Buddhist school lineage, correct?

[DT Strain]

Greetings everyone,

I've been reading a textbook I have on the history of religion, as well as a number of Buddhist websites, this site, and Wikipedia articles, trying to understand the historic relationships between the various Buddhist schools.

I made a chart and posted it on my blog. My hope is that more knowledgeable folks here could go to the page and tell me if my chart is accurate or if it needs revision. Here is the link...

http://dtstrainphilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/possible-buddhist-school-lineage.html

Many thanks for any assistance you could offer!

 

[samabudhi]

"Mahasamghaka" should read "Mahasanghika" as in Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. The three refuges.

Tibetan Buddhism is the Vajrayana, but not necessarily the other way. (Newari Buddhism in Nepal is also Vajrayana) Either way, both consider themselves Mahayana.

What you're trying to do is exceedingly difficult and there is still not yet a concensus on the relationship between early schools of Buddhism, but good luck anyway.

 

[DT Strain]

Ah, that clears up a lot for me, thanks Samabudhi. So, I'll place Vajrayana as coming off from Mahayana. Then I'll place Tibetan as coming off of Vajrayana.

By the way, does this mean that "Tantric" is also the same, and another name for Tibetan/Vajrayana?

Also, where does Vietnamese Buddhism fall? I'm thinking it would be a combination of Theravada and Mayahana.

I probably won't put Newari on the chart, but if I did, it would also spring off of Vajrayana as Tibetan does.

I've seen the "Mahasanghika" spelling before, but what I read said that "Mahasamghaka" was also a correct way to spell it. If the one you suggest is more common, then I'll change that too.

I'm thinking I might add Pure Land and Cha'an (springing off from Mahayana?) and then Zen springing off from Cha'an. But I'm not sure if this is correct.

Thanks again!

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste DT Strain,

thank you for the post.

Ah, that clears up a lot for me, thanks Samabudhi. So, I'll place Vajrayana as coming off from Mahayana. Then I'll place Tibetan as coming off of Vajrayana.

the Vajrayana teachings are found in three different cultural regions, Tibet, Korea and Japan.

By the way, does this mean that "Tantric" is also the same, and another name for Tibetan/Vajrayana?

Vajrayana Buddhism contains both the Sutrayana and the Tantrayana paths.

Also, where does Vietnamese Buddhism fall? I'm thinking it would be a combination of Theravada and Mayahana.

generally speaking they are a Hinayana Vehicle, typically Theravedan. Thich Naht Hanh is a well regarded proponent of their style of Buddhism.

I'm thinking I might add Pure Land and Cha'an (springing off from Mahayana?) and then Zen springing off from Cha'an. But I'm not sure if this is correct.

Thanks again!

Pure Land, Ch'an, Zen, T'ien T'ai and so forth are all Mahayana schools. in terms of, say, the spreading, Ch'an is the projenitor of the Zen schools.

metta,

~v

 

[DT Strain]

Thanks to this and other input, I've updated my chart. Hopefully this is closer to reality than the last version. But please feel free to critique further!

http://dtstrainphilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/possible-buddhist-school-lineage.html

 

[kuranes]

Where does Nagarjuna fit into all this ?

Namaste DT Strain,

thank you for the post.





Pure Land, Ch'an, Zen, T'ien T'ai and so forth are all Mahayana schools. in terms of, say, the spreading, Ch'an is the projenitor of the Zen schools.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Where does Nagarjuna fit into all this ?

Namaste Kuranes,

thank you for the post.

Nagarjuna was one of the Abbots of the Nalanda University which was a Mahayana oriented school.

the writings of the Nalanda Masters, as they are known, are the principle texts which have been transmitted to Tibet and form the basis of the Sutrayana path.

however, in my view, the most clear demarkaction of the differences between the various Buddhist views is found in their philosophical stance. in this case, Nagarjuna is the founder of the Madhyamika (Madjyamaka) school, the Middle Way school, which is the principle philosophical view upheld by the Tibetan Vajrayana school.

metta,

~v

 

[kuranes]

Namaste Vajradhara -

( Hopefully I got the greeting correct - I am new to this )

I studied a little Buddhism in college after having become interested through what are most likely considered "pop" Buddhism introductions, a la Alan Watts and Hesse's "Siddhartha". I also enjoyed Joseph Chilton Pierce. In my class the teacher told us of Nagarjuna, and it resonated with me. In later years, I would encounter friends trying to get me interested in NSA, and I tried to keep an open mind to it, but it almost seemed like we were talking about something that couldn't even be called Buddhism, of the sort I had studied in college. But the big shots told me that it was based on the "Diamond Sutra" etc. and was legitimate. I didn't pursue it further in that form.

Of course there are many different forms of Christinaity too, differing wildly from one another. I wonder what the exttreme ranges of Buddhism would be.

Back to "pop" Buddhism. I really enjoyed those "Alan Watts" days. What schools of Buddhism are associated with views of that sort, or would you characterize him as more into Taoism ?

