One of the fascinating things occurs when one compares religions earnestly. I was discussing "Samadhi" with someone who found the phrase "annokutarra Sanmyaku Sambodai" perplexing, when I happened on an explaination of the term, on a "Donmei" website. The author, a follower of the controversial lineage of Shabettai tsvi and Jacob Frank, has equated the two states in some of his public writings. This is based on Hindu practice, which seeks unity of the adherent with "brahmin." for them Samadhi is the experience of the universality of the ultimate -- the universality of "god." This oceanic experience is expressed in hebrew in the famous prayer "Shmah Israel Adonai eloheinu adonai ehad,"[hear Isreal, the lord is our God the lord is one." and of course in Islam in their famous and oft misused cry, "God is one." But it is a similar word.
Thus this author makes the point that the point of Samadhi is to realize that "God is one."
Others make the point that the realization of Samadhi is the realization that all things form a unity. And it gets better when one studies the Hebrew. The word for eternity and universe in hebrew is the same word. In a sense "God" is the consciousness of the Universe. Not any demiurge or image of a floating entity but the "creation" and "wisdom" and other properties that are the properties of Universe. We live in the sixth day of creation, and we also live in the first, the second, the third, fourth and fifth. Our consciousness Is the consciousness that is part of and intertwined with the whole.
Looked at it that way, the resistance of Buddhists to trying to use Judeo-Christian terms to explain their religion seems a bit more empty. After all, the point of the "ultimate" being one is not that individual priests and mullah's have it 'in with God," or that individual "testements" or stories, are infallible, but that the spiritual experience is a universal and that much of what we see dividing ourselves from such experience is pure and simply delusion. This has been a point of Judeo-Christian and Sufi teachers for centuries. What divides us from experiening this is our own fear and clinging to "transcient" or "incomplete" views. In otherwors; twisted teachers, our own stupidity, and not "getting" the sages enough to argue with them and recognize their limitations.
The result is that people practice various religions with a shallow, even callow, attitude and none of us get very far in gaining a peaceful world.
My correspondent quotes from the Gospel of Thomas:
"Jesus said, If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?' say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself....' If they say to you, 'Is that you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the elect of the Living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?' say to them, 'It is a movement and repose.' " (Saying 50)"
He then tells us:
"The Vedantist calls this "certain hidden place" -- this "movement and repose" -- Samadhi, the Kabbalist calls it Devekut, and the Zen Buddhist calls it Satori -- the effects of which the latter describes as, "Before Satori, chop wood carry water; after Satori, chop wood carry water."
and then he quotes: "Sri Ramakrishna put it this way:"
"What is Samadhi? It is the complete merging of the mind in God-Consciousness....In [the Samadhi attained through devotion] there remains the consciousness of 'I'.....God keeps a little of the 'I' in his devotee even after giving him Knowledge of Brahman."(op. cit., p. 312)"
So annokutara sanmyaku Sanbodai, pure and most profound enlightenment, is at the same time the perfect realization of the object of faith; "oneness" with the divine universe.
Chris
The word "heretic" comes from a greek word, "heresis" which means to make a choice. This word, I believe, became a word that came to have some of the meaning associated with a Semetic word "herem" -- which means that which is prohibited. Originally Heresis was a normal part of thinking. People could weigh and decide moral issues for themselves. In the case of the current debate, a person who believes in "Choice," looks at a debate on the morality of abortion and says "well this is bad, but on the other hand it is potential, dependent and not yet formed so it doesn't deserve the same protection as the fully formed; expecially if weighed against the needs and health of the mother.
But to those who are "anti-choice" this whole line of reasoning is irrelevent. It is heresy. It is "herem." For many Christians and other people who share the Judeo-Christian heritage; "choice" is prohibited when it comes to moral things. To the "anti-Choice" thinkers of our present age, those things are "commanded;" not the product of logic. Thus all the arguments used to outlaw or defend Abortion come up against one the one final barrier that these things are not logically fine tuned for their oponants. One either believes or doesn't believe. One either takes it on faith or is a heretic.
Even those who think their positions are reasoned, deep in their heart are trying to justify authority based on faith. Many of them, deep in their hearts see 'pro-choice' as heresy, as doing that which is morally objectionable. Not because these things can be finely tuned and reasoned out, but because the apostles of "anti-choice" feel there is a divine authority behind them -- from God himself -- that they must obey. But of course it's not so easy.
