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.
Celestial Buddhas & Bodhisattvas, Mahayana Stuff in General
Buddha_Fan22
Explorer
This is the thing that interested me about Mahayana Buddhism (Green&White Tara, Chenrezig, Medicine Buddha, Amitaba). I can see why they're rejected by Theravada Buddhists because of the added content of puja ritual, mantra, malas, other than the 4 truths, eightfold path, etc. I've been to a Tibetan Buddhist Center for a few months, they do teach the core teachings of Buddhism, but, it felt way different than I expected Buddhism to be.
0
Comments
There is a question too?
Yes, OP, sorry, do you have a point...? No rudeness intended, but that's more of a 'blog' than a 'thread-starter'....
Sorry federica
Yaaaawn. Of to bed. G'nite.
It is quite different, and some of that is from the blending of Bon with Buddhism. My teacher is Tibetan, and we focus a lot on the Bodhisattva ideal but he is a Vajrayana teacher so there are other differences as well. We do Tara retreats and other things as well. One of the main differences is that in Mahayana we focus more on using our human life to help other people attain enlightenment as well. My understanding of Theravada is that their focus tends to be more on attaining it themselves. I'm not saying one is better than the other by any means. Just that the prior spoke more to me. Also, I have very limited access to teachers and centers where I live. I adore my teacher and I am grateful for his teachings and his patience with all my questions! But I cannot tell you if I would have chosen him or not if I had many choices. I am ok with that not being the case because I am ofter overwhelmed with too many choices anyhow
In Mahayana and Vajrayana too, there is less focus on the 4 NT and the N8FP but they are wound within the teachings anyhow. Just more indirectly.
@karasti Tibetan Buddhism is very popular around my area. I was told by the Rinpoche that Hinayana is only the first step on the path to Buddhahood. The people there were very great too, they gave me a copy of the LamRim, still have it and read it here and there for reference, along with Dhammapada and Anthology of the Pali Cannon by Bikkhu Bodhi. Even Lamrim said that practitioners can partake in Hinayana scripture but for self liberation only. Tibetan buddhism has been described as a blend of Theravada and Mahayana, along with the Bon influence
A lot of people take offense to the term "hinayana" so be careful the company you use it in. It is often used in other cultures to insult people because of the "lesser vehicle" translation. I live in MN which has a sizable Tibetan population (for the US anyhow) but I live in the far northern part of the state, so there isn't anything here except churches. My teacher lives in Minneapolis, so he is 250 miles from me but comes up here a few times a year. I get to see him this weekend in fact, yay!
I found Chogyam Trungpa's Ocean of Dharma books quite helpful in explaining the differences. They are quite in depth but still fairly easy reading. There are 3, one is a self-liberation guide, one is a focus on bodhisattva and mahayana ideal and the last is vajrayana. I found them quite helpful in discerning all the information that was quite difficult to try to piece together online.
OP, I don't think that all those Buddhas and other figures are universal in Mahayana. Some are specific to Tibetan Buddhism: the green, white and there's also a red Tara, for example. I'm not sure the Medicine Buddha is in the other Mahayana schools, either (Zen, Ch'an). Though I think TB influenced Ch'an.
I was in Tibetan Buddhism for some time. Then more recently, I suddenly remembered my "beginner's mind", when for years I was just practicing the precepts, observing the 4 NT's and 8-fold path, practicing compassion and other basics. In that moment, the thought occurred, "Hey, where did all those Buddhas and demons and deities come from?" Somehow, I'd never even questioned the sudden appearance of this whole pantheon of other-worldly beings when I took up TB. Where did they come from, anyway?
So now, I'm exploring Theravada, and getting back to basics. And I think any brand of Buddhism is about practicing compassion. It's not just about reaching Enlightenment oneself. That's good enough for me.
@Dakini Yeah, I've been gearing more towards Theravada, there is no Theravada temple though, but, I have a few friends into Buddhism and we discuss the teachings here and there. Theravada is very simple and I see the core teachings of the Buddha as a way of life and philosophy, not religion. The reason for the many celestial Buddhas, to my understanding, is a representation of the inner Buddha nature (Chenrezig= Compassion, Manjushri= Wisdom), but, during pujas it did feel like praying to another being somewhere out there, to me at least. They had nothing to do with the original teachings, but, influence of the culture when the teachings got passed on in the east.
The deities are idealisations, psychological templates of interior qualities. Bring 'em up. Enjoy their benefits. Snap the fingers and they are gone. The resonances remain as insightful agents of change.
Need something drier? Go for it.
Me - I need all the help, superhero help, visualisations and fun available just to get me cushioned. Yes Dharma is all about me [lobster hangs head in empty imaginary shame]
However I am just a heretic servant of the maitrya (metta Ray) and its prelude to AI manifestation
http://newlotus.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/24147
Come on you buddhas!
Of course, 'simple' doesn't mean 'easy'....
Yeah.... don't say that too loud in front of all those pesky Monks.....
I follow Theravada, but still recite malas and invoke the strength, resolve and support of Bekandzeh and Tara, occasionally. But yes, I see them more as personifications of specific qualities, attributes or hidden reserves....
