The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
Ricky
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:39 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Ricky » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:58 am

Dharma Flower wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:27 am
While there might be mythical embellishments in the sutras for literary affect, especially if they developed over hundreds of years, I take at face value that the Mahayana sutras contain the historical Buddha's essential teachings.

Why be Mahayana rather than Theravada if one doesn't actually believe that the Buddha taught the Bodhisattva vehicle? It sort of defeats the point, in my opinion.
Without any sort of practice and realization its not easy to believe. I admire those who entertain no doubts.

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Dharma Flower » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:26 am

Ricky wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:58 am
Dharma Flower wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:27 am
While there might be mythical embellishments in the sutras for literary affect, especially if they developed over hundreds of years, I take at face value that the Mahayana sutras contain the historical Buddha's essential teachings.

Why be Mahayana rather than Theravada if one doesn't actually believe that the Buddha taught the Bodhisattva vehicle? It sort of defeats the point, in my opinion.
Without any sort of practice and realization its not easy to believe. I admire those who entertain no doubts.
I have doubts about the more extravagant claims of the sutras. Did the Buddha literally emit a beam of light from between his eye brows? I have no idea. What I feel certain about is, in the very least, that the Buddha taught the path to Buddhahood, rather than just mere arahantship alone.

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Dharma Flower » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:03 am

While I am unapologetically a Mahayana Buddhist, I also value Theravada Buddhism, which is included under the 84,000 path to enlightenment the Buddha taught. Ch'an master Hsuan Hua was very much in favor of ecumenical relations with Theravada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsuan_Hua ... traditions

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:11 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:16 am
The Theravada is a valid vehicle in its own right for those whose ambition is Arhatship. But it has a different set of aims than does the Mahayana.
This is something one agrees with, for instance, if one is coming from some perspectives.

The notion that the śrāvakayāna leads anywhere other than anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi is not a universal Mahāyāna belief.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Dharma Flower » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:47 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:11 pm
The notion that the śrāvakayāna leads anywhere other than anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi is not a universal Mahāyāna belief.
According to the Lotus Sutra, all the Buddha's disciples who've attained Nirvana will ultimately attain full Buddhahood as well.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9353
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by DGA » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:45 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:11 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:16 am
The Theravada is a valid vehicle in its own right for those whose ambition is Arhatship. But it has a different set of aims than does the Mahayana.
This is something one agrees with, for instance, if one is coming from a Tibetan perspective.

The notion that the śrāvakayāna leads anywhere other than anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi is not a universal Mahāyāna belief.
Can you give an example or two of a tradition that holes that the sravakayana doesn't lead, eventually, to Mahayana and hence to Buddhahood?

I can't think of one.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28316
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:07 pm

DGA wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:45 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:11 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:16 am
The Theravada is a valid vehicle in its own right for those whose ambition is Arhatship. But it has a different set of aims than does the Mahayana.
This is something one agrees with, for instance, if one is coming from a Tibetan perspective.

The notion that the śrāvakayāna leads anywhere other than anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi is not a universal Mahāyāna belief.
Can you give an example or two of a tradition that holes that the sravakayana doesn't lead, eventually, to Mahayana and hence to Buddhahood?

I can't think of one.
Yogacāra.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:27 pm

DGA wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:45 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:11 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:16 am
The Theravada is a valid vehicle in its own right for those whose ambition is Arhatship. But it has a different set of aims than does the Mahayana.
This is something one agrees with, for instance, if one is coming from a Tibetan perspective.

The notion that the śrāvakayāna leads anywhere other than anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi is not a universal Mahāyāna belief.
Can you give an example or two of a tradition that holes that the sravakayana doesn't lead, eventually, to Mahayana and hence to Buddhahood?

I can't think of one.
There is a mischaracterization above. It should some "some Tibetan perspectives", or even more ideallly "some perspectives", rather than speaking of/for "a Tibetan perspective". I'll ask a moderator to change it.

For an example of what you ask for above we can turn to some narratives surrounding specifically early Mahayana (see Aṣasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, looking for more precise citation, but Ven Huifeng has: If a person has already entered into the status of certitude to perfection,[1] they will be unable to arise mental aspiration toward anuttarā samyak saṃbodhi. For what reason? Because they have already constructed an embankment against the torrent of cyclic birth and death.[2]

[1]This is “samyaktva-niyāmam”. The Upadeśa provides an excellent discussion relevant here: Upadeśa 《大智度論》卷18:「如佛說。若有比丘於諸有為法不能正憶念。欲得世間第一法無有是處。若不得世間第一法。欲入正位中無有是處。若不入正位。欲得須陀洹斯陀含阿那含阿羅漢無有是處。」(CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 192, c10-17); = “As the Buddha taught: ‘If a bhikṣu is unable to correctly direct the mind with regards to conditioned dharmas, yet wishes to attain foremost mudane dharmas, this is impossible; if one does not attain foremost mundane dharmas, yet wishes to penetratively [realize] the unconditioned in the fixed status [of dharmas], this is impossible; if one does not penetratively [realize] the fixed status [of dharmas], yet wishes to attain śrotāpanna, śakṛādāgāmi, anāgāmi, or arhatva, this is impossible. … [and the formula in reverse.]”

