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 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:02 pm

Dharma Flower wrote:
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.
I have no idea as well but Theravadins argue that the historical buddha only taught the path to arhatship and that there can only be one buddha per eon. Many contradictions between theravada and mahayana. I think both should be seen as separate religions rather than different vehicles.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:04 pm


Ven Zhìyǐ identifies ekayāna as the totality of the refined elements of three periods of teachings: vaipulya (corresponding to Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣa-cinti-brahma, Laṅkâvatāra, Śūraṃgama-samādhi, Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra, Śrīmālā, etc., (Muller 2.2)), prajñā (the prajñāpāramitā sūtras), & the period of the Lotus Sermon.
The Tien Tai school's use of the term ekayāna has come to dominate discourse around it, since ekayāna is such a central term in their system. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the way the term is used by Buddhist scholars in Buddhism's native home, India, has been somewhat eclipsed. No one in India seems ever to have thought to make the term a centerpiece of their hermeneutics based on a historiographical idea of the three turnings (or five periods), just as the three turnings themselves are virtually ignored by Indian scholars, but are important to Tibetan scholars.

From the point of view of text critical methodology, there are a couple of points to bear in mind. Taking Chinese translations of Mahāyāna Sūtras as an approximate gauge of the date of their initial composition, there are no sūtras that use the terminology of the three kāyas that can be dated prior to Maitreyanatha ((ca. 270-350 CE). Thus, trying to use the term sambhogakāya with respect to sūtras earlier than Maitreyanath is anachronistic. These sūtras describe the kāyas of the buddha solely as rūpakāya and dharmakāya. The earliest depictions of the sambhogakāya are in Maitreyanatha's texts, where "sambhogakāya" principally refers to the 32 signs and 80 marks. Moreover, there are no sūtras that I can find where the two terms, rūpakāya and sambhogakāya, can be found together.

It seems the earliest sūtra to fully embrace the terminology of three kāyas is the proto-tantric Suvarnaprabhasa Sūtra, first translated into Chinese by Dharmakṣema between 1414-421. (The question of why Maitryeanātha found it useful or necessary to elaborate the concept of the sambhogakāya, and possible influences is an interesting question, but there is no room for it here.)

Given this, we come across an important distinction: any sūtras which use the terminology of three kāyas were composed after Maitreyanātha's dates, that is, they must have been composed after 275-350 CE.

There is no discussion of ekayāna in Indian treatises that can be found in the Tibetan canon which can be dated earlier than Maitreyanatha as well (I have no idea about what can be gleaned from the Chinese canon). Given the fact that there is no distance between what Vasubandhu reports about ekayāna and Candrakīrti, it is clear that for Indian paṇḍitas, Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu pretty much set the tone for how ekayāna, as well as the rest of Indian Buddhology, was to be discussed from then on. Given that this is the case, and given that the ekayāna is pretty much described as being the identical liberation of arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas in both Yogacāra and post 6th century Madhyamaka sources, it is not surprising then that Tibetan scholars themselves devoted virtually no attention to the concept.
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
coffeebeans
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:27 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by coffeebeans » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:08 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:04 pm


Ven Zhìyǐ identifies ekayāna as the totality of the refined elements of three periods of teachings: vaipulya (corresponding to Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣa-cinti-brahma, Laṅkâvatāra, Śūraṃgama-samādhi, Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra, Śrīmālā, etc., (Muller 2.2)), prajñā (the prajñāpāramitā sūtras), & the period of the Lotus Sermon.
The Tien Tai school's use of the term ekayāna has come to dominate discourse around it, since ekayāna is such a central term in their system. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the way the term is used by Buddhist scholars in Buddhism's native home, India, has been somewhat eclipsed. No one in India seems ever to have thought to make the term a centerpiece of their hermeneutics based on a historiographical idea of the three turnings (or five periods), just as the three turnings themselves are virtually ignored by Indian scholars, but are important to Tibetan scholars.

