernment
the four noble truths —                                stress,                    the cause of stress,             the transcending of stress,
& the noble eightfold path,             the way to the stilling of stress: that's the secure refuge, that, the supreme refuge,
that is the refuge,
having gone to which,             you gain release             from all suffering & stress.

Dhammapada 188-192

This is where the formula used by the Buddhist comes from. Precept 45, entitled, Failure to Teach Sentient Beings goes,

A disciple of the Buddha should develop a mind of Great Compassion. Whenever he enters people's homes, villages, cities or towns, and sees sentient beings, he should say aloud, "You sentient beings should all take the Three Refuges and receive the Ten [Major Bodhisattva] Precepts." Should he come across cows, pigs, horses, sheep and other kinds of animals, he should concentrate and say aloud, "You are now animals; you should develop the Bodhi Mind." A Bodhisattva, wherever he goes, be it climbing a mountain, entering a forest, crossing a river, or walking through a field should help all sentient beings develop the Bodhi Mind. 

If a disciple of the Buddha does not wholeheartedly teach and rescue sentient beings in such a manner, he commits a secondary offense.

While this sounds as if it is filled with compassion it is also unsolicited advice. Not everyone should take Refuge. If they should have they would have. Causes and conditions as well as one’s kamma determine whether one should take Refuge. It is probably okay to take the Ten Major Precepts; they are just a good idea that would promote the quality of social existence. The helping of animals to awaken to bodhicitta requires a stretch of the imagination. How could they possibly do that? They do not seem to have the cognitive abilities to “think” about it. What about ants, flies and single cell animals? Would it be reasonable to believe that they would understand someone speaking to them about bodhicitta? And how would such a pronouncement “rescue sentient beings” in the first place? Well, the Buddha does say in in one sutta "Monks, among all living beings—be they footless or two-footed, with four feet or many feet, with form or formless, percipient, non-percipient or neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient — the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, is reckoned the best of them all. Those who have faith in the Buddha have faith in the best; and for those who have faith in the best, the best result will be theirs." (Anguttara Nikaya 48, The Best Kinds of Faith) So stream entry, at least is possible for all levels of sentient life.

Just prior to the Buddha’s death he told us exactly in whom Refuge should be taken. It was a concise and clear pronouncement. Ultimately Refuge should be taken in one’s self.

…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.
"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?
"When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.
"Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they have the desire to learn.

Mahaparinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

Digha Nikaya 16.II.33-35

The vows found in the Brahma Net Sutra also raise issues regarding the completion of the path to enlightenment.

Anyone can be enlightened if they listen to and accept these precepts. The Sutra says

This is true whether that person is a king, a prince, an official, a monk, a nun, or a god of the eighteen Brahma Heavens, a god of the six Desire Heavens, or a human, a eunuch, a libertine, a prostitute, a slave, or a member of the Eight Divisions of Divinities, a Vajra spirit, an animal, or even a transformation-being.

The issue here arises that the Buddha was quite adamant that a person anyone could become enlightened if his mind were trained. He never said an animal or a god could become enlightened. Presumably neither could a Vajra Spirit since he never mentioned the term Vajra Spirit. Beings in the Desire Heavens do stand a chance. In the original teachings the Buddha was concerned with persons, i.e., people and not the rest of the universe. Does this sound as if he lacked compassion for them? Not at all. We are as a matter of fact told that beings in the other worlds are not in conditions favorable to becoming awakened. One’s kamma (karma) determines if the individual is ready to enter the stream. Causes and conditions determine whether or not the Dhamma will be made available to them. It is not up to a monk or teacher to run around aimlessly evangelizing every living thing he runs across.

