Nobel Peace Prize proposed for Master Cheng Yen

The China Post, December 4, 2009

Taipei, Taiwan — This year’s Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama of the United States, albeit he doesn’t seem to have done anything to contribute to world peace. Well, that may be the reason why a German Nobel laureate on a brief visit to Taipei is planning to nominate Venerable Dharma Master Cheng Yen for that prize next year.

Dr. Harald zur Hausen, director of the German Cancer Research Center at Heidelberg and winner of last year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine, wants to recommend Master Cheng Yen for the peace prize for her compassionate work around the world. She is Taiwan’s equivalent to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who started her Missionaries of Charity that extends love to and takes care of those persons nobody is prepared to look after. She won the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize.

Professor Hausen, who won the prize for his discovery of human papilloma viruses that cause cervical cancer, came to Taipei last Thursday for a lecture tour at the invitation of the Sayling Wen Cultural and Education Foundation. He took time out to visit Hualien, where the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, founded by Master Cheng Yen in 1966, has grown from its original 30 housewives to over five million members in 45 countries over the past 43 years. He was so greatly impressed by Tzu Chi’s contributions to the promotion of social and community services, medical care, education and humanism in Taiwan and around the world that he announced he would nominate her for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

The work Master Cheng Yen has done rivals that of Mother Teresa, whose Society of Missionaries has spread all over the world, including the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. Her followers provide effective help to the poorest of the poor in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. They undertake relief work in the wake of natural catastrophes such as floods, epidemics and famine, as well as for refugees. The order also has houses in North America, Europe and Australia, where shut-ins, alcoholics, homeless and AIDS sufferers are taken care of. Tzu Chi has done all this and even a little more.

Master Cheng Yen has erected a chain of hospitals in Taiwan and elsewhere. A university of medical sciences in Hualien trains thousands of doctors, nurses and technicians. Her foundation has also established a marrow donor and stem cell research center in Taiwan. It manages one of the world’s largest Asian marrow donor and stem cell tissue registries. The Tzu Chi International Medical Association is made up of more than 5,000 medical professionals worldwide who volunteer their expertise and time to provide quality medical services, both in their own communities, whether urban or rural, and worldwide.

Like the Society of Missionaries, Master Cheng Yen’s foundation started from scratch. Its first 30 members were housewives who saved two cents from their grocery money each day to help the poor. She deserves the prize Mother Teresa won 30 years ago.

Source: Buddhist Channel

The basic Doctrines of Mahayana (4)

§ 2. The Second Council

Now the second council took place hundred years after the lifetime (Parinibbana) of the Buddha.
The occasion for the second council was again the disciplinary issues. These issues did not go
away. The first council supposed to settle the disciplinary issues by saying we retain all the
disciplinary rules including the minor ones. The second council was called because the monks
from the Vajjian country were practicing ten breaches of the monastic discipline. They were
guilty of ten breaches. The most important one (among the ten) was handling of gold and silver.
They were guilty of handling gold and silver. The next among the others were quite minor issue,
for example, practice of carrying salt in a hallowed horn. We know even during the lifetime of the Buddha there began to appear relatively settled monastic establishments, for example the
Jetavana monastery that was donated by Anathapindika.

We have the description of the construction of this monastery, of this residence. There were
storerooms in the description of the construction of the monastery. What they did with the storerooms? What they stored in the storerooms, robes, salt, and rice? And yet, hundred years later these monks were charged with the offence of breaking of the monastic rules because they were carrying little bit of salt with them to add into their food. The question of gold and silver it may have been an important question. But there were already a provision during the time of the Buddha, which made it possible for the monastic community to accept gold and silver. It had to be done through a layman acting as an intermediary.

An intermediary would accept gold and silver to buy robes, food and so forth. There was already
that provision. The monks directly accepting gold and silver that was still outlaw. So what has happened today and what would happen for many years? (Acceptance of gold and silver has become not universal but was very wide spread when they say gold and silver, now we can talk about money. What about bank account? Doesn’t that count as gold and silver? Doesn’t that count as money?) So the disciplinary issue that arose at the second council, you might
call them somewhat nick picking.

Theses monks were accused of breaches in the monastic disciplines. The breaches were not extremely serious nonetheless they were censored and criticized at the second council. This is what happened in the second council. This is as far as the official account tells you about the second council. In this level this is a simple matter of imposing monastic discipline. These
monks were found guilty of practicing that infringes the monastic codes and so they were found
guilty. But we all know that the second council did not succeed. It was the occasion for some
kind of schism. Now the traditional reading of the second council is quite, well, I would call
it, oversimplified. As a result it was quite straightforward. The second council blamed and
criticized these monks. So they left the assembly. Most of the junior monks and the lay people
who were the supporters of the dissenters, call themselves Mahāsaṅghikās.

