[Buddha-l] Re: Where does authority for "true" Buddhism come from?

[Benito Carral]

On Friday, January 27, 2006, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

> In  other  words,  in  most  of Buddhist history, the
> attitude  you are manifesting is quite rare. It is an
> example  of what Gregory Schopen calls the Protestant
> tendency in Western Buddhist studies [...]

   I'm not going to bother to explain again my point of
view   to   you.   If   you   like  to  preach  sermons
mischaracterizing others's views, that's fine for me. I
have some other things to do. But just as an example of
your missing the true:

> Nowhere,  except the infamous Lotus Sutra, do we find
> any suggestion that agama/nikaya works are inferior.

           Doctrinal  classification  (_pan-chiao_) has
           often  been  said  to  be  the  hallmark  of
           Chinese     Buddhism.     [...]    Doctrinal
           classification  is  one of the most striking
           features  of Chinese Buddhist scholasticism,
           and  it is impossible to understand medieval
           Chinese  Buddhist  scholars  thought without
           understanding p'an-chiao. [...] (p. 94)

              Sometime  around  the  beginning  of  the
           common  era,  an  althogether  new  Buddhist
           movement, calling itself the "Mahaayaana" or
           great  vehicle,  began  to  proclaim its own
           message  in  a  variety  of  new  scriptures
           claiming   to  have  been  preached  by  the
           Buddha.  One  of  the  primary hermeneutical
           strategies  by  which  this  nascent form of
           Buddhism  asserted  its  supremacy  over the
           earlier  organized  forms  of  religion,  to
           which  it  gave  the  pejorative  appelation
           "Hiinayaana" or "lesser vehicle," lay in its
           use  of  the  doctrine  of  expedient means.
           [...] (p. 97)

              In the hands of those who proclaimed this
           new  form of Buddhism, however, the doctrine
           of  expedient  means  took  on revolutionary
           significance.  It  combined  within itself a
           double  function.  On  the  one hand, it was
           used to relegate the earlier teachings to an
           inferior  status  and  thereby furthered the
           sectarian ends of Mahaayaana in establishing
           its  superiority as the ultimate teaching of
           the Buddha. [...] (p. 98)

              Although    Fa-tsang   frequently   cites
           Chih-yen's    authority    throughout    his
           _Treatise  on  the  Five Teachings (Wu-chiao
           chang),_   his  fivefold  classification  of
           Buddhist teachings clearly marks a departure
           from  the  central  emphases  of  Chih-yen's
           p'an-chiao.  Even  though Fa-tsang takes the
           names  of his five categories from Chih-yen,
           their arrangement and content are different.
           As   discussed   previously,   the  form  of
           Chih-yen's   different   versions   of   the
           different  vehicles  (or  teachings)  varies
           according to context. By contrast, the names
           and  arrangement  of  the  five teachings in
           Fa-tsang's  p'an-chiao  are  fixed  and used
           consistenly  throught  his  oeuvre. Fa-tsang
           this  gives his fivefold scheme a prominence
           that  it  never  had  in Chih-yen's writing.
           Indeed, p'an-chiao plays a much more central
           role  in Fa-tsang's thought than it ever did
           in  Chih-yen's.  Whereas  Chih-yen  had used
           p'an-chiao   as   a   hermeneutica  tool  to
           organize  a  series  of  complex  scholastic
           issues,   Fa-tsang  uses  it  as  the  major
           framework   in   which  to  develop  Hua-yen
           thought   systematically.   Fa-tsang's  most
           famous    work,   best   known   under   its
           abbreviated  title  of  the _Treatise on the
           Five  Teachings,_  underlines the importance
           of   the   five   teachings   as  his  major
           p'an-chiao  in  his thought.
              The    major    shift   from   Chih-yen's
           p'an-chiao   can   be   seen  in  Fa-tsang's
           understanding   of   the   fifth  and  final
           teaching   and  his  classification  of  the
           _Hua-yen Suutra_ as belonging exclusively to
           it. (pp. 127-128)

           (Peter  N. Gregory (1991), _Tsung-mi and the
           Sinification  of Buddhism) [I have used this
           book  because  it's one of my favourite ones
           and happened to be on my desk.]

   Best wishes,

   Beni