This is the Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra citing sūtra 《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》卷2:「…若不能起世第一法。能入正性離生。無有是處。若不能入正性離生。能得預流一來不還阿羅漢果。無有是處。」(CBETA, T27, no. 1545, p. 5, b9-18). See SN 25:1-10, iii 225-228; = Bodhi (2000: 1004-1007); and SN 13 Abhi­samaya­saṃyutta, Bodhi (2000: 621ff n219 = 787ff): “Both dhammābhisamaya and dhamma­cakkh­upaṭilābha signify the attainment of stream-entry.” Mahā­vibhāṣa Śāstra 《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》卷109:CBETA, T27, no. 1545, p. 563, c26-p. 564, a2); etc. Similar to: “stableness of the Dhamma (dhamma-ṭṭhitatā), the fixed practice of Dhamma (dhamma-niyāmatā)” (Bhikkhu Bodhi 2001: “Conditions”, II 12.20 and “Cases of Knowledge”, II 12.34 in Samyutta Nikāya, Wisdom: Boston. p. 551, 573.) – the first two: -ṭṭhitatā (住位性) & niyāmatā (定性). It is a stage of realization, just not yet nirvāṇa.

Thus, Conze’s “[ie. arhats who have reached their last birth, etc.]” is incorrect. It is a point of non-return, only, not finality. Thus, the “fixed status” is preceding realization of the ārya-phalas. This statement is found to be “attainment of stream-entry” (śrota­āpatti) in all the other three earlier sūtras (Dàoxíng, Dàmíngdù(A) and Chāojīng). Xuánzàng’s Dàbōrĕ(4) and (5) even specify it as “śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha certitude”, implying that the bodhisattva’s have a certitude, albeit of a different nature. This is also a critical idea later in the text.

[2]Sanskrit “baddhasīmāno hi te saṃsārasrotasaḥ”. Translation adds “torrent” to connect the metaphor of an “embankment” against a “flooding river”.


Now hopefully I am not misrepresnted Ven Huifeng here, as to the best of my knowledge he is not here to contextualize himself, but if I may quote:

[When asked about the liberation of the arhat]

Arhat = game over.

[Cites the Wisdom-Perfection scripture above]

This is the very reason why so many Mahayana texts go to so much pain to warn bodhisattvas about falling to the stages of the sravakas or pratyekabuddhas. If one could become an arhat (or pratyekabuddha) and still turn back to the Mahayana, or, must turn back to the Mahayana, all those warning would not make any sense. Why not first become an arhat? The fact being, arhat = game over. End of samsara. So, no chance to develop the special qualities of a Buddha.

I thus take those texts which say otherwise, ie. that arhats can continue on with the Mahayana, to be neyartha teachings, ie. teachings which do not express the real truth of the matter, but are expedients requiring further explanation. Note that most of these neyartha teachings are later, even though they usually claim to be "the real truth". Such claims are more an indication of their own acknowledgement that they differ radically from established points of view.

~~Huifeng


Regarding my earlier comments concerning Tibetan perspectives, I should not have made it, because I do not know enough about those Tibetan perspectives in question.

For instance, I know Ven Tsongkhapa had some views controversial (in my likely misinformed hubris, I believe that his views were that the śrāvakāḥ understood phenomenal emptiness in addition to personal emptiness, but any more speculation further than that is hardly suitable to the "discovering Mahāyāna" subforum, perhaps @Malcolm, who actually understands what I am half-recalling and half-understanding, can clarify) with other schools concerning the wisdom of the arhat in relation to phenomenal vs personal emptiness, but cannot comment substantially further.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9353
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by DGA » Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:37 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:07 pm
DGA wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:45 pm

Can you give an example or two of a tradition that holds that the sravakayana doesn't lead, eventually, to Mahayana and hence to Buddhahood?

I can't think of one.
Yogacāra.
OK. I haven't studied Yogacara in any detail at all, so I wouldn't know.

I should have made my point differently. I don't know of any contemporary school of Mahayana that would claim that practitioners of sravakayana, even those who attain the goal of arhatship, do not eventually wind up practicing Mahayana and then attaining Buddhahood. Are there any such schools today?

Simon E.
Posts: 5632
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Simon E. » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:16 am

Isn't the issue more about cutting out the 'middle man'?
Is it safe to come out now? Looks to the left...Looks to the right.... :thinking:

jake
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by jake » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:43 pm

DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:37 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:07 pm
DGA wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:45 pm

Can you give an example or two of a tradition that holds that the sravakayana doesn't lead, eventually, to Mahayana and hence to Buddhahood?