They composed, reformulated their own scriptures/canon and they formed a school which
later became the Mahāyāna. If you look at the most traditional account and most scholarly
traditional treatment of the second council, you will find people stating the origin of the Mahāyāna to the second council. They say there was a schism; the Mahāsaṅghikās emerged from the assembly of the second council. One hand, you have Sthaviras the Elders (Sanskrit – Sthavira, Pali –Thera) and on the other hand you have the Mahāsaṅghikās, the Great Assembly. They went on to become different Sect/different School and they were the progenitors of the Mahāyāna and they were the forefathers of the Mahāyāna.

It seems too simple in the sense that the Mahāsaṅghikās had certain tendencies, which tilted in the Mahāyāna tradition, they had a certain view of the Buddha that came to be incorporated in the Mahāyāna view of the Buddha and they had more liberal view of the monastic discipline which also came to characterize the Mahāyāna. But between the Mahāsaṅghikās and Mahāyāna a lot of other things happened. There were lots of other developments. The origin of the Mahāyāna is not linear. It is not so clear-cut in that sense. I don’t believe that one can say that we have direct development of the Mahāsaṅghikā to the Mahāyāna. For one thing, many followers of the Mahāyāna criticized the Mahāsaṅghikā. Even in the Tibetan tradition(which of course is the Mahāyāna tradition before become the Vajrayāna tradition) they regard the monks who were criticized and censored at the second council as having been in the wrong. They don’t favor the Mahāsaṅghikas.

They don’t take side of thenMahāsaṅghikās in the debate, in the issues that led the course of the
second council. So what extent the Mahāsaṅghikās are the fore founders of the Mahāyāna is
somewhat in question and I repeat that this is the point at which the evolution of the Buddhist
schools became complicated. As I have said, it is still a work in progress; the scholars are still
working on this. (There is a very good set of booklet done by the London Buddhist Vihara which deals with the origin of the Mahāyāna, various schools like Mahāsaṅghikā and Sarvāstivāda etc. and the Mahāyāna Sūtras. I could not trace them in the Internet but I know they exist as I had used them before. So look into those if you come across with them)

2.1. the second council opened the door to the proliferation

Now, I come to the more important point as what the second council did? To this we can attribute the occasion for the schism. What the second council did was it opened the door to the
proliferation. It opened the door to the emergence of many schools of Buddhism. The time
between the second Buddhist council and the time of the third council, which took place during
the time of Ashoka many different sects were emerged. Within this relatively brief period of only
150-200 years we have the emergence of at least 18 different Buddhist schools. By the time of
Ashoka we have in existence at least 18 different schools. So there was an explosion of Buddhist
schools after the second council.

And in that sense the second council was crucial and critical because it opened the way for this proliferation of the Buddhist traditions into many different schools. Now, I want to point out one thing here that it is not an offence in Buddhism to form one’s own school. It is an offence to form one’s own school for selfish purposes, for personal reasons, and for egotistical purposes. Devadatta’s offence was not he wanted to form another school. Devadatta’s offence was he wanted to form another school because he had certain ambition of taking over the Saṅgha. If you form another school in Buddhism because of genuine difference of opinion about doctrine, about discipline, that is not an offence and that is permissible.

So the proliferation of the schools in Buddhism is allowed as long as it is done for sincere reasons, because you have a real, honest difference of opinion with the majority of the community, the community in which you are living. And that point you are expected to
form your own community. But that by itself was not an offence as long as it is based on the basis of sincere and honest opinion. So we have this proliferation of the schools and by
the time of the third council during the time of Ashoka there are at least 18 schools.

§ 3. The Third Council

The story of the third council is interesting for a number of reasons. First of all, the third council
was called because of the instances of the people in the community who believed in the some
form of ‘personality’. These people were eventually come to be called in course of time as
Vātsīputrīyas. They believed in the Personality (Pudgala) that was identical with or different from
Skandha. They were considered to be heretical or semi-heretical. Some account also tell us that
the problem arose because of the infiltration of the non-Buddhist into the Buddhist community
during the time of Ashoka because of the patronage that Ashoka bestowed upon the Buddhist
community. This is one of the problems with the official or the royal patronage. There were lots
of people in the community for wrong reason. In any case, the council was supposed to exclude
those who had the views regarding the Personality, those who clung to the idea of a Personality.
(This whole question of Personality of self and not self and so forth is also very interesting topic. Unfortunately we don’t have enough time to explore them).

At the third council, the debate between the principal parties that participated in the debate was
two schools of the Sthaviravāda or Hīnayāna. One of them was known as Vibhajyavadins, the
Distinctionalists or the Analytical school. The other school was Sarvāstivādins. The council
decided in the favor of the Vibhajyavadins. Ashoka sent out missionaries to take the message of the Vibhajyavadins to foreign lands. Among the missionaries that he sent out was his own son or nephew who took the teachings to Sri Lanka. And this is how the Buddhism in Sri Lanka was established. According to the Vibhajyavada teaching, the school of Sthaviravada or Theravāda, the analytical school became the Theravāda of Sri Lanka. The teaching of the Vibhajyavada was taken by the Ashoka’s missionary became the Theravāda teaching of Sri Lanka.