I was listening to a discussion of WB. Dubois's trip to Germany in 1936 and thinking about Kierkegaard and the current campaign to outlaw abortion, when I noticed a pattern in the terminology. Both Dubois and Kierkegaard longed for order and authority. Both saw that authority as having it's basis in Christianity. I haven't started reading from Dubois yet, but Kierkegaard wrote extensively about his longing for authority and his belief in it's need.
In the Present age he decries the "ambiguity" and reflective passionlessness he saw in society. He felt that reflection "imprisons man's will and his strength." And that "He can only excape from this second imprisonment through the inwardness of religion, no matter how clearly he may perceive the falseness of the situation." [these quotes are from "The Present Age" Harper and Row]
Of course he was wrong about his age, but so much an emblem of the conflicts that drove it. He talked about the lifelessness of his times one year before a round of revolution broke out in Europe in 1848. But of course even this illustrates the fact that he was a man of his time. The world was at it's most "reasonable." There was to be a reaction. For Kierkegaard, the issue was that "apostles" are chosen and speak for God, while sages or "geniuses" have no particular authority except their wisdom and "genius." The authority of the Apostle comes from God. To him; "authority is a specific quality which, coming from elsewhere, becomes qualitatively apparant when the content of the message or of the action is posited or indifferent."
In his essay "The Genius and the Apostle" he writes; "What, then is authority? Is it the profundity, the cleverness of the doctrine? Not at all!" He goes on to completely reject the role of wisdom and sagacity in the role of authority. He goes on to say that if that were the basis of the authority of apostles; "if the learner were to assimilate this doctrine completely and entirely through the understanding, then there would cease to be any difference between the teacher and the learner."
And that expresses the fundamental doubt and even "unbelief" that is at the basis of "anti-choice" thinking. Somehow "humanism" and "wisdom" are rejected as not only inadequate, but hindrances to society. Man is eternally inferior to "God Man" and to God himself, and therefore the idea that each of us should, as the Buddha instructed us "work out our own salvation" -- is anathema to such anti-thinkers. Rejecting reason their logic becomes twisted as they have to figure out a way to justify reasoning out their un-thought. If an Apostle, as Kierkegaard maintains, has "no proof but his own statement" for his teachings. Then does he -- in fact -- merit the divine authority he claims? Simply because something has been taught for hundreds of years as "authority" and "divine" authority, does that make it "in fact" absolute truth?
For Kierkegaard "Genius has only an immanent teleology; the Apostle is absolutely, paradoxically, teleologically placed." Being on a "mission from God" the absurdity may be apparant to him as "paradox" but because he feels trapped by command, he is unable to do more than wiggle and writhe in his own efforts to justify the unjustifiable. For if, in fact, God were the one giving the orders, then the Apostle would need no more faith than anyone else and reason and logic would show this by the example within this world. But "religion" is a creation of man, not God. And generations of assertions of authority, give people authority they don't always merit. The logic of authority within absurdity leads inexcoriably towards fascism and repression. One always has a choice. One can "chose life" or can chose to close choice.
Anyway, this essay asks more questions than it answers. I hope that it will launch some thought.
Someone asked me:
I've read through your website and if I've read you
correctly, you practice Nichiren Buddhism but are
quite annoyed and upset by all this infighting. Can
you give me a good reason to continue to learn more
about Nichiren Buddhism as opposed to another kind of
Buddhism?
Answer:
1. The daimoku; Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is a powerful chant with a deep meaning in and of itself. It "implements" the Lotus Sutra, which is indeed a really deep teaching, which the more I study the more I appreciate.
2. Good people. Lots of them.
3. Most Buddhism is confused about the subjects Nichiren talked about in his Gosho; and most religions are confused about subjects Buddhism is clear on. Object of Worship, meaning of enlightenment, and the distinction between Buddhism, magic, self-improvement, and other religions. Studying the Lotus Sutra can ease the mind and help one see through these distinctions.
4. I would suggest chanting and practicing with SGI, but not getting too wrapped up in any hype, anaecdotal claims, or triumphalism. Appreciate what they are teaching and learn from them. They don't demand money. You don't need an ashram. They don't require initiation or treat you like a dummy if you haven't had one. And you can learn a lot of Buddhism from them if you take them with a little salt. Which is something one should do with all religious groups.
Chris
Today I had the privelage of attending "Noches Bohemias" which was an homage to mostly Mexican performers held at the former Mexican Embassy, the "Cultural Institute of Mexico." It was fairly good. It profiled songs and life history from Lucha Reyes (1906-1944), Lola Beltran, Agustin Lara, Maria Felix, Vicente Garrido, Silvia Pinal, Marmando Manzanero, Mari Paz and Celia Cruz. As theater it wasn't much. One actor played a bartender and introduced the narrative and introduced the stories and songs. But as music it was nice. The singers could sing pretty well.
