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.
Do I have a distorted perception? More criticism of Mahayana?
Jeffrey
Veteran
I don't notice any threads ridiculing aspects of theravadan buddhism. Is this just my perception? If it is not just my perception what do you think is the source of more threads exposing aspects of mahayana buddhism? How does this relate to the western culture or western buddhist culture? Note I have heard mahayana buddhism teachers acclaim the superiority of mahayana ideas. I just haven't seen threads posted on the forum faulting Theravada buddhism.
I don't want this to become a therevada mahayana conflict thread. You may state that you feel the mahayana is more flawed and that is the reason. But I don't want people to debate IF the mahayana is flawed rather I would like the debate to touch in on whether that is the reason or not people who may or may not be incorrect are criticizing the mahayana (moreso than those criticizing the therevada).
If it becomes a source of bad feelings and angry discussion I will consider a request it be locked as it is my thread.
In other words take a chill pill and try to stay on topic!
I don't want this to become a therevada mahayana conflict thread. You may state that you feel the mahayana is more flawed and that is the reason. But I don't want people to debate IF the mahayana is flawed rather I would like the debate to touch in on whether that is the reason or not people who may or may not be incorrect are criticizing the mahayana (moreso than those criticizing the therevada).
If it becomes a source of bad feelings and angry discussion I will consider a request it be locked as it is my thread.
In other words take a chill pill and try to stay on topic!
0
Comments
Metta to all sentient beings
Metta to all sentient beings
Speaking for myself, I have no qualms about either school. They both include the core teachings of Buddha, so in my eye's they both teach the path to liberation, just in different ways. It's up to the individual what path they wish to choose.
Metta to all sentient beings
From a online description of Mahayana.
"Salvation, supported by a rich cosmography, including celestial realms and powers, with a spectrum of Bodhisattvas, both human and seemingly godlike, who can assist believers."
Theravada seems to be more about the historical Buddha and just about that.
Buddhist practice is a technique for awakening, not a family you join and protect.
There is nothing to discuss.
You ask for a very interesting discussion. Any ridicule that arises is certainly from a beginner's mind. Once a well cultivated stillness arises, criticism becomes obviously unskillful and therefore avoided.
There are some differences in the two approaches, and I would consider any disparity arising in the beginner's minds (ie more Theravada students acting socially critical) to be a reflection of the first steps of the path. With continued practice, neither student would willfully engage in criticism, as it directly increases the delusion that appears.
It is often noted that the Buddha spoke different things to different people, and also that different people express the path of freedom in different ways. I think it was Pema Chodron that said when people first start down the path and have some realization, they become "brow beating Buddhists" and proselytize. Not a big deal... we all keep practicing. Both students become more skillful, and the criticisms for each other fade.
Read Dr. Seuss' The Sneetches if you need more.
With warmth,
Matt
The different emphasis of course is on the realization of Buddha-nature, which is a twist from the Theravada, but I find it useful. It provides a pragmatic application for the path toward nibbana. We understand in Theravada that nibbana is the cessation of kamma. That is pretty cryptic material to work with. The Mahayana (in particular Zen) provides us with some down to earth examples of action (applied Buddhism) of what this looks like: acts that are spontaneous, skillful, creative and of sound quality. It all starts with the mind...think of the Suttas that define right effort (mind, speech, body, SN 45.8) and the four exertions. The quality of mind manifest in the world looks a lot like the Buddha chopping wood, the Buddha washing dishes (etc.) with right mindfulness.
Surely all of Buddhism is "contaminated" by the culture, the language, the technology, the political systems, etc. that it happens to be found in. I say embrace it. What I actually find ridiculous is the attempt by Americans to "act Japanese" (or Asian in general) and pretend that this somehow makes them authentic Buddhists. I think American Buddhism is finally recovering from that utter nonsense. Buddhism is authentic for me only when I become an authentic human being, awake, liberated, compassionate, joyful, and fully alive.
Do I have textual criticism for the Mahayana? Doctrinal criticism of the Vagrayana. Sure I do. But dhamma is dhamma, and all this "denominationalism" reflects a peculiar reality of American individualism, and a need we seem to have as westerners to insist on a customized religious experience that "fits me" as opposed to seeing the reality that this "me" is a complete delusion in the first place!
The whole idea of a discussion board is to discuss. That means we have at times, if not a battlefield, at least a wrestling ring of competing ideas about just about any aspect of Buddhist practice. My buttons get pushed once in a while, but that's my fault.
And some practices and beliefs are ridiculous, when seen from the outside. In my case, the average Zen dharma combat session of my school sounds like two lunatics spouting nonsense at each other to an outsider. You gotta expect that.