The council decided that the teachings of the Sarvāstivādins were unorthodox and so the Sarvāstivādins migrated to Kashmir. The Sarvāstivādins became very popular there. They were
very well poised there in Kashmir influencing the newly Buddhist countries in Central Asia-
Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan –the whole newly Buddhist countries of Central Asia. So at the third council the Vibhajyavadins were declared orthodox and they won the debate, so to
speak. But the Sarvāstivāda far from disappearing survived and thrived. They went to Kashmir
and they thrived. It is an interesting observation about the council that no school that was
censored and defeated in the councils was ever disappeared. They all went on to prosper and to
become popular. Ironically, it almost tends to mean that being censored at the council
always added to their popularity. Mahāsaṅghikās were criticized and thrown out at the second
council became very popular school. Sarvāstivāda was criticized in the third council and thrown out became very popular school. In fact the schools, of all the schools, and you will see many schools in the history of Buddhism in India, four schools that survived for thousand of years.

◌ Firstly, the Sthaviravada the Indian equivalent of Theravāda,
◌ secondly, the Mahāsaṅghikā, the dissidents of the second council,
◌ thirdly, the Sarvāstivāda the dissidents or the losers of the third
council and
◌ finally the Vātsīputrīyas-these are the four schools that survived
and prosper at least for thousand years.

Even the Chinese pilgrims during the period of 4th – 7th centuries speak of the existence of these four schools. These are the most important Hīnayāna schools, although the Sarvāstivāda developed Mahāyāna tendencies.

We will continue with what we were doing in the last lecture i.e. the third council during the
period of Ashoka. The principal effect of the third council was first of all the drive of the
Sarvāstivādins to the Northwestern part of India, to Kashmir. That was one effect of the council,
not an intentional effect but an accidental and a natural effect. The other important result was the sending of the missionaries sent by king Ashoka to Sri Lanka. His own son or nephew Mahendra and his (Mahendra) sister Saṅghamitra established Buddhism in Sri Lanka. This is one mission of which we have concrete historical evidence. We have the evidence of the outcome of the mission.

The outcome of the mission sent by king Ashoka was the establishment of Sri Lankan Buddhism from this period. We are told that Ashoka’s mission also went to various directions but we don’t know for certain in what extent these missionaries were effectible? We have gather some information that the missionaries were sent as far Egypt, to the eastern India, to the countries that what now border Thailand and Burma, to Central Asia but we don’t have any definite proof that those missionaries had any notable effect. But we do notice by the beginning of the Christian Era, after few hundred years Buddhism had began influencing extensively particularly Central Asia, the western part of the sub-continent what is now Afghanistan, Iran and the countries of Central Asia like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and so forth.

So we have the mission and we also have the exodus, the migration of the Sarvāstivādins to
Kashmir, which it turned up in the development of Buddhism in India. Then we have the composition for the first time what we might call the polemical phase of Buddhism with the compilation of the text Kathavatthu, which came to be the part of the Theravāda Abhidhamma Pitaka. Kathavatthu contains the discussion and the refutation of the views of the various schools that were censored in the third council. Those were the intricate and complicated discussions of the philosophical views of the various Indian Buddhist schools that developed between the time of the second Buddhist council and the time of the third Buddhist council.

§ 4. The Fourth Council

Next, I am going to talk about the fourth Buddhist council. The fourth Buddhist council took place after quite a bit later, probably at the end of the 1st cen. C.E. To be continued next lecture.

The basic Doctrines of Mahayana (3)

2. The Buddhist Councils

Next the most complicated phases of the evolution of Buddhism are the history of the Buddhist
councils. They are very complicated issues regarding the emergence of the Mahāyāna. Actually
we do not know with a degree of certainty how many councils were held. There were at least
three councils and six being the maximum. We normally talk about four councils. The fourth one
is not recognized by the Ceylonese tradition. At the minimum we can talk about three councils.
We are not going to treat the councils in extensively although I will deal here certain aspects of
the councils, which are relevant with this course.

§ 1. The First Council

The first council (saṃgīti) was held just after the passing away of the Buddha. In the first council
Mahākāśyapa presided over the council, in which Sutta and Vinaya were established through the
efforts of Ānanda and Upāli respectively. I want to say with regard to the first council that a
number of events that may appear to be minor in comparison with the account of the whole
proceeding of the council, but which were significant with the origin of the Mahāyāna and
particularly I am referring to two events.

1.1. The lesser precepts

The first has to do with the precepts, with the disciplinary question – the question about the rules
of discipline. At the first council the question rose whether the community should proceed to
abolish the lesser precepts. You might remember that the Buddha told Ānanda in the last days of
his life that the community might be free to abolish the minor precepts if they saw fit. This
question was raised at the first council. Ānanda came under a series of criticism at the first
council. For example he was criticized for advocating the admission of the women in the Saṅgha.
He was criticized for refusing to give Buddha water and there are other points for which he was
criticized. But the two points which are most significant regarding the origin of Mahāyāna, the
whole question of evolution of Buddhist community.

