distinction between common & uncommon preliminaries

[Tenzin]

I totally agree that Hinayana practitioners need to accumulate of wisdom.

And Maha and Vajra yana practitioners don't? So what are mandala offerings and Ngondro practices about then? And anyway, what are you saying here? An Arhat has to accumulate wisdom whereas a Mahayana practitioner (who is a Mahayana practitioner due to the accumulation of merit and wisdom) does not need to? Or, somehow, has accumulated more merit than an Arhat? What a crock!

I stated that Mahayana practitioners (i.e Bodhisattvayana practiotioners) do accumulate merit and wisdom.

Mahayana view is that Buddha's qualities are indeed our nature and we just need to actualize them by accumulating of merit and wisdom.

To clarify your confusion about my view I state the following: the two accumulations of merit and wisdom are required in all nine transcendent yanas, i.e. they are practiced in Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana (including Atiyogayana or Dzogchen).

I will try to simplify the message I presented in my previous posts to help you to understand.

Note: According to the Nyingma tradition Hinayana consists of two vehicles - Shravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana.

Let's say that there are two practiotioners: Mahayana practitioner (Bodhisattvayana practitioner) and Hinayana practiotioner (Sharavakayana practitioner). Both of them progress through the path by accumulating merit and wisdom according to their respective teachings. Having perfected the two accumulations Mahayana practitioner becomes Buddha and Hinayana practitioner becomes Arhat. Now according to the Hinayana point of view Buddha and Arhat don't differ in the accumulation of wisdom, i.e. they have the same accumulation of wisdom. So why then Buddha excels Arhat in, for example, 112 major and minor signs, and other qualities? From the Hinayana point of view it is due to the Buddha's greater accumulation of merit. That's what I talked about.

From the Mahayana point of view Arhats have four limitations in their realization and so their accumulation of wisdom is limited in comparison with Buddha's accumulation of wisdom. Only Buddha is omniscient, Arhats are not.

I have no intention to demean Hinayana practitioners. Some beings accumulated more merit and wisdom than others.

Really? So, like, you have accumulated more merit and wisdom than a once-returner then? Of course that is demeaning. It is like saying that the effort made by a Hinayana (and by this term what exactly do you mean? Shravakayana? Pratyekabuddhayana? Theravadra?) practitioner doesn't mean squat, that the best a once-returner may hope for is rebirth as a (almighty) Mahayana practitioner. Of course that is demeaning, no matter how your try to disguise it.

I don't claim that I accumulated more merit and wisdom than once-returner. However I do claim that enlightened Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara accumulated more merit and wisdom than once-returner. But it hardly will be accepted by Hinayana practitioners as they believe that bodhisattvas become enlightened only in the last moments before perfect enlightenment of Buddha.

Just look at nine yanas, they are not equal. Some are higher than others. But that doesn't demean them unless you want to call it so

While it can be not pleasant to hear that Mahayana view is superior to Hinayana view, it is true.

According to a Mahayana-ist. It reminds me of the logic that Christians use: "It's true that God exists, it says so in the bible!"

There is no dogma here as I established that by reasoning:

In short while according to Hinayana view five skandhas (composites/aggregates) are free of any self but exists absolutely, according to Mahayana view they do not absolutely (1) exist, or (2) not exist, or (3) exist & not exist, or (4) neither exist & nor not exist as they are beyond these four extremes.

If you can't disprove this point of view, then you can't claim it's not true.

According to this view shepherd-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha until all beings are not totally liberated and helmsman/ship captain-like bodhisattvas won't become Buddha if all beings are not ready to be totally liberated.

Of course this is your somewhat skewed view of the teaching, yes! Anyway, if I remember correctly, Bodhisattvas make a vow to not enter nirvana until ALL sentient beings reach enlightenment (are freed from suffering). Now if they happen to get there "by mistake", well that's a different story altogether. If this is the case though (as you claim), then obviously Mahayana practitioners (even Bodhisattvas) require to accumulate merit to reach Buddhahood.

When Bodhisattvas take the vow to not enter Nirvana, they commit to not enter Hinayana Nirvana, which is Arhat Nirvana and Pratyekabuddha Nirvana. Bodhisattvas never take a vow to not enter Maha Nirvana, i.e. become Buddha, as it doesn't make sense since Buddha is able to help all beings much more than any Bodhisattva. As the very intention of Bodhisattva is to benefit beings in the most swiftest and powerful way by such a vow Bodhisattva would violate his/her principles.

So the difference between these three types of Bodhisattvas is not in the result, it is in the cause - their intention.

I would say that the difference lies in their means/methods.

What means and methods are not used by king-like bodhisattvas and used by shepherd and helms-man like Bodhisattvas?

Skewed from the angle that once again Tenzin is trying to set up a hierarchy: Shepherd and Helms-man like Bodhisattvas are deluded because, whether they like it or not, they will get enlightened anyway, thus king-like is (actually) the only way to go, by default.

The Mahayana Path (way) is the one - the unity of accumulation of merit and accumulation of wisdom. Once you perfected these two accumulations no matter which knid of bodhichitta you had you completed this path. As I said bodhisattva can't block himself/herself from accumulating merit and wisdom while benefiting beings, because cause&effect is infallible.

Shepherd and Helms-man styles are not deluded. They are more powerful paths to counteract clinging to the [person] self. And they are more difficult (less practical according to common saying) as almost nobody of non-enlightened beings can truly and sincerely maintain an intention to put his/her efforts in full awakening of others at least just as he/she put efforts in his/her own full awakening.


Happy new year to everyone!
Happiness and its causes!

[Grigoris]

Just look at nine yanas, they are not equal. Some are higher than others. But that doesn't demean them unless you want to call it so

White man speak with forked tongue.

There is no dogma here as I established that by reasoning

Nope, you merely stated the tenet of a specific school. That is dogma.

In short while according to Hinayana view five skandhas (composites/aggregates) are free of any self but exists absolutely...

Source? you see if you just make a statement describing the "Hinayana view", as if the Shravakayana is composed of a single homogenouus view (I'm not even going to begin on the homogeneity of the Pratyekabuddhas views) and yet provide no source, then I am just going have to suspend my belief of your statement since you could, quite easily, just be making it up.

When Bodhisattvas take the vow to not enter Nirvana, they commit to not enter Hinayana Nirvana, which is Arhat Nirvana and Pratyekabuddha Nirvana. Bodhisattvas never take a vow to not enter Maha Nirvana, i.e. become Buddha, as it doesn't make sense since Buddha is able to help all beings much more than any Bodhisattva. As the very intention of Bodhisattva is to benefit beings in the most swiftest and powerful way by such a vow Bodhisattva would violate his/her principles.

This seems to be a very clear case of introducing dualisms where none exist. I take it you are talking from experienece here?

What means and methods are not used by king-like bodhisattvas and used by shepherd and helms-man like Bodhisattvas?

Sorry, I should have used the word "manner" instead of means/methods. My mistake.

The Mahayana Path (way) is the one - the unity of accumulation of merit and accumulation of wisdom.

According to Mahayana-ists. Were is the proof??? Others, of course, may beg to differ!