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.
Theravada v. Mahayana?
MindGate
United States Veteran
So, I've looked up some things on Theravada v. Mahayana. Though, I do not see a great difference in the teachings. What differences are their? I know Theravada does not teach Buddha Nature - though, what exactly do they mean when they say they don't teach it?
Sorry for my ignorance on this.
Sorry for my ignorance on this.
0
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāsāṃghika
An analogy in Christianity might be that the conservatives accept only the four books of the New Testament, whereas more liberal followers accept all the books, meaning those translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the apocryphal gospels.
Mahayana was a composite development. It meant different things to different Buddhist communities. For the unknown community that produced the Lotus Sutra, all Buddhists would eventually become Bodhisattvas, and then Buddhas. For the (possibly Dharmagupta) community that produced The Inquiry of Ugra, only a few Buddhists would become Bodhisattvas and then Buddhas, and these would become the teachers of sravakas, and lead them to become arhats.
The Lotus Sutra seems not to have been very influential in India. It became much more influential later in China. The Ugra was very influential in India during the time that Mahayana was developing. Something that the Ugra, Aksobhyavyuha, the Asta, and early versions of the larger Sukhavativyuha all had in common was the praiseworthiness of arhatship as a goal. (My source here is Jan Nattier's "A Few Good Men".) Generally, during the early development of Mahayana, Mahayana and non-Mahayana monks lived peacefully together.
There wasn't a lot of contact between Therevada and Mahayana. There may have been a small amount of conflict between Therevada and Mahasanghika (some scholars speculate) at the time when the Nirvana Sutra was being given its final form (perhaps) by Mahasanghika monks. For the most part, Therevadins weren't involved in Mahayana vs. non-Mahayana conflicts. Therevada vs. Mahayana is sort of like Manchester United vs. American College Football; one is a specific team and the other is a conceptual grouping of teams, and the team and the conceptual grouping haven't played very many games against each other, or even had much contact with each other.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html
.
The term 'Vs' sounds so divisive....
Mahayana uses additional suttras over Theravada: Lotus, Diamond, Lankavatara Suttra (the last one especially in zen). Check out the wikipedia site on Zen, it explains some of this, relevant to Mahayana in gen'l.
en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Zen
I follow the path of the Boddhisattva, but so far have found no contradiction with the pali sources to prevent me from acheiving rightly self-attained enlightenment. Some of the mahayana sutras help me to understand the boddhisattva vows, concepts, and trials with greater depth and clarity, which I find to be their practical purpose.
It could channel the tensions and produce a remarkable spectacle.
:rolleyes:
tease this book .(Dr. Mehm Tin Mon: The Essence of Buddha-Abhidhamma)
First you should read http://www.abhidhamma.org/sitagu sayadaw.htm
and , http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhidhamma_and_practice.htm
The ambition of The Mahayana is to be Buddha and want to show the right way
to Nirvana , Theravadas is to obey what the Buddha taught (THE TIPITAKA).
Please forgive me , I am not good in eng-language . And if I was wrong , teach me, because if I have wrong teacher or wrong thought upon Dhamma I will possess so many lives in Sansara .Thank all of you.
And "skillful means" can be abused, because it's not "anything goes" in Buddhism if we're going to keep teaching the true Dharma. It's the "skillful" part that requires the person doing the teaching to know what they're doing. It can become just an excuse for whatever destructive craziness the particular Master is into. Just as the Traditionalist approach of the Theravadans can swing into legalistic worship of a set of scrolls.
While there are significant differences between the two schools, it is important to keep in mind that the basic, foundational tenets of the two schools are identical: The Four Noble Truths, The Eight-fold Noble Path, Karma Theory, Paticcasamuppada, etc. It is primarily in their differing emphases and historical develpments that the two schools differ. Their ultimate goal is the same - the attainment of Nibbana by following the teaching of the Buddha.
The term Theravada literally means the Way of the Elders (theras). The Theravada school maintains the original form of the Buddha's teachings as preserved in the Pali Tipitaka. It's emphasis is on maintaining the original teaching and passing that teaching onward to future generations in a pristine state. The teaching of the Buddha is considered to be a liberating teaching, i.e., that it has the capability of instructing persons on how to find the path to liberation. For this reason, the original form of the teachings are maintained diligently so as to maximize the effectiveness of the teaching through time. If the teachings were to be altered or changed in anyway from their original form, that effectiveness through time might be lessened. The Theravada tradition also rejects the idea that there were teachings of the Buddha preserved or transmitted outside of the Pali Tipitaka, i.e., that there were esoteric teachings delivered to certain individuals which were never recorded in the Tipitaka. Thus they do not accept as authentic the Mahayana sutras which first appeared some 500 years after the Buddha's parinibbana.