From the point of view of text critical methodology, there are a couple of points to bear in mind. Taking Chinese translations of Mahāyāna Sūtras as an approximate gauge of the date of their initial composition, there are no sūtras that use the terminology of the three kāyas that can be dated prior to Maitreyanatha ((ca. 270-350 CE). Thus, trying to use the term sambhogakāya with respect to sūtras earlier than Maitreyanath is anachronistic. These sūtras describe the kāyas of the buddha solely as rūpakāya and dharmakāya. The earliest depictions of the sambhogakāya are in Maitreyanatha's texts, where "sambhogakāya" principally refers to the 32 signs and 80 marks. Moreover, there are no sūtras that I can find where the two terms, rūpakāya and sambhogakāya, can be found together.

It seems the earliest sūtra to fully embrace the terminology of three kāyas is the proto-tantric Suvarnaprabhasa Sūtra, first translated into Chinese by Dharmakṣema between 1414-421. (The question of why Maitryeanātha found it useful or necessary to elaborate the concept of the sambhogakāya, and possible influences is an interesting question, but there is no room for it here.)

Given this, we come across an important distinction: any sūtras which use the terminology of three kāyas were composed after Maitreyanātha's dates, that is, they must have been composed after 275-350 CE.

There is no discussion of ekayāna in Indian treatises that can be found in the Tibetan canon which can be dated earlier than Maitreyanatha as well (I have no idea about what can be gleaned from the Chinese canon). Given the fact that there is no distance between what Vasubandhu reports about ekayāna and Candrakīrti, it is clear that for Indian paṇḍitas, Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu pretty much set the tone for how ekayāna, as well as the rest of Indian Buddhology, was to be discussed from then on. Given that this is the case, and given that the ekayāna is pretty much described as being the identical liberation of arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas in both Yogacāra and post 6th century Madhyamaka sources, it is not surprising then that Tibetan scholars themselves devoted virtually no attention to the concept.
Historical background is indispensable in these discussions. Thank you, Malcolm!

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:29 pm

Ricky wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:02 pm
Dharma Flower wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:26 am
Ricky wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:58 am

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.
I have no idea as well but Theravadins argue that the historical buddha only taught the path to arhatship and that there can only be one buddha per eon. Many contradictions between theravada and mahayana. I think both should be seen as separate religions rather than different vehicles.

It is pretty clear that Indian Mahāyāna Buddhists regarded arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas as equivalent with respect to liberation. From a Mahāyāna point of view difference between the three lies in cultivation of merit and the depth of their omniscience. Considering Mahāyāna to be a separate religion from the Śrāvaka schools is a big mistake. They merely did different things with the raw material the Buddha left us.
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

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

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Dharma Flower » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:44 pm

Ricky wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:02 pm
I think both should be seen as separate religions rather than different vehicles.
I would say that Theravadins and Mahayanists might have more in common with each other than Protestants have with Catholics and Sunnis have with Shiites.

Mahayana and Theravada are indeed within the same religion, just as the Buddha taught the Sravaka path to some and the Bodhisattva path to others, depending on their inclinations, temperaments, capacities, etc.

User avatar
coffeebeans
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:27 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by coffeebeans » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:29 pm
Ricky wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:02 pm
Dharma Flower wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:26 am


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.
I have no idea as well but Theravadins argue that the historical buddha only taught the path to arhatship and that there can only be one buddha per eon. Many contradictions between theravada and mahayana. I think both should be seen as separate religions rather than different vehicles.

It is pretty clear that Indian Mahāyāna Buddhists regarded arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas as equivalent with respect to liberation. From a Mahāyāna point of view difference between the three lies in cultivation of merit and the depth of their omniscience. Considering Mahāyāna to be a separate religion from the Śrāvaka schools is a big mistake. They merely did different things with the raw material the Buddha left us.
I'm going to frame this one over here. This is excellent.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:05 am