The first point I want to make is the question regarding the lesser precepts. As the Buddha said
to Ānanda that the Saṅgha might abolish the lesser precept if they saw fit, the question of
abolishing the minor precepts arose. But the difficulty was Ānanda did not ask Buddha which
were the minor precepts. On that basis all the precepts were retained because Ānanda was failed
to ask the Buddha which were the minor precepts. Now let’s just think about that. The Buddha
told everyone to work out their deliverance with diligent. They should be refuges and lamps unto
themselves. The Buddha had put the responsibility for liberation upon the individual followers.
Surely, it would not be so difficult for intelligent and learned monks (in the first council the
participants were all believed to be Arhats) to decide for themselves, which were the lesser
precepts or at least identify some precepts, which were obviously lesser.

Since Ānanda failed to ask the Buddha which were the lesser precepts (and even if Ānanda
asked the Buddha which were the lesser precepts, the Buddha more likely would say, ‘work it
out for yourself’). Mahākāśyapa recommended that all the precepts be retained as they did
not know which were the lesser ones. This is interesting, because, to my knowledge from any Vinaya – Sarvāstivāda or Theravāda, no precepts that ever been dropped by any councils. All the precepts were sustained as they were at the first council. We all know that in practice many of the precepts are not followed today and not have been followed for centuries. But all the precepts were left there written in stone. (Correct me if I am wrong) No precept has ever been abolished even in the Tibetan and Chinese traditions where the monks and nuns follow the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, which is not very different from the Theravāda Vinaya. There, in the cold countries monks eat at night but the precept is still there. Monks wear heavy clothing and shoes but the precept is still there.

There is even a precept that prohibits urinating standing up. How one can follow that in the
Airport lavatory in present time? But the precept is there. No body has said that this precept is
outdated and should be eliminated. So this kind of conservatism regarding most of the
precepts still persists. It is interesting because the question arose already at the first council.
There was another reason, why Ānanda was criticized. It is rather an important point. The Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an entire eon if he so wished and again Ānanda neglected to request the Buddha to live for an entire eon. The Buddha mentioned this for three times but Ānanda who was upset about the fact that the Buddha was dying failed to ask the Buddha to live for an entire eon.

So Ānanda came under the criticism for this also as why did he fail to ask the Buddha to live on for an eon? But that is not the point. What is interesting is that the Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an eon- this is according to the Theravāda source not from the Mahāyāna material. Even in the Theravāda tradition the Buddha told Ānanda that he could live for an entire eon. So what happened to the idea that the Buddha can only live a normal life? There seems to be a loophole here. There seems at least a possibility that the Buddha could live for an entire eon if only Ānanda had happened to ask him to do so. This also, one should admit, appears to be little bit artificial, that the whole future of the world, the length of the Buddha’s life span depended on whether Ānanda asked the Buddha to live for an eon or not? In any case, these things occurred. These are some hints or some glimpses of alternative readings and interpretations.

1.2. Teachings heard by others rather Ānanda

Then there is another interesting thing happened during the first council. Again this is also
recorded in the Theravāda Pali account, not according to the Mahāyāna sources. Towards the
end of the first council when the Arhats were preparing to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya, there
turned up a certain monk named Purana with a large followers. The members of the council said
to Purana, “We just compiled the Sutta and the Vinaya, come and join the assembly to recite with us.” Purana said, “Thank you very much, I deeply appreciate your invitation but I would prefer to remember the teaching of the Buddha as I heard by myself from the Buddha himself.” (Astonishing, no?) This is very interesting. Purana must have had great courage and great
conviction; he turned up towards the end of the council, five hundred Arhats and disciples were
about to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya, they invited him to join, but he said, “no, thank you, I
prefer to remember the teaching of the Buddha as I have heard from the Buddha.”

Now what conclusion you can draw from Purana’s attitude that he refused to join the assembly to recite the Sutta and the Vinaya. The only conclusion one can draw from this that there were other traditions. There were other memories. The memories that were recorded in the first council were not totally inclusive. That was not the only memory, the only version of the
teaching of the Buddha that was existed. There were other versions as you can see with Purana. And if Purana had his version then who is to say there weren’t five, ten, twenty or hundred other
disciples of the Buddha who had their own versions and their own memories.I am not trying to discredit the version of the Dhamma and the Vinaya that we have in the first council. What I am trying to say, there is good reason to believe and there is sufficient reason to believe that this is something only version that existed. And that is just after the lifetime of the Buddha, it is not five years later or hundred years later.

So just after the lifetime of the Buddha there was already people like Purana said, “No, thank you, I have my own version, I have my own memory what the Buddha taught. I prefer to retain that.” It indicates clearly that there were alternative memories and interpretations of what the Buddha taught already in the early phase of Buddhism. You need to remember that we are told that Ānanda had a fantastic memory. He recorded all the teachings of the Buddha. Is this entirely credible? The Buddhists have given the permission by the Buddha to think for themselves. Is it credible that Ānanda heard all the teachings of the Buddha? For example, Ānanda was only the Buddha’s attendant for 20-25 years and the Buddha taught for 45 years. Ānanda wasn’t there for 20 years. So what about those teachings for 20 years when Ānanda wasn’t there? What about the teachings that the Buddha gave to the Gods? We know that the Buddha dedicated the middle part of every night to teach the Gods.