Some people of more recent interest are Jean Gebser, and those who have followed him like Ken Wilber. Parts of Buddhism are conflated within some of their writings, it seems (IMO ), and I wondered if you had any thoughts on that as well.

 

[samabudhi]

Alan Watts is Zen. Zen is the Japanese for the Chinese Ch'an Buddhism which itself is a union of Taoist and Buddhist thought.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste kuranes,

thank you for the post... yes, you got it correct

I studied a little Buddhism in college after having become interested through what are most likely considered "pop" Buddhism introductions, a la Alan Watts and Hesse's "Siddhartha".

that would be a fair assesment of these two writers. they are, in a manner of speaking, like the science popularizers that are interpeting lots of information and distilling it into something which is, in its essence, correct, but in its formulations, often somewhat... incomplete, in my view.

I also enjoyed Joseph Chilton Pierce.

i've not heard of this writer before, did you find the writing style to be enjoyable?

In my class the teacher told us of Nagarjuna, and it resonated with me. In later years, I would encounter friends trying to get me interested in NSA, and I tried to keep an open mind to it, but it almost seemed like we were talking about something that couldn't even be called Buddhism, of the sort I had studied in college.

NSA?

But the big shots told me that it was based on the "Diamond Sutra" etc. and was legitimate. I didn't pursue it further in that form.

the Diamond Sutra is part of the Mahayana Sutras so it is quite possible that a Theravedan Buddhist wouldn't place much stock in it. it can be difficult to say which is which without knowing which views that a being holds.

Of course there are many different forms of Christinaity too, differing wildly from one another. I wonder what the exttreme ranges of Buddhism would be.

it's hard to say... my view is, of course, my view... as such, i view the Nichiren group as a rather extreme form of Buddhist practice, which i also happen to disagree with based on some of their assertions and what they teach.

Back to "pop" Buddhism. I really enjoyed those "Alan Watts" days. What schools of Buddhism are associated with views of that sort, or would you characterize him as more into Taoism ?

as Samabudhi indicated, Alan most wrote of Zen and it's practices and so forth. to be frank with you, i do not know if Alan was even aware of the formal Buddhist philosophical schools that are operative, i've not seen any of his writings acknowledge them directly.

Zen is a school in the Mahayana Vehicle of Buddhism...

to use some Christian terminology, Buddhism has three main schools of thought, which we call Vehicles... in my analogy it looks something like this:

Christian view Buddhist View

Orthodox Theravedan (Hinyana)

Catholic Mahanaya (many schools)

Protestant Vajrayana (several schools)

Some people of more recent interest are Jean Gebser, and those who have followed him like Ken Wilber. Parts of Buddhism are conflated within some of their writings, it seems (IMO ), and I wondered if you had any thoughts on that as well.

i do not know who those two authors are... though i've heard the name Ken Wilber previously... i do not recall the context where i saw it... maybe science?

metta,

~v

 

[kuranes]

Namaste Vajradhara - and Samabudhi too !

JC Pierce was interesting. I read his first book "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" and the sequel. Haven't read any others, some of which are about raising children. In his first book, he mentioned experiences with his autistic child.

Jean Gebser's book is called "The Ever Present Origin". He divides humankind/history up into different stages, and looks at how our conceptions of time/space etc. influenced art and science etc. differently in each age. Ken Wilber borrowed from Gebser heavily, and then later discarded his models.

I agree with you that people like Watts take pieces from a variety of things and attempt to synthesize them. He definitely borrowed from Zen ( agreed ) but I think there are other elements of Buddhism in there, too. It seems to me that at the time I recognized the Madhyamika influence as well.

Some of Watts' books were more meaningful to me than others. Aside from that, some were more tilted towards Eastern philosophy than others, also.

This will be my second internet forum. I am sometimes scolded for "getting off topic" on the other. By introducing all of these different people into my questions/statements, have I broken any rules here ?

I assume from your name you are inclined to the Vajrayana teachings. My understanding of the Hinayana vs. Mahayana was that Mahayana was more interested in bringing enlightenment to others after achieving it, where Hinayana was focused on enlightening oneself only. Since the definition of "self" can be viewed differently in the Buddhist world than elsewhere, I wonder at the meaning of this. It would be interesting to learn more about the third school, Vajrayana, also, and its distinctions.

Metta

Kuranes

 

[samabudhi]

Howdy

Since the definition of "self" can be viewed differently in the Buddhist world than elsewhere, I wonder at the meaning of this.

No self, no other, yet everything manifests.
If you are suffering, thus unenlightened and ignorant, it is taken that you are focused on your own happiness anyway. This IS why you're suffering - since you see a distinction. Distinction being the play of the mind, the clouds in the sky.

(my use of the word distinction has nothing to do with your last part about the distinctions of the Vajrayana. well...almost nothing.)