One last substantiation comes to mind of ekayāna as identical to bodhisattvayāna/Mahāyāna: the term 二乘之人 which is used in occasional contradistinction to 大乘之人 ('Mahāyānist' or 'Mahāyāni'). 二乘之人 would be loosely equivalent to *dvayānika or "two-vehicle-er ("two vehiclist" is an equally awkward adaption)", meaning a practitioner of śrāvakayāna. 大乘之人 is Mahāyānika.
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm
The Tien Tai school's use of the term ekayāna has come to dominate discourse around it, since ekayāna is such a central term in their system. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the way the term is used by Buddhist scholars in Buddhism's native home, India, has been somewhat eclipsed.
Another unfortunate development is the increasing vagueness as to what exactly 'ekayāna' constitutes within that system too. Following Swanson's glossary was like a ping-pong game of "ekayāna is Mahāyāna" and then "ekayāna is definitive & bodhisattvayāna is provisional" sentiments one right after the other.
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm
From the point of view of text critical methodology, there are a couple of points to bear in mind. Taking Chinese translations of Mahāyāna Sūtras as an approximate gauge of the date of their initial composition, there are no sūtras that use the terminology of the three kāyas that can be dated prior to Maitreyanatha ((ca. 270-350 CE). Thus, trying to use the term sambhogakāya with respect to sūtras earlier than Maitreyanath is anachronistic. These sūtras describe the kāyas of the buddha solely as rūpakāya and dharmakāya. The earliest depictions of the sambhogakāya are in Maitreyanatha's texts, where "sambhogakāya" principally refers to the 32 signs and 80 marks. Moreover, there are no sūtras that I can find where the two terms, rūpakāya and sambhogakāya, can be found together.

[...]

Given this, we come across an important distinction: any sūtras which use the terminology of three kāyas were composed after Maitreyanātha's dates, that is, they must have been composed after 275-350 CE.
What do you make of Indian commentaries on the LS identifying the teaching figure at the centre with the saṃbhogakāya, then? Clearly anachronistic is not synonymous with "improper" in this context.

This sūtra may predate the formalization of trikāya theory, but there was another thread of contention as I recall a while ago about the 5 certainties of the saṃboghakāya and the teaching described in the Ch 16 centrepiece of the sūtra.
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm
Given that this is the case, and given that the ekayāna is pretty much described as being the identical liberation of arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas in both Yogacāra and post 6th century Madhyamaka sources, it is not surprising then that Tibetan scholars themselves devoted virtually no attention to the concept.
This last point also intersects with this:
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:29 pm
Ricky wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:02 pm
Dharma Flower wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:26 am


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.
I have no idea as well but Theravadins argue that the historical buddha only taught the path to arhatship and that there can only be one buddha per eon. Many contradictions between theravada and mahayana. I think both should be seen as separate religions rather than different vehicles.

It is pretty clear that Indian Mahāyāna Buddhists regarded arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas as equivalent with respect to liberation.
[...]
If you will forgive me to ask for clarification, by "Buddhas" here do you specifically mean "saṃyaksambuddhas"? And by "equivalent with respect to liberation", what is that liberation from? From where does the "rousing of the Arahantaḥ" narrative originate? As this narrative seems to imply that śrāvakabuddhāḥ/arahantaḥ, Arhats, are not equivalent in some aspects? How is the collective diversity of the fruits of labour not a diversity of degrees of liberation, if it is said that the arahantaḥ will be "roused" to pursue liberation for sentient beings?

Or is this a misreading of the narrative?
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
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Queequeg » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:27 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:05 am
Another unfortunate development is the increasing vagueness as to what exactly 'ekayāna' constitutes within that system too. Following Swanson's glossary was like a ping-pong game of "ekayāna is Mahāyāna" and then "ekayāna is definitive & bodhisattvayāna is provisional" sentiments one right after the other.
It's contextual depending which teaching one takes as the basis of their perspective. Mahayana means something different depending on whether it's shared, distinct or perfect.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6113
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Queequeg » Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:11 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm
Thus, trying to use the term sambhogakāya with respect to sūtras earlier than Maitreyanath is anachronistic.
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:13 am
Queequeg wrote:...
As the rest of my comment tries to point out, Shakyamuni as eternal is not an intellectual somersault but the import of the Lotus Sutra text itself. I pointed out that Malcolm suggesting that this message in the Lotus is another upaya in the manner he suggests it is, is not compelling as it is not supported by the text of the sutra, and instead is a complete contradiction.

