Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@SpinyNorman said:
Here is the relevant passage from the Bahiya Sutta for reference:
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
So where does volition/intention fit into this sutta?
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
This is one of the many suttas where the Buddha is saying "That is how you should train yourself."
I believe this is saying to train yourself in everyday life practice. Not just meditation practice alone.
In meditation practice, this means to be mindful of everything and not be swayed or latch on to it. A thought is just a thought, not to add or create stories because of that thought for example.
In everyday life practice we should try to do the same. See everything for what they are; wholesome, unwholesome, pleasant, and unpleasant. Try not to be swayed into greed, hate, or delusions from what is seen, heard, or thought etc.
Yes, some ideas were developed, for example anatta becoming sunyata. But the notion of a "True Self" are not found in early Buddhism.
Is Mahayana (or Zen) part of early Buddhism?
No, and as others have observed it would seem that Zen was heavily influenced by Taoism.
I'm not so sure that the answer to the question: "Is Mahayana part of early Buddhism" is "no". Scholars, after deciphering the Gandhari scrolls, discovered that there were two different tendencies even in early Buddhism. Part of the Buddha's followers/monks leaned toward certain teachings, while others emphasized other groups of teachings. It's fascinating, actually. It seems that Mahayana seeds were being sewn and percolating in the Buddha's communities even while he was still alive. Perhaps with more time and study of the documents, scholars will be able to tell us more about this process of differentiation of the teachings.
So was the Heart Sutra made up and not directly taught by the Buddha? if it was made up and if it is correct from ultimate reality perspective, then why there is no Sutta in which Buddha referred to the content which is mentioned in Heart Sutra? or if there is any Sutta which says that Buddha taught in any Sutta that there is no path which leads to enlightenment, or every moment both Samsara and Nirvana are available - then can somebody please refer some URL for that Sutta? thanks in advance.
I just read about it a little, OP. There's a long version and a short version, and there are a variety of translations of those, so there's no "official" version. Also, from what I understand, it is derived from the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.
Yes, some ideas were developed, for example anatta becoming sunyata. But the notion of a "True Self" are not found in early Buddhism.
Is Mahayana (or Zen) part of early Buddhism?
No, and as others have observed it would seem that Zen was heavily influenced by Taoism.
I'm not so sure that the answer to the question: "Is Mahayana part of early Buddhism" is "no". Scholars, after deciphering the Gandhari scrolls, discovered that there were two different tendencies even in early Buddhism. Part of the Buddha's followers/monks leaned toward certain teachings, while others emphasized other groups of teachings. It's fascinating, actually. It seems that Mahayana seeds were being sewn and percolating in the Buddha's communities even while he was still alive. Perhaps with more time and study of the documents, scholars will be able to tell us more about this process of differentiation of the teachings.
I think you could trace back the origins of Mahayana to the early period. But Zen came much later, via China.
Comments
"Windmills of your Mind" (Noel Harrison, 'The Thomas Crown Affair')
So where does volition/intention fit into this sutta?
I guess the intention is to practice mindfulness.
This is one of the many suttas where the Buddha is saying "That is how you should train yourself."
I believe this is saying to train yourself in everyday life practice. Not just meditation practice alone.
In meditation practice, this means to be mindful of everything and not be swayed or latch on to it. A thought is just a thought, not to add or create stories because of that thought for example.
In everyday life practice we should try to do the same. See everything for what they are; wholesome, unwholesome, pleasant, and unpleasant. Try not to be swayed into greed, hate, or delusions from what is seen, heard, or thought etc.
Absolutely, it's the practice of bare attention both on and off the cushion.
I'm not so sure that the answer to the question: "Is Mahayana part of early Buddhism" is "no". Scholars, after deciphering the Gandhari scrolls, discovered that there were two different tendencies even in early Buddhism. Part of the Buddha's followers/monks leaned toward certain teachings, while others emphasized other groups of teachings. It's fascinating, actually. It seems that Mahayana seeds were being sewn and percolating in the Buddha's communities even while he was still alive. Perhaps with more time and study of the documents, scholars will be able to tell us more about this process of differentiation of the teachings.
So was the Heart Sutra made up and not directly taught by the Buddha? if it was made up and if it is correct from ultimate reality perspective, then why there is no Sutta in which Buddha referred to the content which is mentioned in Heart Sutra? or if there is any Sutta which says that Buddha taught in any Sutta that there is no path which leads to enlightenment, or every moment both Samsara and Nirvana are available - then can somebody please refer some URL for that Sutta? thanks in advance.
I just read about it a little, OP. There's a long version and a short version, and there are a variety of translations of those, so there's no "official" version. Also, from what I understand, it is derived from the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra.
Here is Thich Nhat Hanh's translation, which seems a bit more accessable, i.e. understandable, to me.
http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/
I think you could trace back the origins of Mahayana to the early period. But Zen came much later, via China.