Edward Conze was a Mahayaṃa scholar, and translated the Mahayaṃa Prajnapāramitā or Perfection of Wisdom sutras from original Sanskrit to English. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Conze
(It must be noted that any Sanskrit suttā are Mahayaṃa suttā that were composed by Mahayaṃa philosophers like Nagarjuna (who were just intellectuals, and not Arahants) and are NOT original suttā delivered by the Buddha).
Conze was impressed with those Mahayaṃa suttā, and in the book, “On Indian Mahayaṃa Buddhism” (1968) he compiled works of the Mahayaṃa/Zen scholar D. T. Suzuki. Even though his bias towards Mahayaṃa suttā are clear, I selected his timeline which clearly shows how Mahayaṃa scholars wrote their own suttā and tried later to attribute those to the Buddha.
This historical timeline is discussed in detail by Edward Conze in his book, “A Short History of Buddhism” (1980). According to Conze, the history of Buddhism can be conveniently divided into four periods:
- The old Buddhism, which largely coincided with what later came to be known as Theravada
- Rise of Mahayaṃa,
- Rise of the Tantra (Vajryana) and Ch’an (Zen),
- No further divisions.
The first period is roughly 500 years; second and third periods roughly cover the first thousand years of the current era (CE); the last thousand years can be considered as the fourth period. During this whole period the Theravada Dhamma was kept mostly intact. In the following description, it is also clear some of the differences between the original teachings and the Mahayaṃa ideology.
In the following I will present this story verbatim as told by Conze (starting at p. 45 of his book):
“……About 100 BCE (roughly 400 years after the Buddha’s Parinibbana) a number of Buddhists in India felt that the existing statements of the doctrine had become stale and useless. In the conviction that Dhamma required ever new re-formulations so as to meet the needs of new ages, new populations and new social circumstances, they set out to produce new literature which ultimately came to known as Mahayaṃa Buddhism. The creation of this literature is one of the most significant outbursts of creative energy known to human history and it was sustained for about four to five centuries. Repetition alone, they believed, cannot sustain a living religion. Unless counterbalanced by constant innovation, it will become fossilized and lose its life-giving qualities, they believed.
So far the Mahayaṃistic attitude seems quite logical. What is more difficult to understand is that they insisted in presenting the new writings, manifestly composed centuries after the Buddha’s Parinibbana, as the very words of the Buddha himself. They followed the Mahasanghikas in minimizing the importance of the historical Gautama Buddha, whom they replaced by the Buddha who is the embodiment of Dhamma (dharmakaya). In the “Lotus of the Good Law”, we are told that the Buddha, far from having reached his enlightenment at Bodhgaya, abides for aeons and aeons, from eternity to eternity, and that He preaches the Law at all times in countless places and innumerable disguises.
……..Not content with this, the Mahayaṃists tried to link their own writings with the historical Buddha by a number of mythological fictions. They asserted that they had been preached by the Buddha in the course of his life on Earth, that parallel to the (First Buddhist) Council at Rajagaha, which codified the Suttas of the Theravada, the Mahayaṃa suttā had been codified by an assembly of Bodhisattvas on the mythical mountain of Vimalasvabhava; that the texts had been miraculously preserved for five centuries and stored away in the subterranean palaces of the Nagas, or with the king of the Gandharvas, or the king of the Gods. Then, as Nagarjuna puts it, “five hundred years after the Buddha’s Nirvana, when the Good Law, after having gradually declined, was in great danger”, these treasures from the past were unearthed, revealed and made known, so as to revivify the doctrine.
What then were the main doctrinal innovations of the Mahayaṃa? They can be summarized under five headings:
1. As concerns the goal there is a shift from the Arhat-ideal to the Bodhisattva-ideal;
2. A new way of salvation is worked out, in which compassion ranks equal with wisdom, and which is marked by the gradual advance through six “perfections” (pāramitā);
3. Faith is given a new range by being provided with a new pantheon of deities, or rather of persons more than divine;
4. “Skill in means” (upayakausalya), an entirely new virtue, becomes essential to the saint, and is placed even above wisdom, the highest virtue so far;
5. A coherent ontological doctrine is worked out, dealing with such items as “Emptiness”, “Suchness”, etc”.
We will now consider these one by one.
