Thanks, both interesting articles. I'll have look.

I believe there are alleged to be 24 different schools of early Buddhism, the only surviving one being Theravada, which preserved the Pali Canon in Sri Lanka. Buddhism in India mysteriously disappeared sometime during the Gupta Empire.

What your sources seem to suggest is that the Buddha, rather than being a historical figure later mythologized in Mahayana, might have originally been a mythological figure later historicized in Theravada. It's an interesting idea, but I want to say that this would be on the fringe of Buddhist scholarship, much like the view that Jesus wasn't a historical person. I happen to like the work of Robert M Price concerning the latter view but am personally unpersuaded as to its validity, just as I am unpersuaded as to the idea that Mahayana is more ancient than Theravada. The role of language is perhaps most important here, since Pali was a vernacular, non-priestly language of northern India (i.e. not Sanskrit, though somewhat related to it), which fits with the notion that Buddhism began in part as a reaction against elite Vedic religion.

Moreover, many of the concepts that became prominent in Mahayana are present in Theravada. Emptiness, the idea and role of a bodhisattva, Buddha nature, etc. It's just that these ideas get tweaked and transformed over time, often as a result of syncretic processes that occurred in the countries to which Buddhism spread outside of India.

I would also add a third school, Vajrayana (in Tibet and Mongolia), which sees itself as the third turning of the wheel of dharma, and so separate in some sense from the first two turnings (Theravada and Mahayana).

Lastly, I'm curious about you Wayfarer. I think you've said before that you identify as a Buddhist. In what sense do you do so? Have you formally taken the three refuges at a temple or monastery? And what form or school of Buddhism do you identify with? There aren't any Buddhist monasteries or meditation centers where I live currently, but even if there were, I would be hesitant to join one, seeing as Buddhism in the West and America seems to attract leftist hipster peaceniks who think Buddhism is just Marxism with oriental imagery. I suppose I would probably want to find something in the Theravada tradition.

Buddhism is whatever Buddhists say it is making it difficult to determine where and when it originated. Lao Tzu came close to saying, "The past is merely a memory, the future only a dream", but he most certainly did not say those exact words because the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao and Taoists frequently find themselves having to explain that to Buddhists who like to think their religion expresses everything.

@Thorongil - There were indeed about 24 early schools. Many of them coalesced around particularly insightful or charismatic teachers. The names, and in some cases fragments of the doctrines, of the early schools have been preserved; but the article concerns the period before even then from which there are hardly any written texts. A lot of it is inferred on the basis of similarities and differences in the later teachings.

What your sources seem to suggest is that the Buddha, rather than being a historical figure later mythologized in Mahayana, might have originally been a mythological figure later historicized in Theravada. — Thorongil

That is true, in a way. The Theravada have a very 'minimalist' depiction of the Buddha - revered as founder and teacher, of course, but they tend to be rather opposed to, or at least reticent about, the supernatural. I think some of the earliest Theravada commentators had an almost positivistic attitude. But the Mahāyāna introduced the 'cosmic Buddha'. There's a passage in one of the pioneering books of Buddhist Studies, Schterbatsky's The Conception of the Buddhist Nirvāṇa:

It has never been fully realised what a radical revolution had transformed Buddhism when the new spirit….fully emerged in the first century CE. When we see an atheistic, soul-denying philosophic teaching of a path to personal Final Deliverance consisting of the absolute end of life, and a simple worship of the memory of its human founder superseded by a magnificent High Church with a Supreme God, sorrounded by a numerous pantheon, an a host of Saints, a religion highly devotional, highly ceremonial and clerical, with an ideal of Universal Salvation of all living creatures, Salvation not in annihilation, but in eternal life, we are fully justified in maintaining that the history of religions has scarcely witnessed such a break between new and old within the pale of what nevertheless continued to claim common descent from the same religious founder.

(That was written in the 1930's, I don't think later Buddhologists would put it that way, but there's some truth in it.)

As regards the extinction of Buddhism in India - the consensus is that it became re-absorbed into Hinduism - the Buddha was declared an Avatar of Vishnu - but then was wiped out by the Mughal invaders who burned the Viharas, slaughtered the monks, and destroyed all the icons and texts. It was so thoroughly erased from the culture, that it took the British a couple of centuries to realise that it had ever existed when they colonised India.