Did Ānanda hear all those teachings? It is not plausible to believe that Ānanda heard every single discourse that the Buddha ever gave. It is for that reason, it is possible that Purana heard something, which Ānanda did not hear. There were other discourses heard by the other
disciples that Ānanda did not hear. And it is more likely that the discourses given to the Gods,
those Ānanda did not hear. So there were other traditions, other memories of the teachings of the Buddha already just after the passing away of the Buddha. These are the two points I wanted to make about the first council.

The basic Doctrines of Mahayana (2)

3.3. The Intellectual Climate within the Buddhist Community

The second point I want to talk about the intellectual climate within the Buddhist community
during the lifetime of the Buddha. Actually, this intellectual climate was not limited to the
Buddhist community. It was common to other communities as well in India during 6th cen. B.C.E. This period was very dynamic time in India. It was the time of great intellectual, social, economic and political changes and upheaval. There were new ideas, new social institutions, new economic classes and new political form of organizations. That was a great time of change. A great time of ferment, a very fertile time so far as the ideas and social institutions and so forth were concerned.But particularly there were three factors or characteristics that were typical to Buddhist community during the lifetime of the Buddha.

3.3.1. The Monastic Discipline: pragmatism and flexibility The first aspect I want to mention is the flexibility of the Buddha with regard to the disciplinary codes, i. e., regarding the rules of the monastic discipline. First of all, it is important to know how the rules for the monks and the nuns were formulated during the time of the Buddha. How the Vinaya rules were formulated
originally. The rules were formulated as an event took place, because something happened and
someone came to the Buddha reporting the incident. So the Buddha formulated the rules. The
Buddha did not sit down and gave a discourse and enumerated the rules but he did it on the ad
hoc basis. As the problem arose, he formulated the rules to deal with that problem to avoid that issue might arise again.

But the other important thing to remember about the disciplinary rules (Vinaya) is that the
Buddha was in fact extremely flexible. If one carefully reads the Vinaya rules either from the
Theravāda canon or otherwise, one can see very clearly that for every rule, more or less there is
an exception except for the very basic rules, i.e. the four downfalls (Parajikas: not to kill, not to
steal, not to commit sexual misconduct and not to claim attainments). Apart from those the other rules are quite flexible. For example, regarding eating, there are strict rules but if one is sick, the rule can be relaxed. Similarly, the Buddha allowed the monks who lived in the far countries to wear sandals, because in the far countries the terrain was rough and not very easy to travel bare footed.

The Buddha’s attitude even with the living out in the open or
living under the trees was flexible. Devadatta, a cousin of the Buddha wanted to make some rules obligatory like no one should eat meat and fish, no one should live in dwellings or no one
should receive cloth for robes and so on. He tried to create a schism in the Order by making the
austere practices compulsory rather than being flexible. The Buddha refused to make these rules
obligatory. His attitude was if anybody wants to follow more rigorous practices, he is free to do.

The Buddha’s own attitude was quite flexible. The Buddha’s attitude was, there were certain core
rules (which one should follow);other rules were formulated according to occasions. Those rules can be moderated. There can be exceptions. That was the attitude towards the disciplinary rules
during the time of the Buddha.

3.3.2. Free enquiry with regard to the matters of teachings

With respect to the doctrines, the Buddha’s attitude was to put the responsibility on the disciples.
He put the responsibility on the members of the community to understand the doctrine to best
of their ability. This attitude is reflected in the Buddha’s method of teaching. Although the
Buddha delivered and expounded doctrines of InterdependentOrigination, the Five Aggregates
and so on but in most cases the Buddha taught through dialogue. The disciples asked question,
the Buddha asked some counter question and step-by-step the Buddha led his disciples to their
understanding of the dharma by means of questions and counter questions. He led his disciples
themselves come step-by-step to the correct understanding of the dharma.

The Buddha never dismissed his disciples by giving his own view rather he led his disciples gradually to a correct understanding of the dharma. So again, it was an interactive method of
teaching. And the method of this teaching allowed the disciples to come themselves to
their own conclusion. The most famous Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65), the instruction to the Kalamas is an example that verifies the fact. Kalama Sutta is sometime slightly misrepresented when one
thinks it allows one to do whatever one wants as long as one thinks it is right. It is not quite
that liberal. In general it does put the burden on the disciple to decide themselves what is truth.

It is one’s responsibility to examine and enquire about the truth in the light of their own experience. The Buddha said not to accept anything, which is not verified by one’s experience, not even the words of the Buddha. The truth must be verified on the basis of one’s own experiences and when one knows such and such thing is true, they are wholesome and they lead to happiness and peace, then they come to the right understanding and to the correct view. The Buddha encouraged his disciples to enquire about the truth and verify the truth by
themselves rather than accepting on the basis of blind faith, authority, hearsay and such other criterion.

3.3.3. Consensus and Democracy with regard to the organization of the
community

Apart from the principle of free enquiry, which was reinforced in the latter part of the Buddha’s
life there were whole questions of the political organization of the Saṅgha- the way the monastic
community was organized. The monastic community was organized on the basis of institutional
democracy. In fact it was not so much democracy, it was consensus, which is even more democratic than democracy. In democracy there is always a defeated minority, but for the
Buddha, democracy was the second best to choose for the monastic organization.

