What is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice?

[jundo cohen]

It's just intellectual bubble.

Can you be in and out of the bubble at once? What bubble?

Gassho, J

Those games will not work on death.

Do you know how to die and live at once? How to not live and not die, living and dying as one?

Do you know how to play and not play games in each roll of the dice? If fact, what game?

Gassho, J

[Thomas Amundsen]

It's just intellectual bubble.

Can you be in and out of the bubble at once? What bubble?

Gassho, J

Those games will not work on death.

But... death is just a game that the mind plays

[Taco_Rice]

But... death is just a game that the mind plays

I keep telling people that, but they keep going on and on about fighting "terror," needing police, keep asking what happened to "so-and-so" or for their stuff back, etc, etc. Some people just can't hang.

[jundo cohen]

But... death is just a game that the mind plays

I keep telling people that, but they keep going on and on about fighting "terror," needing police, keep asking what happened to "so-and-so" or for their stuff back, etc, etc. Some people just can't hang.

There is no terror or Al Queda or Isis, nobody to kill or be killed, nothing to fear.

Thus we fight terror, fly drones, in order to keep our children safe and unafraid.

One can fight terror and non-fight non-terror at once, cause some folks fly non-planes into non-towers.

Some people can't get the hangless hang.

Gassho, J

[Jeff H]

I have to agree, there's a lot of abstraction and babble in this thread for what should be a fairly 'straight-forward' response.

In the Shravakayana you're aiming for individual liberation, arhatship. Where as in the Mahayana, your goal is Buddhahood, but only once all other beings have made it there first. ( *Don't get all Diamond-sutra on me yet!)

Why is it we so often fall in to the alluring trap of endless, intellectual abstraction based upon the notions about the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of suffering ?

"All beings are illusory and i vow to save them all" is a phrase i've heard used often. The suffering of beings is like the suffering in a dream, unreal, yet for those immersed within the dream without recognizing it to be as such, it's as real as can be. Hence why the Bodhisattva ideal emerges, to rouse beings from their illusory dreams and guide them towards an equally illusory Buddhahood without holding to notions of self,other / subject,object and activity.

The grass isn't real but you still need to mow the lawn. The dust isn't real but you still need to sweep the floor.

Texts like Gampopa's 'Jewel ornament of liberation' and 'the Thirty-seven Verses on the Practice of a Bodhisattva' are about as clear as you can possibly get in outlining what the objective ,wisdom and means that the Mahayana entails. Maybe some of you can remember some others worth mentioning.

Ah! A voice of reason. Very refreshing.

[Taco_Rice]

Ah! A voice of reason. Very refreshing.

No, this only appears to be the case due to your ontological misapprehensions.

[Saoshun]

Yep, Vasana have some seeds and basis for little understanding but it's still far away realization even if it's here, this knowledge will obstruct it.

Just everyday think and every step think of death, then you will know objective clearly by experience rather then write such slanderings around.

[Taco_Rice]

There is no terror or Al Queda or Isis, nobody to kill or be killed, nothing to fear.

No, seriously. Dudes with machetes and old guns. Come on. Lost hearts and minds are what should make us shudder.

No, this only appears to be the case due to your ontological misapprehensions.

Sarcasm, btw. I am respectfully exiting this thread.


---
--.
.

[jundo cohen]

I have to agree, there's a lot of abstraction and babble in this thread for what should be a fairly 'straight-forward' response....
Why is it we so often fall in to the alluring trap of endless, intellectual abstraction based upon the notions about the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of suffering ?

I might respectfully propose that ordinary language, standard logic and "common sense" explanations are not necessarily the most accurate, and can be quite misleading, especially when it comes to the Mahayana in which ordinary thinking and "sensible" opinions and "understandable daily language" words get us into so much trouble and are the source of fundamental human delusion.

New ways of thinking and not thinking (even "thinking-not-thinking") must be taught, or one is simply compounding the disease. In order to do so, sometimes language must be bent and creatively reinterpreted in suggestive ways to get around language even a bit. In order to truly pierce many Mahayana viewpoints (not to mention viewless views), one must sometimes twist the head into new abilities to see and pierce what it does not easily wish to swallow.

Otherwise, the disservice that is being done to the questioner is not unlike answering the question "what is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity?" with "It is an idea about time and space by a German fellow." True, but fails to convey the revolutionary nature of the content, and does nothing really to clarify the questioner's understanding nor upend their ordinary "common sense, ordinary language" assumptions about time and space. "Understandable" explanations and ordinary sentence structure sometimes convey some information, but miss the real heart of the matter.

