Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Avalokitesvara and Theravada/Mahayana
I was recently in Southeast Asia, and noticed the presence of Avalokitesvara in Theravadan temples, such as in Thailand and Cambodia. I was under the impression that this was a Mahayana Boddhisattva? Where does the line cross when it comes to what Theravada accepts and does not accept? I am still a bit confused about this. Any insight would be appreciated.
Also, how do Theravadan's view 'Pure Land' Buddhism, and other Buddha's such as Amitabah and Medicine Buddha, for example? I know the many Mahayana Sutra's are not accepted - but to what degree? Are they seen as "false", or made-up? Or just not applicable to Theravadan Buddhism?
Also, how do Theravadan's view 'Pure Land' Buddhism, and other Buddha's such as Amitabah and Medicine Buddha, for example? I know the many Mahayana Sutra's are not accepted - but to what degree? Are they seen as "false", or made-up? Or just not applicable to Theravadan Buddhism?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
at least in the Bangkok museum, the Avalokitesvara image (below), replicated in Thai monasteries such as Suan Mokkh and Wat U Mong, was found in Thailand
this image is part of the Srivijaya Empire which connected Thailand with Sumatra & Java
if we study Tibetan Buddhism, the Tibetans consided Atisha one of their founders
alot of Atisha's studies were conducted in Java, which is the home of the Borobodur monument
Wikipedia states Borobodur is a Mahayana monument, based on the Lotus Sutra
so, in summary, Buddhism came to South East Asia from the south-west (Sri Lanka & India) and from the north (China)
regards
many Buddhists, include the Mahayana & some Theravadins, confuse nothingness with emptiness
thus, if a Mahayana Sutra does not describe the way to Buddha realisation via insight & dispassion (destruction of craving) but, instead, is stuck on lesser forms of liberation, such as non-thinking, non-conceptuality, non-duality, the sphere of nothingness, etc, it conflicts with Theravada
worse, if the Mahayana Sutras assert a "True Self" (such as Taiyaki does), they are in total conflict with Buddhism
as for Amitabah, Medicine Buddha, etc, this can fit into Buddhism as more mundane teachings for ordinary devotees
even in the Pali suttas, the Buddha offered scope for devotional practise, where 'faith followers' are liberated via their exchange of love with the Buddha (see the 2nd last paragraph of MN 22)
kind regards
Non-thinking, non-conceptuality, non-duality, emptiness are all different aspects of the same "thing", i.e. there is no independently existing self, which, when realised, leads to the the ending of craving. Its just a different approach from Theravada.
The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Understanding-Commentaries-Prajnaparamita-Sutra/dp/0938077112
Yup you're on the money.
the error of the Heart Sutra, which irrefutably proves it teaches the sphere of non-conceptual nothingness, is the Heart Sutra teaches there is no end of suffering
but the end of suffering, Nirvana, is an unconditioned thing
the end of suffering, Nirvana, is independently existent
the Heart Sutra teaches non-labelling
non-labelling is not Nirvana
the Buddha-To-Be rejected such states as Nirvana prior to enlightenment
Dhamma Dhatu's posts never need clarification
but any view that asserts non-thinking, non-conceptuality, non-duality, etc, are emptiness/Nirvana, needs alot of clarification
in short, if Taiyaki agrees with one's view about Nirvana & emptiness, then one is in need of clarification
Nirvana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion rather than the end of thinking & views per se
the Buddha taught the five aggregates, which include thinking, are all empty (of self)
the Buddha defined 'emptiness' as 'empty of self & anything belonging to self'
any definition away from this contradicts the Buddha's dhamma
non-thinking, non-conceptuality, non-duality are not emptiness
they are just samadhi (concentration) states of unified consciousness
they are spacing out
To read the Heart Sutra purely on the surface is to miss the point. The Heart Sutra states: There is "no suffering, no origination of suffering, no extinction of suffering, no path; no understanding, no attainment."
Mahayana has to be understood from the Two Truths doctrine (which originated with Nagarjuna? --or at least he helped to formulate it), where the Buddhadharma can be understood from two vantage points: From the ordinary view, we experience dukkha. From the absolute view, we see the delusion that brings dukkha about. Yet neither of these views are correct either-- both must be transcended in the Mahayana view-- which is the main thrust of the Diamond Sutra (part of the "Perfection of Wisdom" sutras). If you don't follow this dialectical movement of affirming and negating Buddhist concepts, it is easy to misunderstand that Mahayana is flat out contradicting the Buddha's teachings.
All this is a very similar approach to the apophatic tradition in Christian mysticism which does not deny that God exists (but it may appear this way if read strictly literally), but rather that God precedes all our notions of "existence" and "non-existence." Like the Two Truths doctrine in Buddhism, it may appear that Christian mystics like Eckhart or Pseudo-Dionysius are flat out atheists, but this is to read them out of context (this is why mystics have generally been distrusted by institutional Christianity-- their statements were always taken out of context!) While the content differs in Buddhism and Christian mysticism, the logic is the same. Its essentially a movement beyond positing "this" or "that," directing the practitioner to the experience of non-duality-- because THE delusion is the belief in duality.
In Mahayana emptiness (sunyata) is the way of expressing this non-separation. It is not "nothingness"-- for something to be empty, it must be empty of something. Emptiness refers to the emptiness of self, or more precisely, there is no such thing as an independently existing entity. I order for anything to exist requires the rest of the universe-- an infinite network of causality that all comes to THIS present moment. Nothing is separate. But we THINK we are, and that's where all the trouble begins, and we make ourselves and others suffer needlessly because we cling to this separate self. Out of that delusion of a separate self comes suffering, greed and anger.
In the end, the whole point of the Heart Sutra is that you can't be attached to something you aren't separate from to begin with. And in real-ising this (existentially, not intellectually), being untangled from that delusion, one frees oneself from the bonds of desire and greed as well. That's why the Twelve Links of Interdependent Co-Arising BEGINS with ignorance, or delusion of a separate self, of the subject/object duality. Eradicate delusion, and you eradicate dukkha. That is what the Heart Sutra addresses.
At any rate, the Heart Sutra is one of the most central texts to the many varieties of Mahayana Buddhism. Again, for newcomers to Buddhism who are still exploring (there's a LOT of varieties out there!), I'd recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's small book as an introduction to the Heart Sutra. It is quite an eye opener and well worth exploring.
i hear what you are asserting but you are not hearing me definitely not. the Buddha taught his dhamma is plain, open & straightforward. properly expressed Dhamma is comprehended on surface.
the Heart Sutra teaches the sphere of nothingness but the Mahayanists, like TNH, must go into damage control and assert it teaches interconnectedness and/or no inherent existence yes...i already pointed this out
but as i said, the H.S. falls down here because the extinction of suffering is independently existent be rest assured...the views of the Buddha & Pali do not accord with Nagarjuna
Nagarjuna was merely an intellectual philosopher. for example, his asserting that 'effects' are 'causes' in non-sense. his logic may have a basis intellectually but it does not spiritually.
spiritually, meditatively, causes are causes. it is only the intellectual mind that can deem a cause to be an 'effect'
for example, i put petrol in a car and the car works. to say the car is the cause of the petrol is non-sense your explanation above is non-sequitur
on the level of ultimate truth, there is still suffering. it is just that there are no "persons" suffering. but there is still suffering in the mind that suffers
for the enlightened observer there may not be suffering. but for the ignorant mind there is suffering
to negate the suffering of other minds on the basis of emptiness is Hinayana the Mahayana contradicts the Buddha's teaching. the Buddha was fully enlightened and declared he taught all that was necessary. To clarify...for you, it is like Christian mysticism. as i said from the start, which you now have confirmed, your "mysticism" approach contradicts Buddhism
mysticism is the 'cloud of unknowing' where as Buddha is the end of greed, hatred & delusion via knowing
i said this from the start but you ignored what i said
Buddhism is liberation via knowing (rather than via unknowing) lol... how can you compare this to the Buddha...:eek2: i told you from the start...the Buddha did not teach non-duality (adviata) i told you that from the start...Mahayana emptiness is not the Buddha's emptiness...the Buddha did not teach non-separation as enlightenment Mahayana may teach non-separation but the Heart Sutra teaches nothingness or non-existence via non-labelling you are just babbling theory
"independently existing" is irrelevent. i already said, but you did not read again, Nirvana is independently existing
as I said, emptiness only means "emptiness of self" regardless of whether the things is dependently originated or independently originated
I order for anything to exist requires the rest of the universe-- an infinite network of causality that all comes to THIS present moment. Nothing is separate. But we THINK we are, and that's where all the trouble begins, and we make ourselves and others suffer needlessly because we cling to this separate self. Out of that delusion of a separate self comes suffering, greed and anger. the Heart Sutra does not say this...this is just your intepretation whatever...
personally, i would never be interested
TNH is good for beginners but not for the finer points of Dhamma
:eek2:
i wish to offer a very simple example to demonstrate at least four things:
(1) why the view in the quote above is untenable
(2) why the Heart Sutra is untenable
(3) why the views you are exhorting are unsuitable for beginners
(4) why the views you are exhorting are unsuitable for any rational & humane human being
the example:
(1) a human being commits suicide
(2) the reason why a human being commits suicide is because their mind is suffering
(3) in ultimate reality, there is actually no "being" (satva/satta) that commits suicide. all that really exists is a collection of various physical & mental formations (sankhara)
(4) although there is no satva (being) that commits suicide, the suicide still occurs
(5) why does the suicide occur? why? because that collection of mental formations is suffering
(6) if the collection of mental formations (delusions) was not suffering, those mental formations would not act to commit suicide
(7) but because those ultimately impersonal dependently originated mental formations act to commit suicide, those mental formations, that mind, is suffering
(8) although there is no "person", suicide occurs due to suffering
(9) of there was no suffering, there would be no suicide
(10) if that mind had the wrong view it was an actual "person" but if that mind was also not suffering extremely, it would not commit suicide
(11) so the Heart Sutra is wrong, very wrong, when it says there is no suffering
(12) there is suffering
(13) you or the Diamond Sutra is very wrong if it says the perception of "suffering" is to be transcended
(14) the Buddha said he teaches only about two things: suffering and freedom from suffering
(15) the Buddha taught in the world, only two things occur: the arising of suffering and the cessation of suffering
(16) there is no enlightened view beyond this because the Buddha was fully enlightened
(17) any asserting of a view (or non-view) beyond this can only be a view of nihilism; of nothingness; of non-labelling;
(18) the Buddha rejected all states of non-labelling, such as the sphere of nothingness or the cessation of perception & feeling as Nirvana & Emptiness
kind regards
DD
Thank you, DhammaDhatu.
This is groundlessness not nothingness. No root can be found in all compound dharmas nothing is graspable.
The key line for me is this:
"Because There is Nothing to Be Attained,
The Bodhisattva Relying On Prajna Paramita Has
No Obstruction in His Mind."
DDL "but the end of suffering, Nirvana, is an unconditioned thing
the end of suffering, Nirvana, is independently existent"
This is incorrect. Unconditional things are neither existent nor non-existent. Nirvana is when you stop grasping at conditional things as real. Samsara is when you are confused about reality and are grasping at conditional things. Because there is nothing to be attained we cease grasping and thus fear has come to an end. Buddhahood is reached.
Note: This is my opinion based on what I have studied.
The third turning of the wheel of dharma is the buddha nature teaching. The essence of this teaching is that if the buddha qualities of love understanding patience and all of the infinite qualities of a buddha do not manifest then there must be grasping. DD is correct that grasping to nothingness only produces suffering.
The mahayana is not about nothingness it is about overcoming attachment to the sense desires, form, and formless realms.
I consider DD to have created a straw man of the mahayana which he then exposes.
om ma ne pad me hum
You see that all things in samsara and nirvana.... are merely dependently arisen. You see the dharma power of true being... that is the essence of all dependent arisings...
"This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming". Such wrote by Theravada monk
The main different thought between Theravada and Mahayana is the notion of Bodhisatta or Bodhisattva. In Theravada, everyone can be called Bodhisatta if he/she is working towards Arahanthood, the same quality of Buddhahood after getting emancipation from the ten fetters (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)).During the process to get rid of craving, hatred, ignorance, and often cultivate mental life aiming at enlightenment, such is his/her bodhicitta, a Theravada bodhisatta made an effort to perfect the paramitas consisting of dana (generosity), Karuna (compassion) to help the other… over countless lifetimes before being born the final time.
In Mahayana (Pali Canon has never recognized the term ‘mahayana’ which coined by schism), is bodhisattva a being working towards a Buddhahood with vows that will work towards liberating all? It is said that the iconic figure Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva associated with the vow:
"Not until the hells are emptied will I become a Buddha; not until all beings are saved will I certify to enter nirvana."
In fact such kind vow is an ideal and exists only in the big dream. Why? It is simply to understand: Not all beings accept your help though you like to save all beings. So the ideal of Mahayana bodhisattva never achieved success, never made into a Reality.
Dreams have no substance or material basis and are therefore empty as the dharma prescribes, but to say that they do not exist is something else. And here is the line that is drawn. Cross the rubicon and you have no foundation, without foundation you have nothing to claim. And who is claiming what?
So I will just leave this mystical experience alone and attempt to finish my jigsaw puzzle. Why is there always a piece missing?
BTW nothing I have stated above is real and should not be taken seriously.
Chenrezig will see to that...
Mettha
if you'd like to continue discussion, open a new thread. This one is over 2 years old....