I think everyone should spend some time getting to know Mexican Music. And it wouldn't hurt to look for these musicians and find out who they were and why they were. You might learn something and be entertained in the process.
Today's entrance is a question. I'll be trying to answer it along with you. What does the "deathless state" mean? Can it be entered? Can it be described with words? Does it mean liberation?
I just hope that everyone is getting ready to vote this year. Republican or Democrat, it is important that we get involved. Not just in the general elections but in the little ones as well. Indeed expecially the little ones. It often matters more who is one's county councilman, representative in the State Legislature, or Congressman, than who one's President is. And it really matters whether our local political parties are corrupt or honest, syndicated with the local country clubs, with labor, or syndicated with the mob. Because when we allow our local life to be corrupt, it reflects in our national life. This is the Buddhist principle of "Esho Funi." So vote! Pay attention. Know who is who. If you do then when the guy gets elected by the "other side" you can at least feel good that you fought for him not to be doing what he/she is doing.
Maybe Buddhists feel dropping out of society is the only way to change things. That one must change oneself to change the world. But I don't subscribe to that view. I don't believe that taking vows of no-sex, no marriage, dropping out, joining an ashram and meditating in a mountain -- do anyone anygood unless one does so for the sake of contributing back to the society one left. To me people who do such things for any other reason are cowards.
The purpose of Buddhism is enlightenment. And enlightenment is not complete unless it includes the world around us.
I know many fine Catholics. Some of whom I count as friends, even close friends and confidants. I know one Catholic monk personally, and through him have met other monks of an equally fine caliber. Still, I have reservations about Catholicism as an institution. The reason is that it is a deeply "conservative" religion that through-out it's history has resorted to overt or covert violence to get it's ends. From it's beginnings as one of the contending groups of Christians, to it's true formation at the hands of the Emperor Constantine, through the period of the "Barbarian Invasions" where it used divide and rule to undermine both Emperor and invader; through the middle ages when it burned heretics and women at the stake and brutally suppressed monks or others who took the teachings of Christianity too much to heart. Through the inquisition when it used the threat of Moslem insurgency as an excuse to repress and then "ethnically cleanse" Spain of Jews. Through the Reformation and the Counter-reformation when it used the methods refined in Spain on Protestants. And then there is the modern era... There are reasons to be wary of such a history.
Now I'd like to think that it has "changed." And indeed up until about 1980 I thought it might be on the way to radical change. Certainly when Kennedy was elected the face of Catholicism was one of "liberals" and "liberation." Liberation theology was so in vogue that it came to seem a threat to the Church. People found that liberation lead to apostasy or simply the desire to live a normal life. Prelates were jealous and afraid of monks who took the wishes of the people too seriously.
In America, there were even two churches for a time. The "liberal" even "radical" and "leftist" church of the "liberation theology" and the more staid, conservative, even right wing hierarchy. Still that orthodoxy wasn't orthodox enough for some people. Mel Gibson's father belongs to a break away group that thinks that the Church should still be using latin. But that era seems to be passing. The Vatican, patient and planning it's responses over the long term, seems to be getting control over the Church. And this worries me.
Like all institutions it has it's factions. And I've come to believe that factions represent a positive thing. A "dialectic" is one way to keep a thread of life going. As long as no one group has hegemony, that thread can keep a life of it's own. But there are reasons for concern over the radical conservativism of the Church. It seems to be driving changes that might not be in humanities best interest. Without the revival of faith that is represented by the "traditionalist" branch, the Church would become irrevelent and continue it's slide into obscurity. However, that very revival, coupled with the huge numbers of immigrants coming into this country from Catholic countries, represents a potential threat. Potential, but nothing to get paranoid about. Still it is good to be aware that sometimes the Church seems more to belong to a pagan "Janus" god of two faces than to the great ineffable and mysterious God that it is heir to.