The Five Certainties, as I can gather, seem to have been a much later development in Indian Buddhist thought. It is, in the very least, awkward to use it to analyze a text that long predates it.
You are contradicting yourself here. You assume that you can apply someone's traditional exegesis to a text, and discard someone else's traditional exegesis based on some text critical criterion which you merely accept arbitrarily so it won't contradict your prejudices. The five certainties are found within Sūtra.
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:33 am
Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
I quote the Buddha's words from the sutra without caveat. It is the Buddha's teaching. How it came to be written, some time in the 1st c. BCE ~ 1st c. CE, I have no idea.
It's good that you have no idea. You also have no idea when it was committed to writing. So why waste your time assuming that things like the five certainties are "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra? If we follow your text based logic, also the sambhogakāya is "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.
Queequeg wrote: Cut the games.
Even when it seems like I am playing games, the purpose is serious.
Everything that arises is subject to dissolution.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:44 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:00 pm
DGA wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:11 pm
I don't think that the ekayana is found in all three provisional paths so much as all three provisional paths are means to the end of leading beings to Mahayana and hence Buddhahood. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference.
[...]

The narrative that you outline is something that I know respectively either as the samādhi of the Arhantaḥ ('arhats'), the slumber of the Arhantaḥ, or the rousing of the Arhantaḥ, and seems to be a mainstream feature of many Buddhisms, but not necessarily a universal feature of all Mahāyāna. This narrative ties in quite well with the also well-established narrative of ekayāna as Mahāyāna, as the two beliefs support one another.

For instance, the rousing of the Arhantaḥ is a prominent enough narrative for Ven Huifeng, in those earlier quotes, to note it clashing with a passage in early prajñāpāramitā literature. He:
[...] take[s] 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.
He further qualifies his thinking:
Note that most of these neyartha teachings [i.e. the rousing of the Arhantaḥ] 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.
Whether or not Ven Huifeng has a well-established, established, or completely unestablished tradition of thought behind him in making this judgement, I am not qualified to say. But this represents one perspective in which the "one vehicle" cannot be Mahāyāna, because it is said to be impossible for the śrāvaka vehicle to lead to the bodhisattva vehicle.

It makes me wonder what his opinion on ekayāna in general would be.

In the interest of providing some substantiation for this teaching that is being presented as called into question, the Venerable Khenpo Kunzang Pelden (hereafter Ven KKP) cites three passages from scripture in establishing the narrative of the rousing of the Arhantaḥ:
Ven KKP wrote:Thus you say that you have passed beyond all pain,
But from the sorrows of saṃsāra only are you free.
You have not yet transcended every misery;
The Buddha's highest vehicle you should now pursue.
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra)

Until the state of buddhahood is gained,
The state beyond all sorrow is not reached;
Likewise with its light and beams removed,
The sun alone we could not see.
(Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra)

The Arhat Śrāvakas,
Till the Buddhas call them,
Rest in wisdom bodies,
Drunk on concentration.
Roused, they take on various forms,
And work with love for beings' sake,
Merit and wisdom gathered in,
They reach the awakening of buddhahood.
(Bodhicittavivaraṇa)
(compiled from page 343 of Ven KKP's commentary on Ven Śāntideva's Bodhicaryavatara, The Nectar of Mañjuśrī's Speech)

Note that one of the sources that Ven KKP utilizes is the Lotus Sūtra itself.
There is another ekayāna narrative concerning the liberation of the Arhantaḥ, from the Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra @ 714a9:
問曰:阿羅漢先世因緣所受身必應當滅,住在何處而具足佛道?
Inquiry: in the Arhat's past lives the causes and conditions for being subject to embodiment necessarily ought to have been eradicated, [in light of this] they dwell where to perfect buddhahood?

答曰: 得阿羅漢時,三界諸漏因緣盡,更不復生三界。有淨佛土,
Responce: when attaining Arhatship, the three realms' myriad outflows' causes and conditions are exhausted, there is no more birth again in the three realms. There is a pure buddha land,

出於三界,乃至無煩惱之名,於 是國土佛所,聞法華經,具足佛道。
beyond the three realms, where not even the word affliction has a name, in this kingdom of the Buddha, they hear the Dharma Flower Sūtra [i.e. the Lotus Sūtra], with this they perfect Buddhahood.

