http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/budd_mahayana.

html
Did Shakyamuni Buddha Preach the Mahayana?
-- Dr. Richard St. Clair

Faith. Ceremony. Ritual. Worship. Devotionalism. Pietism. Are these what Shakyam
uni Buddha (563-483 BCE), the historical founder of the religion called Buddhism
, really had in mind? Were his teachings even remotely related to these states o
f mind and practices which are associated with Mahayana Buddhism?
Theravadin Buddhists make a plausible claim that their Tipitaka, also called the
Pali Canon, is as close as possible to the actual, literal teachings of Gotama
the Enlightened One, the Buddha. The Sutta Pitaka (Part II of the Tipitaka) is a
sprawling yet essentially logical presentation of the nature of karma, how karm
a is at the root of suffering, and how karma can be overcome through austerities
that came down in the form of the Vinaya Pitaka, or the Buddhist Monastic Codes
(Part I of the Tipitaka). The third Pitaka, the Abhidamma, represents the effor
ts of later Buddhists to clarify and further systematize the Suttas and Vinayas.

Just how does Mahayana Buddhism square with this palpable lineage of authenticit
y made for the Pali Canon? Having grown up in the West (United States) and raise
d from infancy in a Christian household, I think the lessons I learned from that
upbringing may shed light on the apparent discrepancy between the Mahayana and
the Theravada which continues to be debated down to our own times.
Christianity like Buddhism had its roots in a prior religious matrix. With Chris
tianity it was Judaism. With Buddhism it was the Vedic traditions and perhaps an
earlier form of Hinduism. Buddhism was also contemporary with Jainism and there
is arguable evidence of cross-fertilization of doctrinal concepts with all the
contemporary faiths and Buddhism itself. It was less confusing in the case of Ch
ristianity, which started as Judaism and was practiced as such, the difference b
eing that the Christians felt they had their messiah in the person of Jesus of N
azareth, while those Jews that rejected the claim made for Jesus as messiah cont
inued in the Judaic traditions from which Christianity quickly veered away, part
icularly when it was exported to the rest of the Roman Empire and beyond.
Yet even within Christianity there were numerous streams of belief often severel
y at odds with one another after the passing of Jesus. These beliefs often clash
ed violently. It was only through the fiat of a converted Roman Emperor, Constan
tine the Great, that the doctrinal features of Christianity were essentially set
in stone at the Council of Nicaea and have largely remain unchanged for the pas
t nearly 17 centuries, as opposing doctrines were methodically and permanently s
tamped out as heretical. The only major change to occur in Christian doctrine wa
s not a fundamental one - the Reformation instigated by Martin Luther in the ear
ly 16th century. Luther was an ordained Catholic priest (all Christians were Cat
holic at that time, of course), but his aim was to create a simpler folk religio
n that involved the laity and made the matter of their individual salvation the
internal process of faith in each individual rather than through the intercessio
n of the priest class of the Catholic Church. At that time, for example, only or
dained priests were permitted to read the scriptures (and in Latin, not the vern
acular tongue of the people). Luther translated the Bible into vernacular German
, and other reformationists made similar translations into their own tongues. Th
e Catholic Church responded with its Counter Reformation. Even with all this, th
e basic tenets of Christianity were unchanged and all Christian churches invoke
the so-called Apostles? Creed.
Then what lesson can Buddhism gain from the historical experience of Christianit
y? In Christianity there were two ways an individual could proceed. As a laypers
on, or as a priest or monk. As in Buddhism, the Christians also debated over the
primacy of faith alone over the primacy of good works. This sounds much like th
e difference between the faith of Pure Land Buddhism (or ?easy path?) versus the
bodhisattva path (or ?path of sages?) of acquiring merit through meditation, de
tachment, virtuous deeds and avoidance of evil. But even more, there was a major
monastic tradition in Christianity that operated completely out of the sphere o
f lay people. This was a life of total renunciation of all attachment to worldly
things - essentially identical to the monasticism of both Theravadin and Mahaya
na Buddhism. In the secular sphere, the congregational lay Christianity was pres
ided over by the priests who were said to be the conduit, so to speak, of the la
y person?s deliverance to salvation in the hereafter. In Buddhism, the lay perso
n was considered to gain merit by supporting the monks and nuns (or lama), there
by gaining auspicious rebirths towards eventual enlightenment.
What would Jesus of Nazareth have said about these developments in the religious
movements in Christianity which his ministry spawned? Would he even think of hi
mself as part of a Trinity with God? What would Buddha Shakyamuni have said abou
t the proliferation of Theravada and Mahayana, which often depicted him having f
antastical magical powers and past-lives, and a triple body (not unlike the Chri
stian Trinity)?