The driving force behind this conservativism is the coupling of religious faith and political fear. Modernism, expecially Socialist Materialism traumatized the Church. It's institutions were once more threatened with confiscation, and the avatars of this kind of "materialist" religion (whether Communists or Catholics) despised religion as an anachronism. When Mussolini came along in Itally, he proved to be different from his predecessors. He was a brute, but a brute they could work with. His philosophy of "syndicates" and "National Socialism", as hitler later put it, sought to "nationalize the people running the " organizations of society. Social issues and nationalist issues could be used to mobilize the people in ways that Communism had never managed, and in ways that allowed the society to continue with it's old structures intact. This was the beginning of the "Modernist CounterReformation" which is ongoing. With time the "thread" of Fascism has mixed or been moderated by other threads. But during World War II and the struggle against Communism, there is no doubt that the Church backed fascists, such as the Military in Argentina and other Latin American countries. This broke to the surface when a passed over Colonel cited his pain and suffering in the service of the Nation, torturing people, and claimed that he had received absolution for his efforts by a priest sympathetic to his cause.
And the Catholic Church came to spearhead this movement. Pope John Paul II identified "Secular Humanism" as a threat to the Church ("The keys of This Blood" by Malachi Martin) years ago and has been building towards defeating the "threat" posed by this ideology ever since. To him for all the "pleasant sounding" words of the "secular humanists" they are a threat to his Church. And it seems that they have taken steps to combat this "menace" -- which doesn't even claim to threaten them since it's goal is to "transform" not destroy the existing institutions of the world. It is deeply disturbing that they see this as a threat. But Malachi Martin insists that he has the ear of the Pope on this. And time has born out that they are fighting this threat with all the tools at their disposal. Page 294:
"Nevertheless, it is not too much to ask in the sweet name of universal reason that all national, religious, and cultural groups modify their traits so that everyone-- every nation, every religion and every culture-- can be accommodated as a division or subdivision of the future one world community that is both the aim and the justification for these three groups." (referring also to the "new agers", and the "mega-Religionists").
"For such globalist community builders as these, there is no earthly use in perpetuating any element that has historically divided human society into distinct, seperate and sometimes warring parts, or that might do so in the future. Their chosen task is to hasten the day when we will be one in a materially comfortable world community, now abuilding, and to assist us all by teaching us how to become members of that global community of contentment."
(page 295)
And he sees this as a bad thing. Almost like these people were "Borg."
And the strongest tool at their disposal is the fact that many of these humanists are also Catholics. Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, many traditional libearal Democrats from Catholic majority districts, all tended to be liberal Democrats and humanists. Robert Kennedy opened the doors to Catholic acceptance. His brother has defended humanist causes for the past 40 years.
And now they are facing officially sponsored challenges. For instance being threatened with excommunication for being opposed to abortion. And finding themselves challenged by radical Catholics like Santorum. This is a classic campaign. And the founder of Opus Dei, the Nun who inspired Mel Gibson's anti-Jewish "The Passion", and other questionably saintly but often violently anti-communist and anti-humanistic have all been beatified by this Pontiff. The sister in the past week.
So, I would hope that the next leader of the Catholic church would actually be a "humanist" in the sense of someone who values humanity. Opposing humanism on the grounds that it's goal is the improvement of mankind's material and spiritual condition is "conter-reformation."
A wise teacher, commenting on the "suttas" tells us:
"One of the points made in Sutta 9 is that the three-fold training is
a path. Ananda first speaks about training in
morality/ethics/precepts. After concluding his presentation of that
aspect of the three-fold training, Ananda says, "That is the division
of Airyan (Noble) morality which the Lord praised . . . But something
more remains to be done."
"The second step, concentration or meditation, is treated the same
way. After realizing the jhanas, 'something more remains to be done.'"
"The third step of the three-fold training is wisdom; and it is with
the realization of wisdom that one concludes one's journey. As
Ananda says, 'There is nothing further here.'"
"So the three-fold training is progressive, culminating in wisdom. It
is similar to the analogies I have used before. Someone studying
music might first learn about scales, then about harmony, then about
counterpoint. Someone learning baseball might first learn how to
swing a bat, then how to catch a ball, then how to play the whole
game."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sutrasalon/message/1183
But of course, things don't stop there.
For one thing the three fold training has to be iterative. For another thing, even though one attains personal wisdom that is not enough to end suffering. The wisdom has to be applied to the real world. And that is why the Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana sutras were preached. Ananda and Shariputra are told in those Sutras that "Wisdom" is not enough. That there is indeed something further. And that is the path of "Bodhisattva" opening a Wisdom that can not only save oneself, but help others. It is not enough to receive wisdom, that wisdom has to be transmitted.
And of course the critique opened here has a logic which if followed tells us that Buddhism cannot remain in the Monastery. That it has to get out in the real world. Buddhists must learn from other religions that religion is not about seeking intermediaries between oneself and the divine or seeking a selfish enlightenment. It is meant to inform a life of compassion, honor and purity.
