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.
Yes he did. Look at the teachings on dependent origination.
P
There is only one sutta that I know of where consciousness is described as "something that lands on the mother's womb" and that sutta is Mahanidhana sutta. This particular sutta's credibility is in question. Consciousness is explained in all the other suttas that I have read so far as "something that arises based on a sense base". The birth in DO is the birth of the self-concept or the ego not a physical birth
But the suttas are full of references to birth and death and the realms - how do you account for those?
P
I am not saying there is nothing called rebirth. It's just that, it is not relevant. Rebirth is not described in the core Buddhist teachings like the DO and certainly is not relevant to the practice. From what I understand the whole rebirth theory entertains an ego - the very thing we are running away from.
However, I was in the same situation you are in few months back. This text as well as a lot of other essays from the Buddhadasa Bhikku are great reads so please have a look at them:
The OP refences Buddhism in General and a Vajrayana teacher in particular. A general discussion around the subject cannot be limited to the Pali Canon as the final say. Theravada, Vajrayana, and Zen all fall into this trap of reducing Buddhism to there partcular measure of authenticity. All of them can get quite fundamentalist about it. The short answer to this question of rebirth is there is no single General Buddhist answer. This is the fact jack.
Incidentally last I checked this website was called "New Buddhist" not "New Theravadin". The Pali Canon is no more the final say than the Mahayana Sutras, or the words of the Patriarchs.
Perhaps it would be skillfull to clarify ones measure of things as vehicle specific when posting a thread. Then others can recognize and respect that distinction. I'll certainly make the effort to respect that.
Incidentally last I checked this website was called "New Buddhist" not "New Theravadin". The Pali Canon is no more the final say than the Mahayana Sutras, or the words of the Patriarchs.
Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen:)
Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen:)
you dont get it. You just dont get it. Silo time. Originals? this means nothing outside of a theravadin context. It is amazing. amazing. Seperate silos. Deshy refers to to "core buddhist techings", really? Silos. Amazing. A vajrayana guy may say which Buddha? Which original teachings, which transmission. A Zen Master teaches as Buddha Now, one of may Buddhas. To a Theravadin this is outrageous. The Pali canon holds no water for a Zen master. It is not even looked at by many Zen practitioners.
So who is "real"? who is the real buddhist? DD would definitely have his answer. While there are Vajrayana practitioners who see Theravada as partial or even degenerate.
So lets not say everybody bows to Zen, or Theravada, or Vajrayana. How about it? Even if you think the other guy is a fake Buddhist.
you dont get it. You just dont get it. Silo time. Originals? this means nothing outside of a theravadin context. It is amazing. amazing. Seperate silos. Deshy refers to to "core buddhist techings", really? Silos. Amazing.
Zen regards transmission as multilayered and timeless. Vajrayana regards transmission as multylayered and originating prior to Siddartha Gautama and timeless. The Pali Canon is not "original" teaching to non-theravadins. Do you see? Say of it what you will from a theravadin perspective but it is so. The pali canon is not the final authority for non-theravadins. It isnt. oy vey!!
Once again call that bullshit or whatever, but recognize this fact of differences.
maybe once these difference are just ackowledged, just acknowledged, there can be dialogue.
Zen regards transmission as multilayered and timeless. Vajrayana regards transmission as multylayered and originating prior to Siddartha Gautama and timeless. The Pali Canon is not "original" teaching to non-theravadins. Do you see? Say of it what you will from a theravadin perspective but it is so. The pali canon is not the final authority for non-theravadins. It isnt. oy vey!!
Once again call that bullshit or whatever, but recognize this fact of differences.
maybe once these difference are just ackowledged, just acknowledged, there can be dialogue.
Im not talking about who thinks what of what. Maybe Zen is the divine vehicle handed down by Lord Buddha direct from nibbana...I really dont know... etc etc
I do know that its a much later (1000+ years) school than therevada, which is a much later (500+/- years?) than the period of Buddhism that I am interested in.
This period is when there was no vehicles or schools, just Buddha Dharma and Sanga:)
Im not talking about who thinks what of what. Maybe Zen is the divine vehicle handed down by Lord Buddha direct from nibbana...I really dont know... etc etc
I do know that its a much later (1000+ years) school than therevada, which is a much later (500+/- years?) than the period of Buddhism that I am interested in.
This period is when there was no vehicles or schools, just Buddha Dharma and Sanga:)
Shalome
Mat
Thats fine Mat. I'm not knocking your interest. I am just saying that if you take an issue like "re-birth". The Pali Canon is not the source of legitimate view for non-Theravadins. You cannot go to a Zen practitioner and say look here this Sutta says this, therefore the matter is settled, anymore than a Zen practitioner can quote something from the Platform Sutra to settle something for a Theravadin. That is all.
So just for sake of communication maybe it is a good idea to be clear in that respect, especially if the context is a General Buddhist one like on this forum. You have your own unique take on things. We disagree on some stuff but I repect where you are coming from.
Anyway no more responses. It definitely time to take a break from this forum. it will be interesting to see what it looks like at a later time. lots of new people.
You cannot go to a Zen practitioner and say look here this Sutta says this, therefore the matter is settled, anymore than a Zen practitioner can quote something from the Platform Sutra to settle something for a Theravadin. That is all.
For sure. Though my view is you cant use any suttra, from any school, for anything other than guidance, a guidance that I personally will always doubt until I know it myself:)
So just for sake of communication maybe it is a good idea to be clear in that respect, especially if the context is a General Buddhist one like on this forum. You have your own unique take on things. We disagree on some stuff but I repect where you are coming from.