1. The goal of Arhantship is now relegated to the second place. The Mahayaṃists strive to to be a “Bodhisattva”. A Bodhisattva is distinguished by three features: (a) In his essential being he is actuated by the desire to win the full enlightenment of a Buddha, (b) He is dominated by two forces, in equal proportion, i.e., by compassion and wisdom. From compassion he selflessly postpones his entrance into the bliss of Nirvana so as to help suffering creatures,…….. (c) Although intent on ultimate purity, a Bodhisattva remains in touch with ordinary people by having the same passions they have. His passions, however, do not either affect or pollute his mind.
2. A Bodhisattva’s compassion is called “great”, because it is boundless and makes no distinctions….. This enlightenment does not automatically entail the desire to assist others. Among the enlightened they distinguish three types, two of them “selfish”, one “unselfish”. The “selfish” types are Arhants and Pratyekabuddhas, who are said to represent the idea of the Hinayaṃa, of the “inferior vehicle”. The “unselfish” ones are the Buddhas, and the pursuit of the unselfish quest for enlightenment on the part of a Bodhisattva is called the “Buddha-vehicle”, of the “Great Vehicle” (mahā-yana).
A Bodhisattva must be a patient man. He wants to become a Buddha, but his distance from the transcendental perfection of a supreme Buddha, who both knows and is everything, will obviously be infinte. In one life it could not possibly be traversed. Countless lives would be needed and a Bodhisattva must be prepared to wait for aeons and aeons before he can reach his goal. Yet, he is separated from the Buddhahood only by one single obstacle, i.e., his belief in a personal self. To get rid of himself is the Bodhisattva’s supreme task. By two kinds of measures he tries to remove himself – actively by self-sacrifice and selfless service, cognitively by insight into the objective non-existence of a self. The first is due to compassion, the second to wisdom.
The unity of compassion and wisdom is acted out by the six “perfections”, or “pāramitā”, the six “methods by which we go to the Beyond”. A person turns into a Bodhisattva when he first resolves to win full enlightenment for the benefit of all beings. The six are: the perfections of giving, morality, patience, vigor, meditation, and wisdom”.
This ends the quotation from Edward Conze’s book. (I have not added or edited anything other than to skip some text in order to make it concise).
I agree with Conze’s analysis except for the statement in the very first paragraph: “The creation of this literature is one of the most significant outbursts of creative energy known to human history and it was sustained for about four to five centuries.” This literature, even though voluminous, only made a simple theory much more seemingly confusing, and contradictory. We will discuss this in a follow-up post. The only fortunate thing about is that it is written entirely in Sanskrit, and thus is easy to distinguish from the original teachings written in Pāli Tipiṭaka.
In addition to the “improvements” that were added in India, further material associated with national customs were added when Mahayaṃa Buddhism spread to China, Japan, and Tibet (and came to known by different names such Zen, Vajrayaṃa, etc.).
So, the premise of the Mahayaṃa re-formulation of the Buddha Dhamma was to “refine and improve” the Dhamma of the Buddha. This is in sharp contradiction with one of the most fundamental concepts in Dhamma that only a Buddha can discover these laws of nature and BY DEFINITION, it is not possible to improve upon them. They themselves admit that a Buddha appears in the world after long times, and thus their attempt to change Buddha Dhamma is one of the basic contradictions in Mahayaṃa.
What we need to understand is the basic difference between Buddha Dhamma and any other human endeavor: All other human endeavors involve cumulative effort of many, whether it is science, philosophy, engineering, etc.; see, “Dhamma and Science – Introduction“. And all those efforts are made within the system, using the knowledge acquired by the experience within the system; see, “Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem“. A Buddha transcends the human realm, and discovers the “whole existence” of the 31 realms; see, “The Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“. The Mahayaṃists took that world view, which is not accessible to normal human beings but only to a Buddha, and then added their own theories that only complicates that “already seemingly esoteric” picture. This is why there are so many apparent contradictions in “Buddhism” today. Adding more “pluff”, which is wrong anyway by definition, only distorts the correct picture. My goal here is to provide a consistent picture using the accepted scientific methods.
Next, “Background on the Current Revival of Buddha Dhamma“, …………