The first Major Precept is pretty straightforward. It says, “A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.” Yet at the same time the Minor Precepts contradict this the first, and presumably the most important of the precepts.  The 26^th precepts requires a disciple of “be willing to pawn himself or cut off and sell his own flesh” if he cannot house and feed a visiting bodhisattva monk. Cutting off of one’s own flesh might be a hyperbole, and let’s hope it is, because this is an extreme action that seems to counter the common sense approach of the Buddha and the first Major Precept. But the 16^th Minor Precept is even more extreme. It reads, “…whenever novices come from afar to seek instruction, he should explain, according to the Dharma, all the Bodhisattva renunciation practices, such as burning one's body, arm, or finger [as the ultimate act in the quest for Supreme Enlightenment]. If a novice is not prepared to follow these practices as an offering to the Buddhas, he is not a Bodhisattva monk. Moreover, a Bodhisattva monk should be willing to sacrifice his body and limbs for starving beasts and hungry ghosts [as the ultimate act of compassion in rescuing sentient beings.” (Emphasis added)

One wonders how such actions could possibly lead one to enlightenment. The Buddha never supported such practices. Of practice he said, “I have taught the practice conducive to the imperturbable. I have taught the practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness. I have taught the practice conducive to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. I have taught the way to cross over the flood by going from one support to the next, the noble liberation. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all.” (Aneñja-sappaya Sutta: Conducive to the Imperturbable Majjhima Nikaya 106)

Sacrifices such as the one advocated in the precept do not speak of imperturbableness; they speak of hysteria. The Buddha asks no one to make such extreme sacrifices but to practice instead. He admonished his disciples to teach others who were interested in the teaching and not necessarily all living beings as is mentioned in the Sutra over and over again.  “A disciple of the Buddha must teach one and all, from fellow disciples, relatives and spiritual friends, to externalists and evil beings, how to receive and observe the Mahayana sutras and moral codes. He should teach the Mahayana principles to them and help them develop the Bodhi Mind…” (Minor Precept 15) Now here is the disclaimer, it is Minor Precept 42 says, “A disciple of the Buddha should not, with a greedy motive, expound the great precepts of the Buddhas before those who have not received them, externalists or persons with heterodox views. Except in the case of kings or supreme rulers, he may not expound the precepts before any such person.

“Persons who hold heterodox views and do not accept the precepts of the Buddhas are untamed in nature. They will not, lifetime after lifetime, encounter the Triple Jewel.”

Here is one more example of the Sutra holding strange views regarding the teaching of the Buddha. Heterodox view is a code, dog whistle if you will, for someone who is not Mahayana but still a Buddhist. Kumarajiva used the term “Hinayana”, (the H word) to describe these beings elsewhere. About half the precepts use the terms “externalist”, code for non-Buddhist, and “heterodox”, code of the Thera teaching. At this point in history Theravada was believed to be the descendant of the Sthaviravada. Theravada’s own history maintains that it was organized under the patronage of the great Indian Emperor Ashoka in about 250 BCE. The name “Theravada” did not come into use until the 4^th century CE.  Theravada had very little influence in the area of China and India that were homes to Kumarajiva. So why does he use the term so often?

A heterodox view is the not just a code word, it is way of practice as well. Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism and all other Mahayana Buddhisms are in reality heterodox. By calling the disciples of original Buddhism heterodox Kumarajiva was taking the audience to another place. It’s a “don’t look at me – look at him” approach. It’s not very subtle but seems to have worked in this case. It is also true that by calling the Theras (Old School Buddhists) the Two Vehicles instead of Buddhists he could usurp the term Buddhism and apply it to his particular brand of heterodoxy.

The Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra claims it is a single part of a much larger Sanskrit document. This too could have been a way to validate Kumarajiva’s “translation” since there is absolutely no evidence outside of the sutra’s own assertion that a larger Sanskrit version existed.

It seems that Kumarajiva had a specific set of agendas. The effort to legitimatize and breathe life into the dying Mahayana was the foremost. Somehow though, he had to show that Mahayana was superior to all other forms of Buddhism. The best way to do that is to elevate Mahayana but it is easier to denigrate the competitors. Kumarajiva took the easy way out.