On Ecumenicalism.

While reading through the introduction to a treatise on the paramis, translated by Bodhi (wheel 409), I was struck once again by the utter and irrefutable compatibility of mahayana and theravada. I'll admit that I'm at a loss to explain why I find the theravada canon preferable to the Bodhisattayana. A personal thing, I suppose. I'll admit my background in literature, that is, interest in textual criticism, philology and such has, in all probability, shaded my opinion in this matter. Though it is as a result of that ability to examine things that I've come to my current ecumenical conclusion.



So, what can we say, in an objective sense, that is, factual, without regard for doctrinal concerns, about the sutras? The oldest known copies are in Chinese. That being said, the Pali canon is, shockingly enough, in Pali (sometimes identified as "Old Maghadan"), a language that hasn't ever technically existed in a 'natural' form. It is something of a hybrid combination of later local dialects given a few revisions for clarity and uniformity. Think Italian before and after Dante fashioned into a regular language for the sake of his poetry.

The transmission of the texts, after teaching is nothing unusual. The nagas guarded the mahayana sutras before giving them to humanity. This is a precedent set in the pali canon with the abhidhamma. it was taught in the Tusita heaven before being given to Sariputta.

We can also point out that their doctrinal focus isn't contradictory, merely one of emphasis. Sunayata? An immediate and visible logical extension of emptiness: if the world is to be viewed as empty of a self as spoken by the Buddha in SN 22.59 and Snp 1116-1119[*1], because it is a fact of existence[*2], and if these facts apply equal to all existants for the period of their actuality, then all things can be said to be devoid in that sense of a self.

Then there is the reason for the doctrinal emphasis of the mahayana: the bodhisatva path. The groundwork for this is laid in the pali canon. The jatakas, as large as a nikaya themselves, are a compilation of past lives of the Buddha while he was still on the path to enlightenment. The paramis get an entire book as does a history of the previous Buddhas.

The path to supreme enlightenment must hypothetically speaking be open to anyone just as anyone can take refuge and follow the arahat's path. The precedent even exists in the Pali Canon with the example of the Buddha himself when he refused to take enlightenment under the buddha Dipankara to instead continue on to supreme enlightenment[*3].
Last, the mahayana recommends meditation, a practice frequently encouraged in the canon, to lay-followers, something not of widespread practice in theravada countries.

The Bodhisattva path, though not a path for everyone, isn't in opposition to theravada. Theravada is not in opposition to mahayana.

Just as a man, walking up steps, gradually climbs to the top of a mountain to the monastery, so it is exactly a graduated path in Buddhism. There are three classes of Buddhas. The arahant, the paccekabuddha, and the sammasambuddha. All are mentioned in the pali canon, though some more frequently than others. The arahants, of course, are always with the Buddha, and the Pali Canon, by its own admission, comes through the transmission of such. There are the silent Buddhas. I can only think of MN 116 off the top of my head. Then there is of course, the Blessed One, the fully self-enlightened one. Recall the Buddha's exhortation to Vakkali, "He who sees Dhamma, sees me." The implication, to me, at least, is clear: the objective moral laws of the universe dictate the potentiality for the arising of Buddhas. When that happens and how is subject to karma, but you get the idea.

One last thing, a personal aside, but I've always wondered if the mahayana path doesn't frequently culminate with the appearance of the paccekabuddhas. They are needed most in those periods of time when knowledge and sight of the far shore has all but vanished[*4].

Just a few thoughts on the matter for us to keep in mind if we need to.

May all beings be happy and free from suffering.

*1, Mogharaja's question. ATI has it as v.15, but my trans by KRN gives it as 5.16
*2, SN 22.45, SN 22.7-9, emptiness is also mentioned 7x in mn, 4x in sn, 8x in an, and many times in snp of kn. see note 1
*3, Bv II
*4, Remember, in MN 41 as elsewhere, one of the wrong kinds of view is that Buddhas do not exist, not just in our time, but in all places and in all eons.