For the early monastic community democracy was an acceptable but not a desirable process. The best process was consensus. The point is, here everyone’s point of view was taken
into consideration. Again there was no authoritarian supreme head. There were always
consultations and discussions. To settle some matter there was always a desire to achieve consensus, that is mutual agreement among the members of the Order. So these are the features that characterize the monastic and to some extent even the lay community during the time of the Buddha. It was a climate in which there was flexibility with regard to the rules of the discipline and there was free enquiry permitted with regard to the doctrine. There was always free exchange of views, free debate, consensus and democracy in the area of the institutional organization.

These are important facts about the early Buddhist community that one should keep in mind.
One need to keep this in mind, because they give us a picture of what they were like? What the
intellectual life was? What the community life was like? It was not a rigid, authoritarian
community. It was not a situation, which was characterized by an authoritarian supremacy. It was a climate in which pragmatism and flexibility with regard to the rules of discipline were
present. There was free enquiry with regard to the matters of teachings, and there were
consensus and democracy with regard to the organization of the community.

3.3.4. The Buddha’s attitude towards the future direction of the Buddhist
community

I like to point out the Buddha’s attitude towards the future direction of the Buddhist community.
There are several important indications are contained in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, which
describes the last days of the Buddha before his passing into Mahāparinibbāna. In this connection we recall the incident, which took place during the last days of the Buddha. The
Buddha told Ananda when asked by the latter that the community (order) is free to abolish the
lesser precepts if the community saw fit. If the community thought it right, they could abolish or
discard the lesser precepts. The Buddha also when asked by the monks(the monastic community) whether he has any instruction or to tell anything further to the community the Buddha said that he had given the Dharma to the Saṅgha and that is sufficient. The Buddha told all the monks, the nuns and the lay people to be lamp unto themselves, to be island unto
themselves, to rely on the teaching, to rely on the dharma.

The Buddha refused to appoint a successor to replace him and be the chief of the Buddhist community. On the other hand he left the responsibility with the community of monks, nuns and lay people. Probably the very last words of the Buddha are most important of all when he asked the community to work out their salvation and deliverance with diligent. Each and every one of the Buddhist community should take responsibility for their own salvation. So right at the end the Buddha told the monks that they should decide about the monastic codes. They should decide about the lesser precepts if they want to abolish them if they saw fit. Regarding the dharma he asked his disciples to be lamp unto them, to be refuge to themselves. He left the Dharma and it is the responsibility of his followers to work out for their salvation with diligence. “You have to do it, you are only responsible.” The responsibility is on the each members of the community. It is up to them to work it out. Of course one can refer to the teachings of the Buddha, one can refer to the masters, but at the end of the day one has to work it out oneself. The Buddha showed the way but one has to tread the path.

And that was the message the Buddha left with the community. He did not try to impose a
precise, narrow and a specific direction on the development and the evolution of the community and the teaching. He left it up to the understanding of the intelligence of his followers. All of these are important because they leave us with an impression of the climate during the
lifetime of the Buddha in the Buddhist community. They leave us with the impression of fluidity, an openness of the tolerance that allowed for further development. Nowadays in the modern
terminology it is called as ‘self empowerment.’ In that sense, the Buddha gave the power and authority to the members of the Saṅgha and the followers of his teachings to work out their own
salvation with diligence and to be lamp unto themselves. They can decide which precept were lesser and necessary to abolish.

So these are some points I wanted to make regarding the climate during the lifetime of the Buddha and they are important element because they help us to explain how is it that we have
such diversity of interpretations of the teachings of the Buddha and how it managed to develop
into different Buddhist schools expounding different interpretations and different traditions
recollecting the life, teachings and the message of the Buddha.

The basic Doctrines of Mahayana (1)

1. The Origin of the Mahāyāna

(Transcribed from Dr. Peter Della Santina’s Lecture to IBC students, 2005)

I want to talk about the origin of the Mahāyāna, because, it is important that we look into theorigin, the beginning, and the root of the Mahāyāna. We don’t necessarily need to classify and
identify Buddhism (or ourselves) as Theravāda, Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna, because Buddhism is a
whole. In fact, Buddhism is an integrated system. One cannot practice the Mahāyāna without
practicing the Theravāda. One cannot practice Vajrayāna without practicing the Mahāyāna and
the Theravāda. So there is really no need for a radical, an absolute division between the Buddhist
traditions. This division or the separation between the various Buddhist traditions unfortunately is the result of historical and geographical circumstances.

If we look back at the Golden Age of Buddhism in India in the 5th-9th centuries, we see that there were great practitioners of the Theravāda, practitioners of the Mahāyāna and the practitioners of the Vajrayāna – they all lived together in the same monastery. Perhaps they had different wings or dormitories but they all lived together side by side. Now in this modern age with modern communication and easier travel, as Buddhists we have opportunity to do that again. We have an opportunity to live side by side and get to know other traditions even though we come from different traditions.