Gassho, Jundo

PS -

I sometimes use as my own "too simple" teaching tool on the "not twoness" of form and emptiness, this old optical illusion. Ordinary seeing allows us perhaps to see only the old lady but not the young woman, or only the young woman but not the old lady. But we can learn to switch back and forth, and even more richly, see both at once and neither at all. My point to the student is that something can be "right before the eyes all along", but one is blind until suddenly one sees though the empty spaces and lines of shape. Perhaps "clear" explanations only describe the old woman as an old woman and the young woman as a young women and both as one. missing the real point and letting little truly to be seen at all.

Can you see the old lady? Can you see the young woman?

Good. Now, show me what is there beyond and right through young vs. old, empty space and line.

[boda]

Bending language and twisted thinking is not part of the 8 fold path for good reason.

[jundo cohen]

Bending language and twisted thinking is not part of the 8 fold path for good reason.

I appreciate your "bent and twisting thinking." That is why the Mahayana always insisted that the "simple" explanations of those early Teachings were expedient means for those of simple thinking who could not "handle the Truth." Sometimes the straight is twisted and the twisted straight.

Gassho, Jundo

From the Platform Sutra ...

“If suddenly someone asks you about the Dharma, say something that will exhaust dichotomies. [You should] always use the teachings of the responses, such as the mutual causation of coming and going. The dualistic dharmas will be thoroughly eliminated, and [the questioner] will have no recourse (literally, “no place to go”). ... “There are twelve responses of the words of the characteristics of dharmas: the response of words and dharmas, the response of being and nonbeing, the response of form and formless, the response of with characteristics and without characteristics, the response of defiled and undefiled, the response of form and emptiness, the response of motion and stillness, the response of pure and impure, the response of ordinary and sage, the response of monk and layperson, the response of old and young, the response of large and small ... the response of long and short, the response of false and correct, the response of stupid and wise, the response of foolish and sagacious, the response of disruption and concentration, the response of compassion and ill-will (literally, “poison”), the response of morality and transgression, the response of straight and crooked, the response of real and empty, the response of steep and level, the response of the afflictions and bodhi, the response of permanent and impermanent ...

• .
  
  ...
  
  When you speak to others about these [above] thirty-six confrontations, on the outside, while within form, separate from form; on the inside, while within emptiness, separate from emptiness. If you cling to emptiness then you will only be increasing your ignorance. If you cling to form, you will only increase your false views, slander the Dharma, and be quick to say that one should not use written words. Once you say one should not use written words, then people should not speak, because speech itself is written words. Even if you explain emptiness from the standpoint of your own nature, this in effect, becomes language. Since the original nature is not empty, you are deluded and deceive yourself, just because you have cast aside speech. Darkness is not darkness by itself; because there is light there is darkness. That darkness is not darkness by itself is because light changes, becoming darkness, and with darkness light is revealed. They originate each from the other. The thirty-six confrontations are also like this."
  
  [later version]
  
  The master said, “If you understand how to use these thirty-six responses, you will be able to explain the teachings in all the sutras. Exiting and entering transcend the two extremes; the self-nature mobilizes the functions. When speaking with people, externally you can transcend characteristics within characteristics and internally you can transcend emptiness within emptiness. Those who are entirely attached to characteristics will increase their false views. Those who are entirely attached to emptiness will increase their ignorance. Those who are attached to emptiness will slander the sutras. Just speak and do not use written words.

[boda]

Some play with words and twist up their minds. Others follow the Noble Eightfold Path.

[Triquetra of Columba]

Yes, becoming saner and wholesome in order to better help others.

[Vasana]

Yep, Vasana have some seeds and basis for little understanding but it's still far away realization even if it's here, this knowledge will obstruct it.

Just everyday think and every step think of death, then you will know objective clearly by experience rather then write such slanderings around.

Saoshun, with respect i don't need your approval and i think it's deluded to think that you or anyone else, myself included, can accurately gauge the level of understanding, experience and realization of anyone else from text posts on the internet. It's a pointless spectacle.

I agree with you that remembering impermanence and death can be the root for all realized qualities to emerge.

I have to agree, there's a lot of abstraction and babble in this thread for what should be a fairly 'straight-forward' response....
Why is it we so often fall in to the alluring trap of endless, intellectual abstraction based upon the notions about the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of suffering ?