The Wahabis are taking their interpretation of Islam to the extreme of justifying murder and oppression of anyone who tries to setup "intermediaries" between "Allah" and themselves. They regard such ways as "shirk" Thus they are persecuting Sufis, and justifying the persecution of Christians and Jews. Their main source for this is this passage from the Koran:
"Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge. [7:33] "
But it is not so simple. Mohammed himself received the Koran through "Gabrielle." And the reason why the Jews questioned Mohammed on this and said that "Michael" would have been better is the oral teaching that "Gabrielle" takes "two steps" to reach Earth while "Michael" takes one. The point is that in a sense "angels" are "partners" themselves. Mohammed's message was filtered through his all too human senses. For Moslems to take his teachings out of context or give them absolutist authority, is itself to make the Koran a "partner." To treat it as an Intermediary between themselves and religious truth.
But there is a way beyond this quandary. The way is to recognize the fallability of messengers; whether human or Angelic. That might require detaching a bit from Moslem dogmatism, but it would really help for Moslems to do this. Their faith can be absolute and survive such detachment. They need to remember it is in "God" and not any one man, or any one teaching, no matter how excellent and self-contained that teaching might be.
Mohammed had perfectly valid critiques of the main religions of his time:
"These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! [53:23]"
But of course "names" have a power that derives from the abstracts or things they name. The name "allah" has a different connotation from other names.
Faith should never contradict reason and evidence. These things should be articles of faith in this day.
"Say: "O my Lord! Let my entry be by the Gate of Truth and Honour, and likewise my exit by the Gate of Truth and Honour; and grant me from Thy Presence an authority to aid (me)." [17:80] "
If there is no genuine truth, only the authority of fear and violence, then there is no honor either. Moslems pride themselves on their religion anticipating science. They should also remember that their happiest days where when it also was a beacon of wisdom and tolerance in the dark night of the middle ages. Fanaticism extinguished that light and made them vulnerable to the incursions of ignorant European adventurers and armies who learned from the learning preserved by their scholars and scientists and were inspired to the renaissance by Byzantine and Arabic culture.
Any teaching which advocates harming other humans is not coming from Gabrielle or Allah, but from Samael, or the Liar. Which is an abstract standing for our own "evil inclination" or darkside. A religious person sees the genuine value in all human beings and finds consonance in religious methods. A religious zealot seeks and finds dissonance.
The reason the Jews questioned Mohammed on the subject of Gabrielle is that they had the evidence of their own teachings to warn them about the dangers of prophesy. The Book of Chronicals records this incident:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/ch2018.htm
"18:10 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron, and said: 'Thus saith the Lord: With these shalt thou gore the Arameans, until they be consumed.'"
"18:11 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying: 'Go up to Ramoth-gilead, and prosper; for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king.'"
"18:12 And the messenger that went to call Micaiah spoke to him, saying: 'Behold, the words of the prophets declare good to the king with one mouth; let thy word therefore, I pray thee, be like one of theirs, and speak thou good.'"
Thus Jehosophat king of Judah and Ahab the King of Isreal got the idea that attacking Aram would be successful. But Micaiah prophesied completely differently:
"18:16 And he said: 'I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd; and the Lord said: These have no master, let them return every man to his house in peace.'"
"18:17 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: 'Did I not tell thee that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?'"
"18:18 And he said: 'Therefore hear ye the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting upon His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. "
"18:19 And the Lord said: who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spoke saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. "
"18:20 And there came forth the spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him: Wherewith? "
"18:21 And he said: I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said: Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth, and do so.
Sure enough the invasion was a disaster. The point of the story is that the "prophets" in this story thought they had the truth. Indeed what they said was part of the truth. Yet the result was a "lying spirit." Indeed one way to see Islam as a whole is as a Goad, from "God" to punish and drive "Isreal" to clarify it's own beliefs and to straiten themselves out so that the "clear message" of truth can win out. But Mohammed didn't understand that the Jews he faced had this line and similar ones to warn them about prophets:
"18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets; and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.'"
Indeed we should beware of the products of our unconscious. After all the "spiritual" comes out of a place that is replete with dangers. It is easy to be decieved by partial truths, or to condemn others based on misunderstandings. The relationship between Islam and Judaism is founded on such misunderstanding. When people from both groups listen to one another, as Maimonides and other ancient teachers did, everyone prophets. But when they don't, a "lying spirit" comes between them.