Vajrayana is not actually the 'third turning'. The first turning was the Deer Park sermon at Benares; the second turning the revelation of the Prajñāpāramitā teachings by Nāgārjuna; the third turning refers to the Yogācāra (mind-only) teachings associated with Asanga and Vasubandhu 1. (Needless to say, these 'turnings' are not recognised by Theravada).

Tibetan Buddhism combined tantric practices with Mahāyāna and also elements from Bön which is the basis of the Vajrayana.

I do self-identify as Buddhist, although I think of it as a pragmatic discipline rather than an ideology - 'burn after reading', I sometimes put it. I took a formal refuge ceremony in 2005 at Nan Tien south of Sydney - that is a Chinese Mahāyāna school (actually Master Hsing Yun is a lineage-holder of the Lin Chi Ch'an school which became Rinzai Zen in Japan). The aim of taking a refuge ceremony was to make a public commitment, and also to give myself something to live up to, but I'm not highly disciplined. I don't have much to do with the temple itself, although am considering a one-day retreat there. I also did a Master of Buddhist Studies at UniSyd 2011-2012.

My practice consists of a daily meditation and bi-monthly meetings at a Buddhist library with a group of dharma friends. I've never joined a particular school or teacher although I feel a stronger affinity with Chinese Buddhism (particularly Ch'an and Zen) than with Tibetan (although I am still very influenced by Christian Platonism; actually my overall approach is very much small-t theosophical.)

The key point about Buddhism is the emphasis on meditation and 'living the practice' within a flexible but definite framework. The two most useful books I read were the well-known Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, by Shunryu Suzuki, which was the foundation text of the San Francisco Zen Centre, and the less well known To Meet the Real Dragon by Nishijima-roshi. They're Soto Zen texts and benefit from Dogen's profound philosophy. But the Thai and Burmese satipatthana teachings (currently popular as mindfulness training) are also excellent pragmatic disciplines.

Buddhism is whatever Buddhists say it is... — Wuliheron

Not so. I think even the most skeptical readings of Buddhism reveal a common, identifiable and unique set of ideas, principle of which is 'dependent origination'. There is a definite 'sasana' (dispensation).

Not so. I think even the most skeptical readings of Buddhism reveal a common, identifiable and unique set of ideas, principle of which is 'dependent origination'. There is a definite 'sasana' (dispensation). — Wayfarer

Every Buddhist I've ever talked to has refused to acknowledge that the concept of maya is a clear metaphysical distinction between reality and illusion. Without a clear definition of their terminology its all just so much mysticism to me no matter how many people might believe what they say has some sort of meaning. According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth!

'Maya' is not a Buddhist term at all. Sure there may be millions of un-informed Buddhists, but that doesn't justify relativism. Buddhism has a definite scope and content.

but then was wiped out by the Mughal invaders — Wayfarer

The Mughals came much later, though. Buddhism began disappearing from India before Muslim rule, or perhaps I am misremembering.

Vajrayana is not actually the 'third turning'. — Wayfarer

They say it is. I was simply making a descriptive statement.

I've never joined a particular school or teacher although I feel a stronger affinity with Chinese Buddhism — Wayfarer

Interesting, thanks. I like a lot of Chan/Zen too, but feel more of an affinity toward Theravada, and in particular the Thai forest tradition.

'Maya' is not a Buddhist term at all. Sure there may be millions of un-informed Buddhists, but that doesn't justify relativism. Buddhism has a definite scope and content. — Wayfarer

Without a clear statement of a Buddhist stance on metaphysics it has no demonstrable scope or content!

Perhaps you should do some reading.

The 'third turning'.

Regarding the decline of Indian Buddhism there's quite a good wiki article on that too, http://www.wikiwand.com/en/History_of_Buddhism_in_India (Wikipedia's entries on Buddhism generally are quite good.)

The Turkish Muslim conquests, 11th c, are said to be the final nail in the coffin but Indian Buddhism had already been in long decline. I think a very large factor was the Buddha's opposition to the caste system and Brahman religious ceremonies. Arguably, Buddha was really a secular teacher. (Now there's a thread idea.)

Perhaps you should do some reading. — Wayfarer

I see nothing there that elucidates Buddhist views of metaphysics. Without a clear distinction of what constitutes metaphysics Buddhism is merely so much mysticism no matter how complex their logic happens to be. I can point to a stone and say that's a rock and everyone can understand what the word means to me. I can also rock back and forth in a rocking chair and say that is a rock and everyone can grasp what I'm saying, but without Buddhism being able to make such simple distinctions between what is fantasy and reality, real and a dream, even in specific contexts all their words are meaningless gibberish.