 

[iBrian]

Thread seems on topic - welcome to CR, kuranes.

 

[Pathless]

Alan Watts... . I may be a bit biased, but if Alan Watts is a popularizer of Buddhism in the west, I see him as a popularizer in the way that Bodhidharma was for Buddhism in China. As others have said, Watts distilled the essence of Buddhism and made it palpatable and understandable to westerners in their own language or paradigm.

Cha'an, or Zen Buddhism (I had not heard, before this thread, that these were two distinct schools, just a Japanese and a Chinese pronounciation of the same word or concept), was transferred or translated from India to China, then Japan (?), by a process of refininement and distillation; and through that process, the essence of Buddhism became more accessible for the Chinese mind. I believe that Buddhism in the west must go through--and is going through--a parallel process. One difference in the current growth of Buddhism is that the Middle Way is more developed and various in its expressions than it was at the time of Bodhidharma. Perhaps this may complicate the process, and challenge us as a culture to agree upon what Buddhism is for us, but I believe that we are well along our way in that process.

Alan Watts was a holy fool at the forefront of the effort to bring the Buddha dharma, in a profound yet simple and accesible form, to the west. In my view, to merely confine him to the footnotes as a popularizer does not work. He is a key figure in the "lineage" of Buddhism as it comes to the west.

http://www.alanwatts.com/
http://deoxy.org/watts.htm
http://www.alanwatts.net/

 

[Devadatta]

that would be a fair assesment of these two writers. they are, in a manner of speaking, like the science popularizers that are interpeting lots of information and distilling it into something which is, in its essence, correct, but in its formulations, often somewhat... incomplete, in my view.

I'd agree that Alan Watts is more comparable to an Isaac Asimov than to a Herman Hesse. He was a gifted writer and clear explicator of the traditions on a conceptual level. What was lacking, I think, was not necessarially depth of understanding but too little emphasis on actual practice. But like Pathless, I don't think Mr. Watts can be easily dismissed as a mere popularizer. Certainly, we can find deeper encounters with dharma, but I think sometimes we mistake clarity of exposition with superficiality of thought.

to use some Christian terminology, Buddhism has three main schools of thought, which we call Vehicles... in my analogy it looks something like this:

Christian view Buddhist View

Orthodox Theravedan (Hinyana)

Catholic Mahanaya (many schools)

Protestant Vajrayana (several schools).

That's not a bad way of slicing the pie.

 

[Devadatta]

I assume from your name you are inclined to the Vajrayana teachings. My understanding of the Hinayana vs. Mahayana was that Mahayana was more interested in bringing enlightenment to others after achieving it, where Hinayana was focused on enlightening oneself only. Since the definition of "self" can be viewed differently in the Buddhist world than elsewhere, I wonder at the meaning of this.

This is only my personal take, claiming no other sanction, but I've always felt that the view often expressed that the difference between the lesser & greater vehicles is that between the selfish path of the arahant and the compassionate path of the bodhisattva perhaps dislocates us a little from what is really going on, and for a few reasons.

First, the bodhisattva path was there from the beginning. Second, the term hinayana itself it too easily confused with sects of Buddhism, like the Theravadins, who in their practice stick to the earliest discourses, as recorded for example in the Pali Canon.

But third, and most importantly for me, when I look at the texts and their development what I find is a progression from a focus on suffering & escape from suffering to a focus on the nature of enlightenment itself.

So for me the great philosophical, devotional & methodological expansions and the great development of the bodhisattva path we find in the Mahayana arose not because some sects had greater or larger compassion than others - the compassion was always there - but from a deeper exploration & elaboration of enlightenment, or liberation, and what it really means. (Of course I'm leaving out whatever social/economic factors that figured in this; for example, the influence of the laity, other schools of Indian thought, etc.)

To adhere to only the early discourses is not to be selfish, or less compassionate, but is perhaps at worse only to be a little lacking in ambition. And in fact, as I'm sure others will attest to, the early discourses are essential; they form the base of everything that follows; every serious Buddhist must begin with the fact of suffering - sort of like being scared straight.

But your question of how the "self" relates to all this is very much to the point. Considering the interdependent nature of reality, what does an "individual" enlightenment really mean? It was just these kinds of dilemmas that likely fuelled the development of the great thought worlds of the Mahayana.

(Paul Williams in his book, Mahayana Buddhism, points out that idea of delaying one's entry into Nirvana until all sentient beings come with you makes no logical sense; deeper meanings are at play.)

 

[Devadatta]

Howdy

No self, no other, yet everything manifests.
If you are suffering, thus unenlightened and ignorant, it is taken that you are focused on your own happiness anyway. This IS why you're suffering - since you see a distinction. Distinction being the play of the mind, the clouds in the sky.

(my use of the word distinction has nothing to do with your last part about the distinctions of the Vajrayana. well...almost nothing.)

Not bad. Amazing how many different ways there are to summarize the crazy facts of life.