1.3 The Three Refuges - scholars Flashcards
Ellis: which version of the Buddha is most significant in Theravada
historical Buddha - Gautama
Ellis: why the Pali Canon holds such authority and legitimacy in Theravada
believed to contain the uncorrupted original word of the Buddha
Ellis: how useful Buddhist texts within Theravada gain their authority
‘from the extent to which they reflect the truths uttered by the historical Buddha’
Ellis: relationship between symbolic and historical Buddha in Theravada
historic Buddha decides the nature of the symbolic Buddha
Ellis: why the historical Buddha is so important in Theravadin tradition
enlightenment only possible because we were historically showed how by someone physically human, on earth
Ellis: within Theravada, Gautama is ‘the single source of…
…knowledge of enlightenment and the single model of a fully enlightened being’
Ellis: why Gautama Buddha’s significance is less profound in Mahayana
belief that anyone can become a historical Buddha - Gautama (Shakyamuni) was just one instance of many possible ones
Ellis: relationship between symbolic and historical Buddha in Mahayana
symbolic provides model for historical
Ellis: how scriptures gain authority in Mahayana
based on their usefulness
Ellis: Theravada vs Mahayana interpretation of ‘Buddhavacana’
Theravada: the literal definition, ‘the word of the Buddha’
Mahayana: ‘whatever is helpful in leading a being towards enlightenment’
Ellis: how Mahayanist scriptures feature Shakyamuni and what this demonstrates
- in a fantastic mythic setting
- physical setting, form, and historical accuracy of the Buddha are insignificant
Ellis: overview of the Two Bodies doctrine
distinguishes between two kaya (bodies) of the Buddha: the Dharmakaya or ‘truth body’ and Rupakaya or ‘form body’
Ellis: the dharmakaya
truth-body. the ultimate timeless, abstract truth of the potentiality for enlightenment that exists beyond time and space. how enlightened beings view the Buddha
Ellis: the rupakaya according to the Two Bodies doctrine
form-body. the Buddha as a particular form and personality limited in time and space. does not ultimately exist due to anatta
Ellis: why Mahayanists developed the Two Bodies into the Trikaya
two bodies does not distinguish between historical and symbolic Buddhas
Ellis: what the trikaya splits the rupakaya into
- the nirmanakaya (transformation body)
- the sambhogakaya (enjoyment body)
Ellis: the nirmanakaya
the transformation body - the historical, individual Buddha limited in time and space
Ellis: the sambhogakaya
enjoyment body. ‘the Buddha encountered in the Mahayana Sutras’, beyond particular time and space, but still taking particular forms in the imagination
Ellis: how the Yogacara School justifies depicting the Buddha as Sambhogakaya
since everything physical is ultimately an illusion it is preferable to step back from this and create one’s own image of the Buddha which can dissolve back into the mind as opposed to the purely physical idea of Nirmanakaya
Paul Williams: separating the idea of an enlightened Buddha and a God
Enlightened Buddha was once a normal human, is not eternal, and is only superior to us as he ‘knows it how it is’ through own effort
God is eternal being beyond humanity
Gombrich: the relationship between the Buddha and the teachings he gave to earth
did not create the teachings, they are eternal - rather he was the religious genius who possessed the infinite wisdom to ‘realise’ and comprehend them, and the infinite compassion to teach them to the suffering world