Chris
The Mahayana movement in northern India and what is now Afghanistan supersceded what was known as the "Hinayana" movement, or "lesser vehicle. Theravada is similar to the "original Buddhism", though it in reality represents centuries of reification, deification, and oral transmissions, that were probably added to. Mahayana represents something more radical. It is a basic reworking of Buddhism in the light of later people's perception of enlightenment put into the Buddha's mouth. One could say it is the work of the "Bliss Buddha" or the "light" that is within all of us. Working with the Judeo-Christian tradition, one could say that this is the reworking of the original material through revelation.
Revelation is basically similar to Samadhi. The difference is that Westerners attribute their revelation to transmissions through angels or God himself. Buddhism, tends to "conserve" the authority of it's human founder, while the religions spawned by Judaism tend to premise an authority that is "law" and "ineffable." Both are aiming at the same end of removing the "reification" and attachment to "images" of the believer. Counter to this is the popular tradition of just that -- personalizing the divine.
Thus, There is always a tension between the deeper, but more abstract realizations of thinkers and people who engage in revelation/spiritual journeys; the more popular conceptions, and the "priests" or institutionalized teachers who usually try to harmonize or control both groups -- often by pandering to the general populace's need for "reification"/ for images that express what people believe.
This is the process through which religion progresses -- Even relatively modern religions such as Bahai or Mormonism -- Most of them claim that their revelation is pure and unsullied by human rewrites. They will sometimes violently attack their competition as being impure and sullied by such things. The teacher Nichiren expressed this when he compared the priests of his day to cats stalking mice. Teachers can only embrace abstracts so long before they get hungry and have to explain their abstracts to the real world. When they do, they often fudge. Claiming infallibility, or making appeals to faith and calling their opponants "unbelievers."
Shakyamuni was cool in that he realized that enlightened beings don't have to starve themselves to death, punish themselves, and can exchange "dharma" for sustenance. He taught a religion that was aimed at liberation, available to all who joined the "body", and could be explained in similes and parables. This method was also used by Jewish teachers (Rabbis), the founders of Christianity (Jesu was called "Rabbi" by his followers) . And by Mohammed and his followers. When used legitimately it makes the highly abstract teachings accessable to ordinary people.
The other thing that teachers have to do is to teach "law;" rules. The actual rules aren't as important as the fact that there are rules. Buddhism originally centered on a philosophy of breaking attachment and following rules and proceedures that would enable this. But breaking attachments is not aimed at developing selfishness or detachment. It is aimed at liberating the mind to think strait, to "straitening" the mind and body. Eventually this Buddhism came under the control of teachers whose rigidity made them emphasize things that seemed at odds with this goal. That is how Mahayana came to be preached.
The rest of the story....
Mahayana initially was a "revolutionary" movement. It's premise was the importance of developing "loving kindness" or "compassion"; karuna and metta (mercy and love). Of course it too became corrupted with time, and spawned new religions, and even in many countries spawned a return to "true Buddhism" as Theravada, the "path of the elders" stepped into some countries that had once been Mahayana. Mahayana appealed to non Hindus because it offered something revolutionary, enlightenment and the notion of a heroic practice. Unfortunately this heroic idea led to the reification of the Buddha. And the initial ideas of "cutting" with the sometimes excessive and tunnel visioned practices of discipline, sometimes led to people cutting their "roots" with the vinaya and not developing something to take it's place. The statues and images that Buddhist prayed to eventually came to be seen, among the common folks, as "Gods" or "angels" that could serve as intermediaries between them and the "next life" or heaven.
Without the rules of "Vinaya" the more revolutionary forms of Buddhism eventually forgot how to "love" or express kindness or mercy. They degenerated into religions that could, as in the case of warrior Zen in Japan, be used to discipline the mind so that a person could be a better sculptor, or a better killer, or in the case of China, got confused with similar Taoist ideas to form equally depraved monstrosities. In Japan Buddhism declined so badly that when Buddhist sought for moral instruction they went to China to study NeoConfucianism. To get "precepts" they had to reintroduce the older scriptures, or go to Neo-Confucianism.
Thus Mahayana, Theravada, and the various teachings of Buddhism became corrupted and nearly moribund in most of the countries of Asia until the "West" discovered them. There is a reason why this is important to remember in transmitting Buddhism to the West. We need to analyze what went wrong and why if we are to avoid making similar or different mistakes in our own development of alternative "paradigms" (models or examples) of religion for our own culture. Blind imitation will not do.