So if we admit that what is really being brought up for discussion is, "Why do people pick on Vajrayana, and not on Theravada" or any other tradition, then we can get down to business. For one thing, Vajrayana seems to have a very high profile in the West; their centers have proliferated much more than Zen, Chan or Theravada. So more people have heard of it and know something about it, compared to Theravadan. I'm guessing that while Theravada followers have heard of Vajrayana and some know teachers from that tradition, the opposite isn't true; Mahayana practitioners in general don't know much, if anything, about Theravada, Yours Truly included. So we're not in a position to critique it, while not only Theravadans but also Zen and Chan followers are in a position to comment on Vajrayana practices or issues if they come up.
Theravada is not without its "flaps", problems crop up in any tradition. Just a week or two ago there was a big legal case in Sri Lanka about a respected monk and former political figure who was accused of molesting a number of young novices. Stuff happens. In Zen and Chan as well.
And the forum doesn't hear from members who quit participating because of "fundamentalism", which seems to come mainly from the Theravada side. I've received a number of comments to that effect from departing members. So this absence of public comment creates a one-sided impression, that the only critical comments are of Vajrayana.
That's my analysis, for what it's worth.
The Vajrayana is also mahayana of course and many of the students are practicing mahayana buddhism and not Vajrayana. Myself for example. Many of the criticisms also apply to practioners at the mahayana level such as the karmic realms. And the bodhisattvas. Buddhanature. The heart sutra. Practioners make prostrations and chant mantras although not practicing tantra. Implicit in my understanding is that 'vajrayana' referes to tanta. I would call the more general heading Tibetan Buddhism. Vajrayana refers to the third turning of the wheel of dharma and many students are not practicing tantra. Pure land buddhism has also been criticized. The heart sutra has been criticized. And some other things that would apply to zen or chan. As far as I know there are non chan practioners in China. Didn't that nun who studied to a more advanced level study in China as it was a remaining sangha. I mean a sangha where the higher level nuns had not been killed by invaders.
However, Buddhism is one of the religions I have read fewer criticism.
Islamists often ridicule or criticise theravada buddhism due to its 'unworldliness'
My take:
Mahayana has, at its core, an implicit critique of Theravada (that it is incomplete, etc.), whereas the Pali Cannon has no comparable critique of Mahayana.
Perhaps because of this it is simply more obvious when a Theravadan criticizes Mahayana since he has to largely step outside of doctrine to do it.
Having said that, I believe there is an asymmetry in that many people drawn to Theravada are anti-supernatural, whereas many Mahayanans seem to be tolerant/sympathetic to those suspicious of supernnatural claims. This asymmetry might have something to do with some type of modern, Western, pro-scientific mindset that is giving Theravadans more room to openly criticize.
Back on topic thanks for all the thoughts. In my opinion perhaps the culture and practices of Theravadan buddhism are more palatable to people who have turned away from Christianity. They do not want to go from the pot to the frying pan.
The chapter is entitled, "What is full enlightenment?", which I think is one of the core distinctions between the Pali and Sanskrit traditions.
However, this again falls prey to the interconnectedness vs.
complete transcendence debates just as the arahat vs. Buddha debates
do, so from a certain point of view the question of what is full
enlightenment cannot be answered without all beings getting enlightened
and then dying. This is obviously unlikely to occur any time soon.
However, from another point of view all beings are already enlightened
but have yet to realize it, and thus the debate is meaningless. Thus, you
now have some understanding of why these ridiculous debates have
been around for so long and why I obviously am not going to resolve
them here. As with all logical systems that involve false assumptions of
duality (which they all do), any argument taken far enough either goes in
circles, contradicts itself or both. Put your time into clear practice and
not into thinking about these things too much.
Here's a link to the whole book, this chapter starts on p.329
http://www.interactivebuddha.com/Mastering Adobe Version.pdf
I have read some and participated in a discussion group in the Pali canon. I do recall places where I disagree with the buddha. There is one sutra where buddha describes what makes a good civilization. If someone recognizes that sutra and gives a link then I can discuss where I disagree with Buddha as presented in the Pali Canon.
An example of a book I enjoyed is Never Turn Away by Rigdzin Shikpo. In the mahayana. The whole book is a teaching of the four noble truths but it is presented in a more fleshed out and in fact creative way than just a list of bullets: Don't like. Here's why you don't like. Possible to like. Right mind, right thought, right action, right speach, right everything. If I could do everything right I would be enlightened. At the level of an entry buddhist the 8 fold path can be summed up as 'do the right thing'. With a picture of what meanigmfully constitues the mind social behaviour model also present in psychology today.
Metta