The threefold division reminds me of the Christian ideas of the fallen world, beatitude and heaven.

The idea of the Buddha as 'incarnation' could also be related to the Christian notion of the Incarnation.

If you mean the 'three turnings' - what was behind that was the requirement to introduce innovations into the core teachings of the Buddha. Even though many of the ideas in the Mahāyāna existed in germinal form in the earlier texts, the introduction first of śūnyatā and then of the 'mind-only' teachings, were presented as being second and third 'turning of the Wheel of Dharma' so as to harmonise them with the 'first turning'. I think from a Buddhist Studies point of view, it represents the attempt by doctrinal innovators to maintain continuity whilst also changing some core elements.

The idea of 'incarnation' is very ancient in India, it is actually the original meaning of 'avatar'. Important to add, however, that the historical Buddha never claimed that of himself, or said he was the incarnation of anything whatever. When pressed as to who or what he was, the answer invariably was 'Awakened'.

Sorry, that was a bit unclear. I was referring to this:

In the precanonical tradition, there is a threefold division of reality:

The rupadhatu, the samsaric sphere of name and form (namarupa), in which ordinary beings live, die, and are reborn.
The arupadhatu, the sphere of "sheer nama," accessed by samadhi, an ethereal realm frequented by yogins who are not completely liberated;
"Above" or "outside" these two realms is the realm of nirvana, the "amrta (immortal) domain," characterized by Prajñā (wisdom). This nirvana is an "abode" or "place" which is gained by the enlightened. — Wayfarer

That's interesting that Gautama is never portrayed as referring to himself as the 'teacher for the age". Jesus is portrayed as referring to himself as the Christ, as the son of God, and as the "way, the Truth and the Light". That would seem to be a major difference between the two religions, although Jesus' proclamations could be taken as metaphorical. When he says "No one comes to the Father except through me" he could be referring, as the perfect embodiment of the Christ, to the enabling activity of the Christ in others and not specifically to any held belief in Jesus Christ the man as savior.

Another interesting difference from East Asian religions that Christianity shows is the centrality of union and relationship in the latter. Valentin Tomberg discusses this in the second Letter of Meditations on the Tarot:

Yet what is the full significance of the adoption of the primacy of being, instead
of that of good, or according to St. John, that of love?
The idea of being is neutral from the point of view of the moral life. There
is no need to have the experience of the good and the beautiful in order to arrive
at it. The experience solely of the mineral realm already suffices to arrive at the
morally neutral idea of being. For the mineral is. For this reason the idea of being
is objective, i.e. it postulates, in the last analysis, the thing underlying everything,
the permanent substance behind all phenomena.
I invite you, dear Unknown Friend, to close your eyes and to render an exact
account of the image which accompanies this idea in your mental imagination.
Do you not find the vague image of a substance without colour or form, very similar
to water in the sea?
Whatever your subjective representation of being as such, the idea of being is
morally indifferent and is. consequently, essentially naturalistic. It implies something
passive, i.e. a given or an unalterable fact. In contrast, when you think of
love in the johannine sense or of the Platonic idea of good, you find yourself facing
an essential activity, which is in no way neutral from the point of view of moral
life, but which is the heart itself. And the image which accompanies this notion
of pure actuality would be that of fire or of the sun (Plato compared the idea of
good to the sun, and its light to truth), in place of the image of an indefinite
fluid substance.
Thales and Heraclitus have two different conceptions. The one sees in water
the essence of things and the other sees it in fire. But here, primarily, it is so that
the idea of GOOD and its summit — LOVE — is due to the conception of the world
as a moral process, whereas the idea of BEING and its summit —the God QUI
EST—is due to the conception of the world as that of a fact of Nature. The idea of good (and of love) is essentially subjective- It is absolutely necessary to have
had experience of psychic and spiritual life in order to be able to conceive of it,
whilst —as we have already indicated— the idea of being, being essentially objective,
presupposes only a certain degree of outward experience. . .of the mineral
realm, for example.
The consequence of choosing between these two — I will not say "points of view",
but rather "attitudes of soul"—lies above all in the intrinsic nature of the experience
of practical mysticism which consequently derives from this choice. He who chooses
being will aspire to true being and he who chooses love will aspire to love. For
one only finds that for which one seeks. The seeker for true being will arrive at
the experience of repose in being, and. as there cannot be two true beings ("the
illegitimate twofoldness" of Saint-Martin) or two separate co-eternal substances
but only one being and one substance, the centre of "false being" will be suppressed
("false being" = ahamkara, or the illusion of the separate existence of
a separate substance of the "self). The characteristic of this mystical way is that
one loses the capacity to cry. An advanced pupil of yoga or Vedanta will for ever
have dry eyes, whilst the masters of the Cabbala, according to the Zobar, cry much
and often. Christian mysticism speaks also of the "gift of tears"— as a precious gift
of divine grace. The Master cried in front of the tomb of Lazarus. Thus the outer
characteristic of those who choose the other mystical way, that of the God of love,
is that they have the "gift of tears". This is in keeping with the very essence of
their mystical experience. Their union with the Divine is not the absorption of
their being by Divine Being, but rather the experience of the breath of Divine
Love, the illumination by Divine Love, and the warmth of Divine Love. The soul
which receives this undergoes such a miraculous experience that it cries. In this
mystical experience fire meets with FIRE, Then nothing is extinguished in the
human personality but, on the contrary, everything is set ablaze. This is the experience
of "legitimate twofoldness" or the union of two separate substances in
one sole essence. The substances remain separate as long as they are bereft of that
which is the most precious in all existence: free alliance in love.
I have spoken of "two substances" and "one essence". Here it is necessary to really
grasp the significance of these two terms —substance (substantia) and essence
(essentia), whose exact distinction is today almost effaced. However, at one time
these two terms denoted two distinct categories not only of ideas but also of existence
and consciousness itself.
Plato established the distinction between elvai (einai, being) and ourria (ousta,
essence). Being signifies for him the fact of existence as such, whereas essence
designates existence due to Ideas.