I might respectfully propose that ordinary language, standard logic and "common sense" explanations are not necessarily the most accurate, and can be quite misleading, especially when it comes to the Mahayana in which ordinary thinking and "sensible" opinions and "understandable daily language" words get us into so much trouble and are the source of fundamental human delusion.

I agree that eventually we need to slip in to realm of poetic devices,metahpor,analogy and symbol to adequately communicate more difficult (or easy) concepts, but i'm fairly certain that the whole point of developing Skillfull means , is to be able to adjust the way you communicate dependent on the time,circumstances & audience.

The O.P's question wasn't a trick question nor was it a koan! If someone is asking what the objective of mahayana buddhism is, do you think it's a skillful answer to immediately start playing verbal-acrobatics about emptiness and the limitations of language given that if they're asking this particualr question, they might not know how Mahayana is distinguished from the Sravakayana and might simply want to know the difference?

"Understandable" explanations and ordinary sentence structure sometimes convey some information, but miss the real heart of the matter.

This really depends upon the matter being explained doesn't it. Some answers don't warrant elaborate,poetic or symbolic answers. I don't think the O.P's question did too much either.

Why don't we rely on textual supports from now on when responding to the O.P in this thread? Let's see if or how it changes our discussion.

* Edit just noticed that the plaform sutra was posted. Maybe we should distinguish between Zen interpretations of Mahayana and those from India and Tibet.

[Saoshun]

You all want to grasp something as every phenomena is empty and ungraspable. If you can see this, you will move forward.

[Jeff H]

Each of us is trying to find our own path. My comment to Vasana about reason-not-reason was meant to convey my personal need for guidance from where I am now toward where I believe the Mahayana says I can go. That, for me, is the objective of Mahayana Buddhist practice.

I left the Christian church because being told that accepting Jesus is the way to establish universal loving compassion in my heart simply didn’t work for me. Similarly, I do not know how to apply riddles like “Bubble-no-bubble-what-bubble?” or “ISIS-no-ISIS” to this precious human life.

I understand that Buddha-nature is within us and, theoretically, any of us can simply realize it in an instant. But I don’t know how to do that and I’ve never seen it done. I need a path. I need a principle and instructions I can apply to my life now, exactly as I perceive it. The principle I’m aiming for is direct realization of emptiness and the instructions are the method practices. I believe that with focused effort the illusory self I grasp at can be identified and negated by reason. I also believe that because my mind is empty I can induce incremental changes in it to elicit gradually increasing generosity, ethics, patience, joyful effort, and concentration. That is what I understand the lam rim to provide.

I don’t see it as an instantaneous, spontaneous awakening induced by language-slaps meant to shake up my world-concepts, although I can accept that others may be moved by such methods. Rather it’s a step-by-step process, as Shantideva describes:

23. Just as all the Buddhas of the past
Have brought forth the awakened mind,
And in the precepts of the Bodhisattvas
Step-by-step abode and trained,

24. Likewise, for the benefit of beings,
I will bring to birth the awakened mind,
And in those precepts, step-by-step,
I will abide and train myself.

25. Those who thus with clear intelligence
Take hold of the awakened mind with bright and lucid joy,
That they may now increase what they have gained,
Should lift their hearts with praises such as these:

26. “Today my life has given fruit.
This human state has now been well assumed.
Today I take my birth in Buddha’s line,
And have become the Buddha’s child and heir. …”

[Vasana]

I'm with you there, Jeff. The instantaneous kinds of dialogue have their value when timed correctly but most people are the gradual or skipping types who benefit from some structured exposition as apposed to those who just need a few words or symbols and instantly comprehend everything.

The best way to understand the objective of any Dharmic path really is simply to study the writings of the accomplished masters in your tradition. If anyone thinks that they can personally give a clearer exposition of the objective of the Mahayana path than the masters of the past who systematically laid out the path from beginning to end , then this is a cause for rejoicing. If on the other hand, we intentionally or unintentionally cause more confusion in regards to the dharma, this is a great pity and is something i think we have all been guilty of at some point to various extents.

Objective of the shravakayana or 'Hinayana'= The Individual liberation of Arhatship. (Not quite Buddhahood)
Objective of the Bodhisattvayana or 'Mahayana' = The complete liberation of all sentient beings*. (Buddhahood)
[*even when sentient beings,their samsaric bondage and nirvanic liberation are equally illusory in the first place]

What's the difference? Mahayana possesses vast compassion and a firm resolve for facilitating and nurturing the liberation all sentient beings where as the Shravakayana entails only partial-liberation and cessation for oneself.