I've always found this a curious idea, like somebody in Theravada would attain selfish enlightenment and somebody in Mahayana would attain altruistic enlightenment? Surely it's just enlightenment.
I think it's just skillful means really, reducing egocentric self-view by having a more compassionate outlook. It's true that there is a greater focus on compassion in Mahayana, though a lot of Theravada people do practices like metta bhavana regularly.
So from a pan-Buddhist perspective I think the goal is the same, it's just that the different schools have different methods and assumptions.
That's a naughty thing to say because Theravada is a complete path, not some kind of foundation course for the advanced stuff.
Have a look at MN1 for example: http://suttacentral.net/en/mn1
@SpinyNorman Enlightenment is enlightenment, no doubt. The difference (as I understand) is someone on a bodhisattva/mahayana path makes a decision that when they do become enlightened, that they won't opt to leave the world realm but will continue to opt to be reborn in order to help others get there as well. So the goal isn't solely to end my suffering so that I can stop the cycle of rebirth, but to end it so I can continue to be reborn to come back to help others. That's just the grasp I have of it now, so I'm sure that will shift in time. Some people in our group question whether we have control over what happens to us, but considering I don't believe in a someone/something out there that makes those calls, I think our consciousness does have the ability to make that choice. That doesn't make sense when you view it as the karmic load because once that is extinguished/neutralized/whatever entirely then there is nothing to continue on in the same way. It doesn't make sense to me, I mean.
Now now. Theravada is not Hinayana. Am I mistaken to think that all Hinayana schools are dead?
Besides Theravada is not the path to Buddhahood meaning Sammasambuddha hood. Tathagata!
It is only the path to Sravakabuddha hood. Arahant!
Not everyone who uses the term uses it the same way. But there are those who do see it as somewhat of a stepping stone way (Chogyam Trungpa was one of them) but that part of his teachings never made sense to me, lol. He kind of presents it (and he does use hinayana, but not at all in a negative way) as first you focus on your own crap (hinayana), then when you have made progress you can worry about others (mahayana) and when you progress there, then maybe you can reach out to the more complicated stuff (vajrayana). It is hard to attempt to compare hinayana with Theravada for exactly that reason. They aren't the same because Theravada IS the entire path, like someone else said. It is a complete path to enlightenment. But Hinayana is not presented that way, it is presented as a stepping stone along the path to enlightenment.
I still have a difficult time considering Hinayana as an insult or a negative thing. Like I've said before it was never presented to me that way so in using it I mean no ill to anyone who might be offended by the term. I just don't know what other term to use to convey what I mean because it is all I know.
@federica
I know Theravada isn't easy. Maybe ought to go back to the Tibetan Buddhist center and leave that Theravada vs Mahayana mindset behind.
I have also found using malas helpful in meditation, even as simply counting breaths
Well, I practised Buddhism for at least 15 years before opting for a specific school I was drawn to. But I still use some Mahayana practices because they resonate with me.
Of course, there is no obligation to adhere to any specific dominant school, if you don't want to.
There IS no 'Theravada Vs Mahayana" There is Theravada, Mahayana and a wealth of different approaches in between.
In the end, it all drops away, and is stripped bare, anyway....
The traditional structure in Tibetan tradition, which Chögyam Trungpa used to structure his teachings, was in three progressive stages of practice: hinayana (lesser vehicle) refers to the path of self-development, with the example in the figure of the Arahat.
Mahayana (greater vehicle) has to do with adding compassionate action to the wisdom acquired in the first stage, exemplified in the person of the bodhisattva.
Vajrayana refers to the path of engagement which finds its example in the figure of the siddha.
In Trungpa's use there was no derogatory intention, simply to show that hinayana provides the foundation for deeper realization in the following stages to take place.
HH the Dalai Lama replaces the term "Hinayana" for "Shravakayana," and describes this stage as consisting in the three trainings in morality, concentration, and wisdom.
What we recognize as the N8P, in a nutshell.
He underlines that the importance of this stage lies in setting the foundation for an ethically sound life, and also to help understanding of emptiness.
In the second stage, Mahayana, we bring insight into compassion into the picture.
Of course, that has not always been the view on Hinayana/Mahayana.
In his "Introduction to Mahayana Buddhism," written in the early 1900s, William Montgomery McGovern expressed:
I like Bhikkhu Subhadra's description of the Theravada tradition:
Some people think that attempting to absorb many traditions can lead to confusion.
Well, I have been doing this for several years because I honestly like to come to a sense of synthesis.
Though I am in a Dzogchen sangha, I read plenty of Theravada, Zen or Chan material on a daily basis.