如法華經說:「有羅漢,若不聞法華經,
As in the Dharma Flower Sūtra's words: "There are Arhantaḥ[,] for example[, who've] not heard the Dharma Flower Sūtra,

自謂得滅度;我於餘國為說是事,汝皆當作佛。」
themselves they call [']ones who have attained cessation[']; I in another realm for them speak this matter, you all shall become Buddhas."
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
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:46 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:44 pm
There is another ekayāna narrative concerning the liberation of the Arhantaḥ, from the Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra
It is quite unlikely that the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra is a composition of Nāgārjuna. See Bronkhorst, Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, from page 56 on.
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
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:54 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:16 am
This is not in order to be contentious. But a few posts recently appear to suggest that;

a) The Theravada is older than the Mahayana and is, therefore, more representative of 'pure' or original Buddhism.

b) That the Theravada somehow provides the basic platform on which the Mahayana is built.

c) That the Mahayana has to be validated by the Pali Sutras.

All these suggestions are erroneous. In reality;

The evidence suggests that the Theravada is a relatively recent development in the history of Buddhism and that much of the Mahayana corpus predates it.

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.

The Mahayana path including the Vajrayana can be brought to completion with no reference to the Pali Sutras at all.
theravada is an interpretation of the historical buddha words. afaik, the only hinayana school that stills.

we don't know really what was first, i don't care much really.

in my opinion it is far much better to practice mahayana if one has realized at least some of the hinayana disciplines. discipline is not to be obviated.

to despise the hinayana is to despise the buddha himself, even if little despise, so be careful.

i'm just saying..
Identities are false and not true

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:23 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:46 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:44 pm
There is another ekayāna narrative concerning the liberation of the Arhantaḥ, from the Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra
It is quite unlikely that the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra is a composition of Nāgārjuna. See Bronkhorst, Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, from page 56 on.
Apologies. I was simply going with a traditional attribution. We can call him Pseudo-Nāgārjuna until there is consensus on who authored it, I suppose.
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
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Malcolm » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:51 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:23 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:46 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:44 pm
There is another ekayāna narrative concerning the liberation of the Arhantaḥ, from the Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra
It is quite unlikely that the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra is a composition of Nāgārjuna. See Bronkhorst, Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, from page 56 on.
Apologies. I was simply going with a traditional attribution. We can call him Pseudo-Nāgārjuna until there is consensus on who authored it, I suppose.
No need to apologize. As far as who the author is, we will never know.
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
tellyontellyon
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by tellyontellyon » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:54 pm

Sorry to jump in here with a question... it is just that I was thinking about this question this very morning and then happened to notice this thread.
I understand that many Theravadin Buddhists are sceptical of Mahayana scriptures - but are Mahayana practitioners sceptical of any Theravadin scriptures?

I really like to use the 'Access to Insight' website and like to listen to Ajahn Amaro's podcasts even though my own practice is within the Karma Kagyu tradition (Palpung)... taking an interest in those Theravada teachers and scriptures isn't going to lead me in a mistaken way is it?

The 17th Karmapa (OTD), mentions* that the difference between 'Foundation Vehicle' and Mahayana is much more to do with motivation that the actual scriptures, pujas etc., as such, and that a 'Mahayana' practitioner may have 'Foundation Vehicle' motivation, thus rendering the practice a 'Foundation Vehicle' practice.
:anjali:

* My paraphrasing of the beginning of the 17th Karmapa's forward to 'The Torch of True Meaning, Instructions and Practice Text for the Mahamudra Preliminaries. (2014)"

P.S. Greetings to all on here, I haven't posted in quite a while, I hope all are well. :heart:
“To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

Sentient Light
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:40 pm
Location: Pacifica, California

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Sentient Light » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:57 pm

tellyontellyon wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:54 pm
but are Mahayana practitioners sceptical of any Theravadin scriptures?
Not the general whole of the Nikayas, but certainly bits here and there are seen as acanonical, distortions, mistranslations, etc. Some texts in the Pali canon are surely outright forgeries. There are also heavy revisions where a Chinese or Tibetan text is denied as authentic in the Pali canon, yet the canon includes a different version of the text, hidden inside a commentary somewhere, which actually argues for its authenticity.

We reject their Vinaya, even though much of it aligns. We reject their abhidhamma as revisionism (even some Theravadin monks, like Walpola Rahula, have mentioned that the Mahayana abhidharma is closer to the Pali Nikayas in doctrinal content than the Theravadin abhidhamma).