The works of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, HH The Dalai lama ,Gampopa and the like are pretty clear in their distinctions about what the goal of Mahayana is in the context of the presentation of the other vehicles and the ways to progress along the path.

[Astus]

Objective of the Bodhisattvayana or 'Mahayana' = The complete liberation of all sentient beings. (Buddhahood)

Sentient beings must seek to save themselves and not wait for the Buddha to do it. If the Buddha could liberate sentient beings, then, since there have been Buddhas as numerous as all the dust motes that have ever existed, surely all of them would have been delivered by now. So why do we still loaf about in these realms of birth and death, unable to become Buddhas? Everyone should understand that sentient beings must save themselves. The Buddha will not do it. Make an effort! Practice yourself! Do not depend upon the power of other Buddhas. Therefore, the sutra says appropriately: "To seek and find the Dharma, do not depend upon the Buddha."
(Dazhu Huihai: Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment)

[Saoshun]

Objective of the Bodhisattvayana or 'Mahayana' = The complete liberation of all sentient beings. (Buddhahood)

Sentient beings must seek to save themselves and not wait for the Buddha to do it. If the Buddha could liberate sentient beings, then, since there have been Buddhas as numerous as all the dust motes that have ever existed, surely all of them would have been delivered by now. So why do we still loaf about in these realms of birth and death, unable to become Buddhas? Everyone should understand that sentient beings must save themselves. The Buddha will not do it. Make an effort! Practice yourself! Do not depend upon the power of other Buddhas. Therefore, the sutra says appropriately: "To seek and find the Dharma, do not depend upon the Buddha."
(Dazhu Huihai: Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment)

The Perfection of Wisdom Treatise further states:
“Take the case of two persons, each of whom watches a relative drowning
in the river. The first person, acting on impulse, hastily jumps into the water.
However, because he lacks the necessary skills, in the end, both of them drown.
The second person, more intelligent and resourceful, hurries off to fetch a boat
and sails to the rescue. Thus, both persons escape drowning.
“Newly aspiring Bodhisattvas are like the first individual who still lacks
the power of Tolerance (of Non-Rebirth) and cannot save sentient beings. Only
those Bodhisattvas who remain close to the Buddhas and attain that Tolerance
can substitute for the Buddhas and ferry countless sentient beings across, just
like the person who has the boat.”

The Perfection of Wisdom Treatise goes on to state:
“This is not unlike a young child who should not leave his mother, lest he
fall into a well, drown in the river or die of starvation; or a young bird whose
wings are not fully developed. It must bide its time, hopping from branch to
branch, until it can fly afar, leisurely and unimpeded.
“Ordinary persons who lack the Tolerance of Non-Birth should limit themselves
to Buddha Recitation, to achieve one-pointedness of Mind. Once that
goal is reached, at the time of death, they will certainly be reborn in the Pure
Land. Having seen Amitabha Buddha and reached the Tolerance of Non-Birth,
they can steer the boat of that Tolerance into the sea of Birth and Death, to
ferry sentient beings across and accomplish countless Buddha deeds at will.”

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Gyatrul R.
Nyingma, USA 2016

If we think of all the mommies and daddies, all beings stuck in samsara, everyone suffering, everyone complaining, everyone crying like babies who are hungry and have shit in their diaper, or maybe they have no diaper, then we need to practice for them, like parents take care of their crying babies. We do have a crying baby—one, two, hundreds, millions, pervading all space. Don’t forget them! It is for all their sakes that we accumulate merit and purify negativity—that way we can have the power and ability to be better mommies and daddies to them all. That is why we practice, not for the sake of the dharma center or because Chatral Rinpoche needs us to—good luck with that!—or because someone is forcing us to. Right now we don’t know how to take care of ourselves even, let alone know how to take care of others – and forget about having the ability to actually do something even if we did know! That is how obscured and weak we are. Right now we are like babies ourselves. We need to grow up and get stronger so that we can be of use to ourselves and others. That is why we need refuge in the Three Jewels, and that is why we need bodhicitta. That is why we need patience in everything. That is why we need faith, too, the foundation underlying it all.

If you don’t have faith when you practice, how are you even going for refuge, let alone doing any further practice? If you have forgotten all sentient beings, how can you have bodhicitta?

Just sayin'...