The primary maintainers of the teaching is the monastic order itself, the Sangha. The Theravada Sangha maintains the original monastic discipline defined by the Buddha and preserved in the Vinayapitaka. They consider this monastic discipline vital to the proper preservation of the teachings.
For more in depth information on this topic please see the following two very thorough articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html
Buddha said " The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they assemble frequently and in large numbers; meet and disperse peacefully and attend to the affairs of the Sangha in concord; so long as they appoint no new rules, and do not abolish the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training (Vinaya) laid down; so long as they show respect, honour, esteem, and veneration towards the elder bhikkhus, those of long standing, long gone forth, the fathers and leaders of the Sangha, and think it worthwhile to listen to them; so long as they do not come under the power of the craving that leads to fresh becoming; so long as they cherish the forest depths for their dwellings; so long as they establish themselves in mindfulness, so that virtuous brethren of the Order who have not come yet might do so, and those already come might live in peace; so long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to welfare endure among the bhikkhus and the bhikkhus are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline".
So Theravada appoint no new rules , and do not abolish the existing ones .
We don't need to make anything "versus", we only need to see the reality that is present without the color of individual or group "perspective" layered upon it. Naturally until enlightenment there will always be wrong perspectives (or incomplete ones)! So to say one school is right and another wrong isn't so accurate, since the teachings are worldly/conventional and can not be separated from the conventional.
Choose whatever feels the most right for you, because your comfort with the school will make you cherish those teachings and work hard to understand. Understanding will come, and then you will truly know what the Buddha was talking about and what is necessarily imperfectly represented in the teachings.
Emptiness is more a term in the Mahayana than the Theravada and there are more flavors of interpreting emptiness. If you want to learn more read Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche.
Then we get into the old Buddhist camps of the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Hinayana. We're considered Hinayana or 'lesser vehicle.' So we could think that means it's probably not as good. Mahayana is better, says logic. Lesser vehicle and greater vehicle. Then Vajrayana, that's the absolute best. You can't get any better than Vajrayana according to the Tibetans. That's the highest vehicle. So then we start thinking in terms of good, better, best. But all of these are conventions. Whether we call it Mahayana, Hinayana or Vajrayana, they're still just conventions: they're limited; they're imperfect. They're functional, to be used for mindfulness rather than as some kind of attachment or position that one takes on anything.... These different terms can be very divisive. It we attach...and start looking down on every other form of Buddhism then we think that they're not pure, they're not original! They're higher, but they're not original. We can get arrogant because we've got our own way of justifying our convention. BUT THIS IS ALL JUST PLAYING WITH WORDS. If we look at what is going on in words, we're just creating Mahayana, Hinayana, and Vajarayana in our minds. The reguge is in Buddha, not in these 'yanas' (p. 123, my emphasis).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html
The dharmakaya radiates with no respect to high and low. So in a sense your buddha nature does not grow stronger or weaker. Just your trusting and ability to let go and discover it becomes easier. I don't know exactly how one becomes a buddha by practices which control conditions (karma). It must be that there is a deeper thing going on. Wisdom that we already have. And that is the buddha nature.
The third thing is that we all have a relationship to the buddha. There are incorrigables who cannot be teached but if they can imagine a flower and giving it to the buddha then eventually they will be liberated. Example is Sadam Husein probably. The second family of buddhas is the solitary realizers. They discover reality by themselves or through secret societies. The third is the hinayana. This does not mean theravada. The qualities of a hinayana practioner are defined and a tibetan, chinese, etc traditionsl practioners could be hinayana by this definiton. A christian or muslim might be too. The fourth category is the indeterminate. Whoever their teacher is they adopt. The fifth category is mahayana. They have certain qualities for example gentle speach. These qualities make it easier for them to study the dharma.
This is in the Jewel ornament of liberation by Gampopa.
"Buddha nature - Absent from the teachings of the Theravada tradition.
and for Mahayana - Heavily stressed."
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/comparative.htm
This is like a person talking about how he wants to win a eating contest without practicing on hotdogs first.