I can't think of one.
Yogacāra.
OK. I haven't studied Yogacara in any detail at all, so I wouldn't know.

I should have made my point differently. I don't know of any contemporary school of Mahayana that would claim that practitioners of sravakayana, even those who attain the goal of arhatship, do not eventually wind up practicing Mahayana and then attaining Buddhahood. Are there any such schools today?
Hi DGA,

The way you've phrased the paragraph above has triggered a question. Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.
“The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone."

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9353
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by DGA » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 pm

jake wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:43 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:37 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:07 pm


Yogacāra.
OK. I haven't studied Yogacara in any detail at all, so I wouldn't know.

I should have made my point differently. I don't know of any contemporary school of Mahayana that would claim that practitioners of sravakayana, even those who attain the goal of arhatship, do not eventually wind up practicing Mahayana and then attaining Buddhahood. Are there any such schools today?
Hi DGA,

The way you've phrased the paragraph above has triggered a question. Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.
Good one. My comments so far in this thread don't account for pratyekabuddhas. I've never met one so I can't say first hand. In fact, I'm just parroting what little I know of the Mahayana party line. Here's my best shot at that question.

I think you have to practice Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana) in order to become a Samyaksambuddha. Which means that pratyekabuddhas don't attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi, because they haven't practiced Mahayana. Or is it possible for a pratyekabuddha to practice Mahayana? I don't know.

I think all sentient beings have Buddhahood available to them, and that the different schemes of different vehicles are little more than temporarily useful fictions or taxonomies.

I invite anyone with the patience to correct any mistakes I've made to do so.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28316
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:27 pm

DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 pm
jake wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:43 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:37 am


OK. I haven't studied Yogacara in any detail at all, so I wouldn't know.

I should have made my point differently. I don't know of any contemporary school of Mahayana that would claim that practitioners of sravakayana, even those who attain the goal of arhatship, do not eventually wind up practicing Mahayana and then attaining Buddhahood. Are there any such schools today?
Hi DGA,

The way you've phrased the paragraph above has triggered a question. Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.
Good one. My comments so far in this thread don't account for pratyekabuddhas. I've never met one so I can't say first hand. In fact, I'm just parroting what little I know of the Mahayana party line. Here's my best shot at that question.

I think you have to practice Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana) in order to become a Samyaksambuddha. Which means that pratyekabuddhas don't attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi, because they haven't practiced Mahayana. Or is it possible for a pratyekabuddha to practice Mahayana? I don't know.

I think all sentient beings have Buddhahood available to them, and that the different schemes of different vehicles are little more than temporarily useful fictions or taxonomies.

I invite anyone with the patience to correct any mistakes I've made to do so.
See this post:


viewtopic.php?f=102&t=27709&start=240#p434368
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:45 pm

DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 pm
jake wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:43 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:37 am
OK. I haven't studied Yogacara in any detail at all, so I wouldn't know.

I should have made my point differently. I don't know of any contemporary school of Mahayana that would claim that practitioners of sravakayana, even those who attain the goal of arhatship, do not eventually wind up practicing Mahayana and then attaining Buddhahood. Are there any such schools today?
Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.
Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana)
And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:09 pm

One does not have to go far in Mahāyāna to encounter all manner of school putting a division between "general Mahayana", or "their Mahayana", or "mundane Mahayana" & "true Mahayana", "our Mahayana", & "special Mahayana".

Ekayāna strikes me as an early example of this. Its Mahayana but not "regular" Mahayana.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

marting
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:37 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by marting » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:09 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:45 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 pm
jake wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:43 pm

Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.
Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana)
And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?
Would this be something you extrapolated on your own, or does the LS discuss four yanas?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28316
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:16 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:45 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 pm
jake wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:43 pm

Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.
Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana)
And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?
This is not how it is understood by Candrakīrti. Candra, the preeminent representative of Nāgārjuna's school in India, understands Mahāyāna = Ekayāna.

Maitreyanath understands the Ekayāna idea to require interpretation, thus, not definitive.

There is no fourth yāna. Even Vajrayāna is just part of Mahāyāna.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:53 pm

marting wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:09 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:45 pm
DGA wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:02 pm

Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana)
And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?
Would this be something you extrapolated on your own, or does the LS discuss four yanas?
No. This four yanáni business is wrong speech born of misunderstanding. The LS, like the Buddha, teaches a one vehicle path. Not two. Not three. Not four.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

marting
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:37 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by marting » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:39 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:53 pm
marting wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:09 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:45 pm


And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?
Would this be something you extrapolated on your own, or does the LS discuss four yanas?
No. This four yanáni business is wrong speech born of misunderstanding. The LS, like the Buddha, teaches a one vehicle path. Not two. Not three. Not four.
If the three are provisional, and one definitive in which you termed "Buddhayana," are you not proposing a fourth yana?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28316
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:40 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:53 pm
The LS, like the Buddha, teaches a one vehicle path. Not two. Not three. Not four.
This is highly debatable, which is why there is debate about it.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests