Theravada Mahayana

shanyin

Does Mahayana hold that Theravada has one or more wrong view? If so, what is it?
And visa versa.

This question may seem cold. I have utmost respect for both traditions and its adherants.

Let me give you some background about me. Where I live in Ontario, we are about an eight hour drive from any Sangha. Wikipedia says there are about 7 Buddhists in our 70 000 population, lol. When I started meditating because of coming across a Buddhist teacher on the internet, I started learning from him about the eightfold path. He was a Theravadin Buddhist. So it seems easy to drift to Theravadin category because it seems easier to focus on the foundation teachings like the eightfold path. When I think of Mahayana I think of that they are exclusively focused being Bodhisattvas.

I admit, my intellect might not understand some of what people say. Taiyaki has commented on things like the nature of nirvana and I think he is very smart, so I'm interested to see if he has anything he can say. But honestly it was over my head. I guess also what I'm asking is, would one school hold that picking one over the other is problematic?

how

The Mahayana and Theravada masters that I've met have had no problems with the practise of the other.

That doesn't make them the same, but any differences would never be spoken of as errors. As for your mention of Boddhisatvas, and I presume Arhants, from the perspective of my zafu, it is not actually possible to help only yourself just as it is not possible to only help others..

Sometimes students can get caught up enough in the human condition to think that denigrating others paths somehow justifies the light, the truth and the way of their own path.
But..

In the real world, any differences that I can think of, are valued only by theoreticians, book promoters and those who's practise seemed weighted down with judgementalism or self aggrandizement.

shanyin

Thank you. I guess one way I could do it is to just study them.

BhanteLucky

A thread dedicated to pointing out the perceived faults of various schools...
I'll pass.

Sabre

Individual people hold wrong views, not entire groups of practitioners. You can't generalize like that. There are probably enlightened people -and also very stupid people- in both.

federica

Theravada is as different to Mahayana as Protestantism is to Catholicism.
They may hold different views and ways to practice, but ultimately, they have the same goal.

It's not the differences in practises that cause dissent. it's the people who believe them to be important - who cause dissent.

jll

i came from a background where most
people are mahayana buddhists.

it took me a long time to realise that buddhism
comes from the pali canon which is what theravda
teaches.

no, i am not saying that mahayana is useless.
there are some great mahayana monks n teachings.
but there is also a lot of ideas that contradict buddha's teachings.

shanyin said:

Does Mahayana hold that Theravada has one or more wrong view? If so, what is it?
And visa versa.

This question may seem cold. I have utmost respect for both traditions and its adherants.

Let me give you some background about me. Where I live in Ontario, we are about an eight hour drive from any Sangha. Wikipedia says there are about 7 Buddhists in our 70 000 population, lol. When I started meditating because of coming across a Buddhist teacher on the internet, I started learning from him about the eightfold path. He was a Theravadin Buddhist. So it seems easy to drift to Theravadin category because it seems easier to focus on the foundation teachings like the eightfold path. When I think of Mahayana I think of that they are exclusively focused being Bodhisattvas.

I admit, my intellect might not understand some of what people say. Taiyaki has commented on things like the nature of nirvana and I think he is very smart, so I'm interested to see if he has anything he can say. But honestly it was over my head. I guess also what I'm asking is, would one school hold that picking one over the other is problematic?

jll

i should add, try going to both n compare for yourself.

BonsaiDoug

Buddhism has been likened to a boat you use to cross a river. Once you reach the other shore you discard the boat. The size, color or style of boat does not matter; it's just a vessel. The important matter is the crossing.

shanyin

@Jamesthegiant

Yeah now that its not 1 AM I realize I could have worded it alot better, but thinking about it hurts my brain

thanks guys

Jeffrey

It's part of the bodhisattva vow not to uproot people's faith in their tradition I believe. At the same time they make vows not to fall out of the mahayana view.

federica

For a very long time I blended the two. Truth be told, I still do.

chela

I'm interested in what both of these lines teach. I read from master teachers of both lines at this point in my practice. It's not that I just can't make up my mind as much as it is that I'm finding both perspectives very valuable.

I like the more direct and simple approach of the Theravada (focusing on the earliest of Buddha's teachings), and I also appreciate the zen aspect (such as koans) and mindfulness practices of the Mahayana. Although, for me, I am into keeping it simple and do not follow much of the ritualistic practices of many of the Mahayana sects.

Now that I'm blended, I don't think I will ever be able to throw one or the other out completely.

Zengo

Theravada only acknowledges the early teachings of the Buddha and thus disregards the Mahayana sutras. The Mahayana sees Theravada as a vehicle to Buddhahood but thinks that its tenets are philosophically inferior to those of the Mahayana. This is the main differences between the two but there is no hostility between the two sects and many teachers respect and revere teachers with opposing philosophical viewpoints.

fivebells

My understanding is that Mahayana sees Theravada (or more specifically "hinayana," I suppose there might be some difference there) as a path to Arahantship, which is different from Buddhahood.

BonsaiDoug

Zengo said:

The Mahayana sees Theravada as a vehicle to Buddhahood but thinks that its tenets are philosophically inferior to those of the Mahayana.

So, they do not view the Nikayas as The Buddha's teachings? (confused here)

Jeffrey

No the nikayas are fundamental, but they are to be interpreted rather than definitive. The mahayana sutras are taken as definitive such as the nirvana sutra.

Amongst mahayana there are rangtong and shentong. That is through the filter or glasses of Tibetan Buddhism, I don't know zen that well other than Thich Nhat Hanh books. One view of that is that rangtong take DO and emptiness as definitve while shentong either take tantra as definitive or say that mahayana and maha ati (tantra) are inseparable.

Sabre

fivebells said:

My understanding is that Mahayana sees Theravada (or more specifically "hinayana," I suppose there might be some difference there) as a path to Arahantship, which is different from Buddhahood.

Although the goal of the path is not arahantship, but nirvana, theravadans see it sort of similar. But that's simply because their definition of Buddhahood is different. A Buddha is defined as someone who has found enlightenment while there are no teachers or teachings existing. So if using that definition, mahayanists also can't attain Buddhahood, because there are the teachings now.

An arahant is someone who has found enlightenment, in general. This includes Buddhas, but also people who found it with help of teachers. So it's all just about definitions. Some say we should become Buddhas, some say we should become arahants. In the end it is not about becoming anything.

fivebells

@Sabre, yes, I"ve been reading about the historical evolution of mahayana, and the concern with becoming a Buddha rather than an arahant is mysterious to me. But the author is a Theravadin, and I suspect his presentation might be a little partisan.

Patr

BonsaiDoug said:

Zengo said:

The Mahayana sees Theravada as a vehicle to Buddhahood but thinks that its tenets are philosophically inferior to those of the Mahayana.

So, they do not view the Nikayas as The Buddha's teachings? (confused here)

The Nikayas are known as the 'Agamas' in Mahayana. Same, same.
Try to think of the Mahayana as an expansion of the Theravada teachings.

BonsaiDoug

Patr said:

BonsaiDoug said:

Zengo said:

The Mahayana sees Theravada as a vehicle to Buddhahood but thinks that its tenets are philosophically inferior to those of the Mahayana.

So, they do not view the Nikayas as The Buddha's teachings? (confused here)

The Nikayas are known as the 'Agamas' in Mahayana. Same, same.
Try to think of the Mahayana as an expansion of the Theravada teachings.

Between all the Nikayas, and now reading Abhidhamma Pitaka, I'm not sure I can "expand" anymore. My head'll explode. :eek:

hermitwin

clearly, mahayana regards buddha's teachings
as not good enough.
therefore, they have to invent more sutras eg lotus n heart sutra
and more buddhas eg amitabha.
these are the facts.

having said that, i have no animosity towards mahayana.
in fact people like thich nach han proves that even in mahyana, you
can still develop wisdom.

diffrent strokes for diffrent folks.

but i have to point out a glaring flaw
in people.
most people tend to defend the school that
there belong to. be it theravada or mahayana.
i wish it was not so.
explore the different schools and decide for
yourself.

Zengo said:

Theravada only acknowledges the early teachings of the Buddha and thus disregards the Mahayana sutras. The Mahayana sees Theravada as a vehicle to Buddhahood but thinks that its tenets are philosophically inferior to those of the Mahayana. This is the main differences between the two but there is no hostility between the two sects and many teachers respect and revere teachers with opposing philosophical viewpoints.

Jeffrey

that makes sense as long as you say that the teachings of tripaitika is incomplete rather than 'not good enough'. I am saying relative to what can be helpful. Things were added. Buddha himself said that what he taught was a handful of leaves relative to the whole forest.

Invincible_summer

Just to balance things out a bit (since most of the critical-type comments seem to paint some Mahayanists as "looking down" on Theravada) - I know some Theravadans who characterize Mahayana (aside from Zen) as superstitious and almost theistic.

pegembara

100 years after the Buddha's Parinibbana the Second Council convenes in Vesali to discuss controversial points of Vinaya. The first schism of the Sangha occurs, in which the Mahasanghika school parts ways with the traditionalist Sthaviravadins. At issue is the Mahasanghika's reluctance to accept the Suttas and the Vinaya as the final authority on the Buddha's teachings. This schism marks the first beginnings of what would later evolve into Mahayana Buddhism, which would come to dominate Buddhism in northern Asia (China, Tibet, Japan, Korea). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/history.html

Scholars have generally agreed that the matter of dispute was indeed a matter of vinaya, and have noted that the account of the Mahāsāṃghikas is bolstered by the vinaya texts themselves, as vinayas associated with the Sthaviras do contain more rules than those of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya.[7] Modern scholarship therefore generally agrees that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest.[7] According to Skilton, future scholars may determine that a study of the Mahāsāṃghika school will contribute to a better understanding of the early Dharma-Vinaya than the Theravāda school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāsāṃghika

The two major schools of Buddhism, Theravada and the Mahayana, are to be understood as different expressions of the same teaching of the historical Buddha. Because, in fact, they agree upon and practice the core teachings of the Buddha’s Dharma. And while there was a schism after the first council on the death of the Buddha, it was largely over the monastic rules and academic points such as whether an enlightened person could lapse or not. Time, culture and customs in the countries in Asia which adopted the Buddha-dharma have more to do with the apparent differences, as you will not find any animosity between the two major schools, other than that created by healthy debate on the expression of and the implementation of the Buddha's Teachings. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/schools1.htm

pegembara

Double posted

Zengo

Be careful when trying to synthesize the Mahayana and Theravada traditions; there are concrete philosophical differences between the schools which must not be ignored. That being said they can still exist harmoniously in a pluralistic context.