In the case of Christianity, the written record of Jesus? ministry is almost con
temporaneous to his actual life on earth. The extra-canonical Gospel of Thomas i
s considered to be almost a close record of his teachings. Such is not the case
with Buddhism, whose canon was not committed to writing for many centuries after
Gotama passed away. Any assurance of what Lord Buddha really preached and how l
iterally his teachings were captured can only be conjectural at best and in the
last analysis come down to faith - which form of Buddhism do you truly believe b
est represents the essence of Shakyamuni?s teaching?
In Christianity, one of the canonical texts - the Revelation of St. John the Div
ine - sets a finite duration for the peoples of the earth to come around to beli
eving in Jesus as savior, after which there will be a cataclysm of judgement and
all nonbelievers will end up in permanent hell, while all believers will end up
in eternal heaven. Buddhism does not have this kind of time sense. Buddhism con
siders time in vast cycles called kalpas, or aeons of billions of years, and the
human being does not live just one but innumerable lives on earth (or in other
realities) for innumerable kalpas. This gives a human being a much longer ?strin
g? to eventually come to the truth of the Dharma (Dhamma), the only caveat being
that until that takes place the human will continue to be reborn in the undesir
able states ad infinitum (a kind of hell, itself, since the process of attachmen
t, suffering, death and rebirth constitute a miserable and vicious cycle).
It was the arbitrary ?Repent now or else face eternal damnation? aspect of Chris
tianity which made me lose confidence in it several decades ago, though I still
fondly remember the compassionate words Jesus had for the suffering multitudes.
But on balance, I could not conceive of a God that could be so arbitrary and eve
n cruel as to summarily save or condemn people who were basically caught up in n
ormal human predicaments. Buddhism depersonalized the cosmos for me - it made th
e cosmos something rational that I could, and even had to, face on my own, witho
ut either the help or hindrance of an unseen and ruthless-sounding deity with an
obscure agenda beyond human imagining.
Since the recorded teachings of Jesus come from roughly his own era and likely f
rom people that knew and walked with him, we can see him teaching different appr
oaches to salvation for different kinds of people. He invited certain people to
give up everything and follow him based on his assessment of their ability to ha
ndle the task of helping him spread his message. This is like the Lion?s Roar of
the Buddha, and his call to those who listened for them to give up this world a
nd seek nirvana by ?going forth? as a monk or nun. But at the same time, the Chr
istian canon records Jesus teaching ordinary folk, giving them a simple faith th
ey could rely upon, particularly after he was gone. He showed by example the qua
lities of mercy, unselfish help, kindness towards children, going the extra mile
for people in distress, and he engaged them in a sense that their simple trust
in and following the intent of his teaching was enough for them to find a blesse
d life hereafter.
The Buddha is characterized over and over again as compassionate. It seems to me
that in order to form a successful religion that will help all sorts of people
to find ultimate truth and deliverance from suffering, a great teacher must nece
ssarily approach different people in different ways. Now Gotama was committed to
establishing a dedicated core of followers to maintain the monastic path in ord
er that the teachings be accurately transmitted after he was gone. However, it i
s my contention that the monastic order tended to preserve and transmit only tho
se teachings that were germane to following the monastic path. This was certainl
y the case in Christian monastic movements, which were completely renunciant enc
laves that preserved their traditions come what may in the outside world, and I
believe this pattern of monasticism is common to many religions.
Yet another kind of thing must have happened in the early days following the Bud
dha?s passing. Just as he preached different ?upaya? (or skillful means) to diff
erent people according to their capacities and karmic conditions, it is logical
to assume that those people that were touched by his wisdom and compassion all c
ame away from the experience with slightly, or greatly different impressions of
the Dharma. The monastic order would have been interested mainly in preserving t
he code laid down by the Master and attracting others to their order. But for th
ose lay people who gained another perspective, that of a sense of deep faith and
trust in the capacity of Buddha himself to vouchsafe their eventual liberation
from karma and suffering, another tradition must have congealed among them in th
ose confusing decades after his passing, when many of his followers were in some
way trying to compile a sense of the totality of the Buddha Dharma.
What is striking to me is that both the Mahayana and Theravada canons were set d
own in writing at about the same time. There was clearly a competitive tension b
etween these two dramatically different paths. One was claiming a rigorous spiri
tual lineage back to Buddha himself, just as Catholicism claims the papal lineag
e goes back to St. Peter, Jesus? favored disciple whom he anointed as the founde
r of his church. What happened in the Theravadin monasteries in the decades afte
r Gotama?s passing is considered fairly well established, i.e. that there were c
hanting schools each of which committed to memory a certain portion of the canon
which were transmitted by Gotama directly to his monks. Again, I believe that t
hose portions of the canon dealt overwhelmingly with the issues of the monastic
order rather than the issues of the laity. The Mahayana seems to me to have evol
ved as folk (and folkloreistic) tradition of Buddhism, and as such must have had
a more colorful and certainly far less methodical transmission, accounting prob
ably for the noticeable escalation of grandeur from the more subdued methodical
sutras like the Prajnaparamita and Surangama, to the openly pro-laity Vimalakirt
inirdesa sutra, to the Mahaparanirvana sutra, to the Pure Land and Lotus sutras,
and ultimately to the most fabulously dazzling religious scripture of all time,
the Flower Garland Sutra.