Basically, the gist is that we have common ground with the Nikayas (with the Agamas and the Tibetan collection of EBTs), but little else in the Pali canon (which is a majority of the canon). Where the Nikayas and the Agamas agree, we're okay. Where the Nikayas and the Agamas disagree, we tend toward the Agama being the authentic version.
:buddha1: Nam mô A di đà Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Quan Thế Âm Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Đại Thế Chi Bồ Tát :bow:

:buddha1: Nam mô Bổn sư Thích ca mâu ni Phật :buddha1:
:bow: Nam mô Di lặc Bồ tát :bow:
:bow: Nam mô Địa tạng vương Bồ tát :bow:

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3725
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:34 pm

coffeebeans wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:12 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:29 pm
It is pretty clear that Indian Mahāyāna Buddhists regarded arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas as equivalent with respect to liberation. From a Mahāyāna point of view difference between the three lies in cultivation of merit and the depth of their omniscience. Considering Mahāyāna to be a separate religion from the Śrāvaka schools is a big mistake. They merely did different things with the raw material the Buddha left us.
I'm going to frame this one over here. This is excellent.
I was going to put it in my sig line. :smile:

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Anders » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:42 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:51 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:23 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:46 pm


It is quite unlikely that the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra is a composition of Nāgārjuna. See Bronkhorst, Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, from page 56 on.
Apologies. I was simply going with a traditional attribution. We can call him Pseudo-Nāgārjuna until there is consensus on who authored it, I suppose.
No need to apologize. As far as who the author is, we will never know.
whoever the author was, he was quite remarkable.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

Simon E.
Posts: 5625
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by Simon E. » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:31 am

tellyontellyon wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:54 pm
Sorry to jump in here with a question... it is just that I was thinking about this question this very morning and then happened to notice this thread.
I understand that many Theravadin Buddhists are sceptical of Mahayana scriptures - but are Mahayana practitioners sceptical of any Theravadin scriptures?

I really like to use the 'Access to Insight' website and like to listen to Ajahn Amaro's podcasts even though my own practice is within the Karma Kagyu tradition (Palpung)... taking an interest in those Theravada teachers and scriptures isn't going to lead me in a mistaken way is it?

The 17th Karmapa (OTD), mentions* that the difference between 'Foundation Vehicle' and Mahayana is much more to do with motivation that the actual scriptures, pujas etc., as such, and that a 'Mahayana' practitioner may have 'Foundation Vehicle' motivation, thus rendering the practice a 'Foundation Vehicle' practice.
:anjali:

* My paraphrasing of the beginning of the 17th Karmapa's forward to 'The Torch of True Meaning, Instructions and Practice Text for the Mahamudra Preliminaries. (2014)"

P.S. Greetings to all on here, I haven't posted in quite a while, I hope all are well. :heart:
Hello tellyontellyon long time no see. :namaste:

Its very unlikely that studying the Pali canon will do you anything but good.
I think we need to be careful in interpreting what or what does not tranform sutrayana into a foundation vehicle. Motivation is indeed key and primary, but sooner or later a teacher will be needed.
Gone fishin' :smile:

User avatar
tellyontellyon
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.

Post by tellyontellyon » Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:31 pm

Simon E

Its very unlikely that studying the Pali canon will do you anything but good.
I think we need to be careful in interpreting what or what does not tranform sutrayana into a foundation vehicle. Motivation is indeed key and primary, but sooner or later a teacher will be needed.
My reading of the sutras is not really very sophisticated, but they do inspire me.


I think what the Karmapa was referring to was motivation in the sense of ultimate goal, i.e., Bodhisattva motivation V's the goal of Arhantship. By 'Foundation vehicle' I think he is referring to what used to be called 'Hinayana' motivation. If I quote his actual words:

"Often people wonder whether a particular Dharma practice belongs to the Mahayana or to the Foundation vehicle. Yet it is not really a question of whether a practice is Mahayana or Foundation vehicle- the label it is given does not make it one or the other. Instead, it depends upon the resolve of the practitioner: if their motivation is bodhichitta, then it becomes Mahayana. But if it is a Foundation vehicle motivation, then the practice becomes a Foundation vehicle practice. People might think that it is the practice that is the Great Perfection, but that is not how it is. What is important is not that the practice be the Great Perfection but that the individual must become the Great Perfection."
OTD
“To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phuntsog Tashi and 7 guests