Incidentally, the book you are going to use as a textbook for this course entitled The Tree of
Enlightenment. I chose the title of the book purposely because I saw the image of Buddhism as a
tree with one root, with a trunk, with many branches, leaves, flowers and fruits. But essentially it is one organism; one integrated living organism. So, that is my view when it comes to the various Buddhist traditions.

§ 1. Why should we study Mahāyāna

I want to begin by asking a question which I think you have already asked yourself one way or
another. The first question why study Mahāyāna at all? Why we should take our time to study
Mahāyāna Buddhism? If we are follower of Mahāyāna and if we are born in the Mahāyāna
family, we have (already) an affinity/a connection with Mahāyāna. Then obviously we ought to study Mahāyāna to be able to learn more about Mahāyāna. Even we have no wish to practice Mahāyāna, even we are staunch Theravadins, and there are many reasons why it is important to study Mahāyāna and why we should take the time to study Mahāyāna.

1.1. The enormours literature and intellectual wealth

The reasons are, firstly, because of the vastness and the greatness of the Mahāyāna. When I say
greatness, I don’t need to mean greatness in the sense of quality. I don’t mean Mahāyāna is great while Theravāda is less great. What I mean by great or vast (in the sense) that Mahāyāna is
enormous. It had produced so much literature, so much art, and so many forms of religious
practices – everything from Vajrayāna to Zen, everything from Pure Land to other schools of
Indian practices, the philosophy of Emptiness, the philosophy of Mind Only. It had produced so
much in the way of literary and intellectual wealth that it would be great pity as Buddhists if we
ignore Mahāyāna. It would be like living in a house in one room or two, the house, which has fifty other rooms and not knowing what is there in those 48 or 47 rooms. So if we don’t learn about the Mahāyāna we deny ourselves the great treasure of Buddhist learning, the wealth of Buddhism as a religion, as a culture and as a way of life.

Now, if we look at in quantitative terms, i. e., in numerical terms, it is true that the Theravāda has dominated in the countries of South-east Asia, in the countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Burma etc. but the great populated centers of China, Japan, Korea, Central Asia, Tibet, Mongolia and so forth, they are almost entirely Mahāyāna. So even in terms of numbers, if we ignore Mahāyāna and don’t learn about Mahāyāna (I don’t have any idea as the real figure and as a conservative guess) we ignore at least 50% or more Buddhists of the world.
So for all these reasons, we must study Mahāyāna no matter whatever we feel about Mahāyāna.

There are people who feel Mahāyāna is not authentic. They think Mahāyāna is not the real teachings of the Buddha, but whatever you might feel in your heart of heart, still as a Buddhist
(or as a student of Buddhism) we should study Mahāyāna. We need to know something about
Mahāyāna to have a complete knowledge of Buddhism. Otherwise our knowledge of Buddhism
will be incomplete. Even if we don’t accept the Mahāyāna teaching, we ought to know what
it is. Only then one can have a complete and a comprehensive understanding of Buddhism.
Therefore we should not just deny or ignore the existence of the Mahāyāna (because of some personal feelings about it).

1.2. Mahāyāna is a cultural fact, a part of Buddhism

So that is my point first and foremost that Mahāyāna need to be studied. It need to be understood because it is a cultural fact. It is a part of Buddhism. No body can deny that and it is
an important part of Buddhism. It is an important aspect of Buddhism. So that is the reason it
deserves attention.

§ 2. Study Mahayana with Patience

I say one more thing before I deal with the origin of the Mahāyāna. In Mahāyāna we have the
system of six perfections. One of the six perfections is the perfection of Patience. Patience is a
virtue even in the Theravāda teachings. We all heard about the practice of Patience. What does
the practice of Patience means? It does not only mean not getting angry when somebody abuses
you. It does not only mean not getting upset when electricity goes off or water supply is cut off.
It does not necessarily mean to get upset when the flight gets delayed by an hour and you have
to wait at the Airport to take your flight. Patience also means patience with regard to the
teachings and for those of you coming from the Theravāda background, you are going to hear a
lot of things in this course, which might shock and surprise you. [It will make you think, “I don’t
understand this, this is very strange, what are they talking about?”]

That is when the practice of Patience required. [Just be patient. It will come, slowly, but you
have to be patient.] You cannot get impatient with the teachings. That happens a lot of time when Mahāyāna teaching is given. The people who heard it thought this teaching is too difficult. [“I don’t want to hear this teaching, this teaching frightens me.”] You have to be patient with the
teaching.[don’t loose your temper, don’t get upset, don’t give up, be patient. OK?]

§ 3. The Origin of the Mahāyāna

Now, Let’s begin with the origin of the Mahāyāna. This is an important point which I like to make. One cannot avoid talking about the origin of the Mahāyāna. Of course, one can spend lot of time on this subject. Obviously, I am not going to do that. My purpose here to talk about the basic doctrines of the Mahāyāna, but I need to talk about the origin of the Mahāyāna so that you can appreciate where the Mahāyāna came from.