The key theme common to all sects of the Mahayana is faith in the teaching conta
ined in each of these scriptures. Even the Zen tradition has faith in a scriptur
al basis in the Pali Canon - and Soto Zen teaches faith in sitting as direct rea
lization of one?s buddha-nature. Mahayana scriptures claim to transfer a particu
lar merit to those who, through faith and diligence, preserve and disseminate th
em. There seems to be a tremendous driving force of evangelism in the Mahayana,
to bring as many people as possible into the blessed sphere of faith in the Budd
ha Dharma. While these scriptures seemed to have snowballed in their intensity a
nd salvific claims, they do, I feel, contain the essential message Shakyamuni Bu
ddha was teaching to the lay people who were desperate for comfort and assurance
of deliverance but who, for whatever reason, could not or would not give up eve
rything, take the tonsure and beg for food with a bowl in a saffron robe. The Ma
hayana may have at first asked, then later demanded that it be considered as val
id an extension of Shakyamuni?s teaching as the Pali canon and the monastic orde
r.
It is often stated as fact that the Mahayana is a corruption of primitive Buddhi
sm, a deliberate compromise to be able to compete with the faith (or bhatki) of
Hinduism, which was a very popular religion in ancient India during the birthing
of Buddhism. I see it differently. I believe that the early Buddhists who took
the Mahayana view of Dharma had no such insidious motive but were simply followi
ng the pious attitudes that Shakyamuni had deliberately instilled in the lay peo
ple who trusted him as their spiritual guide. They were not out to spite or co-o
pt Hinduism. They wanted the deliverance that the Buddha Dharma promised. While
it can be intelligently argued that certain Hindu influences crept into Buddhist
practices and doctrinal language, I believe they did not change Buddhism?s esse
ntial character and message.
Buddhas, according to an axiom of Dharma, are all-seeing, all-wise beings. Such
is the nature of their enlightenment. I suggest that if he were here today obser
ving all that had taken place in his name, Shakyamuni Buddha would not be partic
ularly shocked at what we see as a bewildering profusion of sects all claiming h
im as their ultimate authority. But, more than merely suggesting, I propose that
something like the extant Lotus Sutra was actually delivered by Shakyamuni Budd
ha, particularly regarding the second chapter on Skillful Means. It is in this c
hapter that Shakyamuni seems to foresee every form of sect that will emerge in h
is name and the name of Dharma in the coming centuries. And he says, in the Lotu
s Sutra, that all of these practices or faiths will assurely lead to eventual en
lightenment and Buddhahood. This is why I believe the Lotus Sutra says there is
only one Buddha Vehicle. It is the great uniter of the Dharma, a jewel of many f
acets.
I have followed Japanese Pure Land (Shinshu) Buddhism for some time now. It rega
rds single-minded faith in Buddha (in particular, the Buddha Amida, also known b
y the two Sanskrit names Amitayus and Amitabha) as the true, even the only cause
for enlightenment. There are reasons for this which Shinran (Japan, 1173-1262)
laid out systematically in his Kyogyoshinsho. I have found his words compelling
and the call of the Shin faith irresistible. Even so, I feel in my heart of hear
ts that it is the quality or trueness of one?s faith, or one?s practice, that is
the cause for enlightenment. I believe the single- minded pursuance of the mona
stic path of Theravadin Buddhism can and will lead to enlightenment, just as wil
l the single-minded devotion of Nichiren Buddhism in the Lotus Sutra, the single
-minded faith of Shingon Buddhism in mudras and other esoteric practices, the si
ngle-minded focus on emptiness of the Zen meditator, and the single-minded faith
of Tibetan Buddhism in the lama.
I feel that Buddha Shakyamuni sowed the seeds of all these practices and faiths.
I think his only regret would be that people have warred with words (and worse)
among each other over differences in their view of the Dharma he taught, instea
d of trying to see how much alike those of true faith in the path really are. Sh
akyamuni Buddha respected us all by creating many ways to approach Buddhahood. L
et us respect him by respecting the choices others make in the Dharma, even if w
e do not agree with them.
1998 Richard St. Clair
------
Biographical sketch
Dr. Richard St. Clair was born in North Dakota, USA in 1946. He studied music at
Harvard University, where he obtained a doctoral degree in composition. He has
studied Buddhism through the off-campus program of the Asian Classics Institute
(New York City) and has a Certificate of study in Dependent Origination under Ge
she Michael Roach. Among his over 100 musical works, he has composed vocal setti
ngs to Buddhist texts, including parts of the Sutta Nipata, the Lotus Sutra, poe
ms of Honen Shonin, and wasan of Shinran Shonin. He lives at 781 Somerville Ave.
, Somerville, Massachusetts, 02143 USA.