As far as the 'three realms' are concerned, I think that is a version of the 'triple world' (trailokya) which is encountered in both Vedic and Buddhist texts.

When Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me" he could be referring, as the perfect embodiment of the Christ, to the enabling activity of the Christ in others and not specifically to any held belief in Jesus Christ the man as savior. — John

That is how I see it. I think that saying is unfortunately always taken as the kind of universal mandate for Christianity, but Jesus wasn't saying, in that interpretation, 'me, as distinct from those others', but 'Truth, as distinct from anything else'. It's a difficult distinction to make, though.

IN both traditions, however, there was a lot of subsequent additions as the mythos of the saviour or teacher was elaborated. For example in Buddhism, there are scenes in which various Hindu dieties pay obeisance to the Buddha, but from an historical or anthropological viewpoint, that could be interpreted as part of the process by which Buddhism was asserting its dominance over the Brahmins. Likewise, the idea of Christ as literally 'God incarnate', was not actually representative of the very earliest redactions but was a later interpolation (according to some scholars; see : https://amzn.com/0156013150).

That's a very interesting passage from the Meditations on the Tarot, but I have to admit, I am not at all persuaded by the rendition of the 'nature of being' in the first part; I don't think minerals are 'beings'. But I wouldn't argue the point.

An advanced pupil of yoga or Vedanta will for ever have dry eyes, whilst the masters of the Cabbala, according to the Zobar, cry much and often. Christian mysticism speaks also of the "gift of tears"— as a precious gift of divine grace.

Curiously, I have had that 'gift' since my initial awakening experience. I don't literally weep but 'tear up' very easily, which is sometimes embarrasing in meetings.

I think the difference he's trying articulate in last paragraph is what I refer to as the distinction between 'existence' and 'essence' (or being).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana#Third_turning_of_the_wheel

I haven't heard of Yogachara being the third turning, but that's very interesting. Yogachara has many similarities with certain Western idealist philosophies, such as Schopenhauer's. It seems rather diffuse today, though, without specific schools.

That is an interesting citation. It seems to put 'vajrayana' in the place of Yogācāra, which I think is dubious. It could be an example of Vajrayana seeking 'retrospectivity'. I might mention that at the Dharmawheel site and see what they say; I don't think it is the accepted view.

Yogācāra (also called Vijñānavāda) is, however, a profound philosophy, and has some points in common with Western idealist philosophy. Here is a summary introduction that was the basis of a presentation I gave at dharma group earlier this year.

Well, again, it's what the Vajrayana say about themselves. It's in a general religion textbook I have, too.

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it here.

I've posted a question about it on the Dharmawheel forum.

@Thorongil - I've tracked down that attribution of Vajrayana as 'the third turning' - it gives this page as a citation, which doesn't say anything of the kind. It is not true and I hope the article will be updated accordingly.