3.1. Chinese Sources

How did the Mahāyāna originate? What were the roots of the Mahāyāna? This is a very complicated question. Scholars are still working on this subject to complete the picture of the
origin of the Mahāyāna. It is still a work in progress. A lot of information is coming to light from
the Chinese sources. Chinese sources are of a very fertile and very promising area. A lot of
materials have come to light lately as the result of the work of scholars, for example translating
Chinese texts of the Sarvāstivāda School, which is one of the Indian Hīnayāna Schools. They were not available in Sanskrit as they were lost. But they still exist in Chinese. The Chinese sources provide lots of information about the development of schools in India during the formative period of Mahāyāna.

3.2. The first Bodhisattva

Although the question regarding the origin of the Mahāyāna is very complicated and large,
nevertheless it can be answered very simply. The simple answer is that Mahāyāna originated with
the Buddha, the life of the Buddha, and the teaching of the Buddha. You don’t have to go very
far. You don’t have to dig very deeply to find the basic foundation of the Mahāyāna. You don’t
have to look any further than the life, the career and teachings of the Śākyamuni Buddha. Now how is it so? It is so simply because who was the first Bodhisattva that we know? Mahāyāna
explains the Bodhisattva ideals. Who was the first Bodhisattva that all Buddhist know about? Who
was the first Bodhisattva that everybody read about? He is the Buddha Śākyamuni.

The Śākyamuni, before becoming a Buddha, was a Bodhisattva. And what did he practice in his
previous lives? He practiced the Perfections (pāramitā), the career of the Bodhisattva. How an
ordinary living being becomes a Buddha by practicing the Perfections.He becomes a Buddha by
following the Bodhisattva path. And what is the goal of the Bodhisattva path? The goal of the
Bodhisattva path is to become a fully enlightened, a perfectly enlightened Buddha (anuttarāsaṃyak- saṃbodhi). We find the previous life stories of the Śākyamuni in the Jātaka stories. So in the life, the career and in the teachings of the Buddha Śākyamuni we have the basic pattern for the Mahāyāna path, for the Mahāyāna goal and for the Mahāyāna ideal. The ideal, which is to follow in the footsteps of the Buddha, that is to follow the Bodhisattva path. The Mahāyāna ideal is to the practice the perfections for many lifetimes culminating in the attainment of the Buddhahood in order to liberate all living beings. The attainment of the state of Buddhahood for the benefit of all living beings is very sublime and most noble ideal.

This is imbedded and very much obvious even in the Theravāda tradition. If you go to the
monasteries even here in Thailand, what do you find on the walls of the many temples and monasteries? What scenes are shown on the walls of these monasteries? They are the illustrations from the Jātaka stories, which depict the previous lives of the Buddha. So even in the temples of the Theravāda countries of Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia and so forth, you find the stories of the previous lives of the Buddha. You find the Bodhisattva practices, the Bodhisattva career. The Vessantara Jātaka, the story of the last life of the Buddha as a Bodhisattva, before entering Tushita heaven and entering into the world, is the most popular story used to be told in the village temples of Thailand during the Visakha Puja day. Perhaps it is still being practiced.

So one don’t have to go to Tibet or China or look at a special Mahāyāna text or go to a special
Mahāyāna temple to find the basic pattern of the Mahāyāna tradition/the basic teaching of the
Mahāyāna tradition. They are all right there in the life, in the career and in the teachings of the
Buddha Śākyamuni. In fact, it is an important way to begin the Mahāyāna Tradition. Indeed
people look at the career of the Buddha Śākyamuni and they find it very attractive and very noble. The noble and sublime career of the Buddha inspires humanity to follow the excellent path that offers a supreme objective. That is one thing that Buddhism gives us. Incidentally, you must know that the Theravāda accepts the Bodhisattva path, the idea that one can strive to attain Buddhahood. It doesn’t deny that. In that respect Buddhism is very flexible. It offers its followers the highest goal of the religious life. In other religion, like in Christianity, for example, nobody can become Jesus or God. In Buddhism one can become a Buddha if one follows that path, if one awakens that resolve. So that’s the first point I wanted to make.

An open letter to a Christian Friend

After a conversation in which I was challenged rather vehemently to give accounting of the reasons behind the choice I made 16 years ago to begin to study Buddhism, and having left my Christian background and prior belief system behind, I determined that it might be OK if I sat down and wrote the reasons down on a one to one, personal level to try to help my friend and others to understand why I have chosen the spiritual path which has become such a big part of my life. I realize that you are confused by my choice, and that is mostly because you know nothing at all about Buddhism, (excepting perhaps that there was once a man named Buddha who founded a religion). Well, of course it is a lot more than that, and it is a deeply satisfying, deeply spiritual, loving and compassionate faith which is extremely all encompassing.

Nobel Peace Prize proposed for Master Cheng Yen

The China Post, December 4, 2009

Taipei, Taiwan — This year’s Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama of the United States, albeit he doesn’t seem to have done anything to contribute to world peace. Well, that may be the reason why a German Nobel laureate on a brief visit to Taipei is planning to nominate Venerable Dharma Master Cheng Yen for that prize next year.