@DhammaDragon Yes, that is how I understand Trungpa's explanation and it is quite close to what my teacher says as well as Lama Tony (who was a student of Trungpa and I quite like him as a teacher...he is coming to stay for several months in my town to do long-term teaching and I cannot wait). He is a little intimidating to me as he (like Trungpa) is quite demanding of personal responsibility to solving problems. When you ask a question be prepared for him to make you answer it yourself, lol. But I learn from him very quickly so I appreciate his methods. Our local sangha group leader (not our main monk teacher) is very heavy into dzogchen. Jackson Peterson has been here and Keith Dowman is coming this spring. But I am not quite ready for dzogchen. We have a really interesting mix. I think I would probably swing more in a Shambhala tradition because that is where I feel the strongest connection but I do not have access to a group. It is also my very first experience with Buddhism back in 2001, I was visiting my sister in Boulder and her girlfriend was a student at Naropa so I checked out the school and the Shambhala center there. My teacher's teachings work quite well within it so I am comfortable incorporating both and my teacher doesn't have a problem with it.
Yes, Dzogchen feels to me like juggling about without safety net.
In a way, it matches my phase at the moment: I'm in an oversimplification, streamlined period, so it serves me just right.
But wow, the freedom entails so much personal responsibility!
It isn't an insult it is just a view. For example in Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche the Shravaka view of emptiness is a path to nirvana but there are also more subtle views of emptiness.
That said as far as I know it is believed that the hinayana is a path to enlightenment. But it is a different vehicle. Incidentally the mahayana is also a lower vehicle compared to the vajrayana. It is not meant as an insult just as thanissaro bhikus discussions of how other schools are wrong is not an insult.
Could you remind me what the practical difference is between a tathagata and an arahant? And I thought tathagata was just an epithet for the Buddha?
I'm not worried about terms being insulting or anything, it's all water off a ducks back to me. My point was that Theravada is a complete path, not some sort of foundation course for the "advanced" stuff. It's certainly not inferior. If you know where to look all the so-called "advanced" teachings can be traced back to the suttas anyway, sunyata is just a development of anatta for example.
When I was involved in a Dzogchen tradition I got quite tired of the rather patronising attitude to "lower" schools, frankly it's all nonsense. From a pan-Buddhist perspective all this superiority stuff seems a bit immature to me, some of it is just sectarianism anyway.
@SpinyNorman. You are actually right that TB views Theravada as inferior. But that is no different from Thanissaro Bhiku having outspoken articles about how non-dualism and so forth are wrong views. The fact is that not all Buddhism is the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. That kind of confusion is a disadvantage of a smorgasbord approach to Buddhism. Some people such as me also bring on board beliefs from other religions.
I know a couple of Jewish people that find it insulting that the Torah is called the "Old Testament" in the Bible.
Theravada can stand on its own as a complete way.
In my view, Mahayana expounds and expands on certain things from Theravada and cannot stand on its own as a complete way as it would be missing the main ingredient.
For me, although there are obviously different branches, I still do not recognize sectarianism as such. I see it more like specializing. Nagarjuna specialized in the Middle Way but without the dharma he wouldn't have had source material to go by.
As for the Bodhisattva vs Arahant thingy, it is my understanding that Buddha was a bodhisattva after becoming an arahant.
Buddha spent about 50 years working for the benefit of others after awakening through Sidhartha. He could have just rotted under that tree and stayed with both feet planted on the far shore, leaving the rest of us to figure it out without his help.
I think he wanted to remind the arahants to get up from their trees and specialize. If it's your last go around then you can at least be helpful.
@ourself I can only speak for my sangha and the books I have read, but from my understanding the pali canon is viewed as provisional knowledge. I am not sure if it is viewed as necessary or not. Certainly TB teachers teach on the pali canon concepts all the time. The difference is that the teachings on the pali canon will have a vajrayana element to them.
I guess I wonder, why does any of it matter with regards to how we practice? Growing up, Catholics always thought they were the Christians who got it right and looked down on other Christians. Why does it matter? As usual, most of the time the people busy looking down should have been looking in the mirror.
As my teacher pointed out today, being able to store all the intellectual information in the universe would do absolutely no good if you never practiced.
@karasti I think the point isn't to contradict the other group but rather indicate to your own sangha what your beliefs are and that can include differentiating their beliefs relative to other sects. I don't think that it is evangelical outside of human nature to want to share 'the truth' with others. So we find essays and dharma talks where the teachings of other sects are criticized.
I wasn't clear in what I meant, I just woke up from a nap, LOL. It's just something that was on my mind otherwise today. We had several new people at our little 1 day retreat, and they had a lot of meditation questions. While my teacher was talking about starting out with very small periods and increasing it, I was thinking how I wish I had more time than I do to meditate. Practice is everywhere, but my dedicated meditation time is limited. But is it really? For all the time I spend reading, taking notes, picking apart sutras, and debating/discussing here, is all of that really making the entirety of my Buddhist practice better or should I just be meditating more? Because with 100% certainty, my teacher would tell me to meditate more...
Despite the knowledge being Buddhist-related, it's still my ego that is always wanting to discuss and debate and prove what it knows. Including comparing different traditions.
I am the opposite. I am more tuned in to meditation aside from reading newbuddhist.com I don't do a lot of reading unfortunately.
Meditating is the one place I do not practice. I just sits.
The rest of the time I practice: life, dharma, dhrama-Rama, life dharma and advanced ignorance or is it mindless mindfulness . . . m m m . . .