Buddhist Text Debate, then and now

In today’s Buddhist community online, and in person, the same old tired debate persists around the sutras of Mahayana Buddhism: are they historically accurate? are they really teachings of the Buddha? are they really Buddhist?

Occasionally, you’ll see online some Mahayana Buddhist taking a pot-shot at Theravada Buddhism, labeling it imperfect and “Hinayana”,* and sometimes a respected monk in Theravada will take a pot-shot at Mahayana Buddhism for corrupting the true Dharma. Try searching for “Lotus Sutra” and “Theravada Buddhism” on a Buddhist forum, and see what kind of pointless and childish debates come up.

I couldn’t help but laugh when I read Shantideva’s Way of the Bodhisattva, chapter 9, in light of this. Chapter 9 deals with Shantideva’s exposition of the Madhyamaka position in Buddhist philosophy as he engages in imaginary dialogues with other Buddhist schools, and non-Buddhist schools. Of course, you can imagine who wins.

One such “debate” with the Hinayana schools is expressed here (emphases and notes added by translator), but with some interesting twists:

40. [Hinayanist] Liberation comes from understanding the Truths. What is the point of understanding emptiness?

[Madhyamaka] The reasons is that scripture states that there is no Awakening without this path.

41. [Hinayanist] Surely Mahayana scripture is not established!

[Madhyamaka] In what way is your scripture established?

[Hinayanist] Because it is established for both of us.

[Madhyamaka] It was not established for you at first!

Keep in mind this is the 5th century in India, and we’re talking about eminent scholars at Nalanda University there (long since destroyed). Only 1000 years after the Buddha passed away, even they could not agree which texts in Buddhism were authoritative! What’s interesting to me is the last line, which accuses the “Hinayana” schools of not even agreeing on their own texts. Here in 21st century West assume the Pali Canon and/or Agamas are authoritative and passed down from the original teachings of the Buddha. Shantideva seems to hint at some common knowledge among Buddhists at the time that it was not always the case.

In the next lines, Shantideva writes a stern message to the Hinayana crowd:

42. Apply your own criticism for the acceptance of it to Mahayana scripture also. If something is true because accepted by two different parties even texts such as the Vedas would be true.

The Vedas are the original texts in Hinduism, and Buddhism definitely began as a clean break from Vedic religion at the time, as evinced by the Buddha’s frequent debates with people at the time. Hinduism as we know it came much later.

Further he says:

43. If your objection is that Mahayana scripture is controversial, reject your own scripture since it is contested by non-Buddhists, and any part in that scripture contested by your own people and others.

The Buddha’s teachings were pretty controversial in Vedic Indian culture, with its clear reinterpretation of the caste system (caste by virtue/wisdom, not by birth), his cynical view of the Gods, and flat-out denial of a permanent, separate identity (atman or soul). So, Shantideva’s clever argument is that controversy should not be compared to validity.

The entire chapter is a very interesting read, but it’s so fascinating to see how Buddhists long, long ago, argued over the same texts, and to see the variety of arguments that existed then, compared to now. I think Shantideva’s writings throw some interesting ideas into the tired debate going on today, and give me some serious pause in considering my own assumptions about what’s a “valid” or “authoritative” Buddhist text.

Namuamidabu

* – Technically incorrect since Theravada arose from the earlier “Hinayana” schools, just as Mahayana did. They’re both reform movements in a way.