Ya likewise:) I guess in my terms I follow this equation:
Greater Closeness to Buddha's time=Greater representitiveness of Buddha's teachings.
I don't really have anything to back that up and its not really that important to me because for me it all stops the day the Buddha died. Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
Sometimes I read things said by Buddhists who died mere centuries ago or are alive today and, though I assume there is no connection to the Buddha I think that what they say utterly captures dharma and the spirit of the Buddha that's so clear in the ancient texts.
I dont believe any of Buddhism today is accurate or authentic, my way, your way, their way, but the crucial thing is, and this is a recent revelation to me, even in the Buddha's lifetime it seems there were many ways:)
We should stop using this forum to fight about whose middle path is the best:)
Clearly you read through the post with the typical "fault finder" rather than open reader attitude:)
I often make mistakes, I rarely contradict myself.
I shall explain, though I doubt you will give it anything but a combative appraisal.
A:Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen
B:Greater Closeness to Buddha's time=Greater representitiveness of Buddha's ... C: for me it all stops the day the Buddha died. Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
Demonstrably A is true, though new discoveries could change that.
As I say, I am not sure of why B is true but it seems to be. In common sense and clear reason B seems true to me.
A and B are fully compatible. I don't believe the PC is at all the word of Buddha as I have discussed many times.
C is compatible with this, moreover its supporting.
It doesn't make a jot of difference to me if we find a suttra that comes from the very first meeting after the Buddha's death or was written last week.
Yes he did. Look at the teachings on dependent origination.
In the dependent origination, the Buddha is teaching how ignorance colours or obscurs consciousness, which leads to consciousness absorbing itself into various sense objects. Like this:
Bhikkus, one who is engaged is unliberated; one who is disengaged is liberated. Consciousness, while standing, might stand engaged with form; based upon form, established upon form, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase and expansion.
Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.
When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being'.
And like this:
"Well, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires, and does not know, as it really is, the way of escape from sense-desires that have arisen, then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
"Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
In Pali, the word nirodha does not mean 'cessation'. It means to extinguish, quench & liberate
I often make mistakes, I rarely contradict myself.
The contradiction pointed out is the basis for your attempts to support your views. You've expressed it over and over, although not as explicitly as you did this time.
The contradiction pointed out is the basis for your attempts to support your views.
There is no contradiction.
I reject the texts as completely accurate accounts of the Budda's teaching.
I feel the earlier texts will be closer to his teaching.
Even a text written the day after his death I could not consider accurate.
In the dependent origination, the Buddha is teaching how ignorance colours consciousness, which leads to consciousness absorbing itself into various sense objects.
In Pali, the word nirodha does not mean 'cessation'. It means to extinguish, quench & liberate
In the Buddha's third sermon, he taught:
"Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?
"The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what?Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.
...ear-consciousness is burning...nose-consciousness is burning...tongue-consciousness is burning...body-consciousness is burning...mind-consciousness is burning.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabricators. From the cessation of fabricators comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
Now some of dhammas above are defilements and others are merely the basic aggregates.
For example, ignorance is a defilement, craving is a defilement, attachment is a defilement but consciousness is merely a basic aggregate, body-mind are basic aggregates, sense organs are basic aggregates, feeling is a basic aggregate and fabricators [in & out breathing, thought and perception & feeling] are basic aggregates.
When the term 'cessation' is used, it refers to the cessation of the "fires" mentioned in the third sermon. It does not refer to the cessation of the five aggregates but the 'quenching' of the aggregates.
When the cessation of consciousness occurs, it means the "fire" has been put out in consciousness; just like when the fire department put out a fire in a building. The fire is put out but the building remains (until its natural decay).
Originals? this means nothing outside of a theravadin context.
It is a sin or downfall in Mahayana to denigrate the Pali Cannon. This is naturally correct because the Pali Cannon is the original and the root.
If we go to You Tube and listen to HHDL talk about the 4NTs and DO, he often quotes the Pali Cannon.
The Mahayana was an expansion of the Budddhist teachings to attract more people to Buddhism when it lost popularity due to its focus on monasticism.
That is fact rather than emotion. The Mahayana teachers I have listened to have also taught exactly that.
The Mahayana incorporated teachings from Hinduism such as deities & non-duality. Generally, those with less natural wisdom, who do not have natural dispassion towards the world, like the teaching of non-duality.
Non-duality is a balanced teaching.
Non-dual mind is like taking drugs or having sex. It appeals to people and helps them take an interest in spiritual things without being turned away by doctrines such as celibacy, solitude, dispassion, not-self, etc.
So naturally, Theravadins who turn to the Mahayana are denigrated, just like Ajahn Brahm was recently labelled a "Mahayana" for his focus on teaching lay people rebirth and being concerned about female ordination.
When a person has grasped the actual teachings, there is no "me", no "you", no "man", no "monk", no "layperson", no "bhikkhuni".
Ajahn Chah taught like this. The Heart Sutra also teaches like this. Zen also teaches like this, namely, instant enlightenment [well...instant stream entry].
Deshy refers to to "core buddhist techings", really?
Absolutely. The core teachings of the 4NTs, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, the Three Characteristics, etc, have their root in the Pali Cannon and are the core teachings.
Mahayana may have developed different techniques to transmit these core teachings.
What else could be regarded as the core teachings?
If a Zen practitioner is not seeking entry & abiding in Emptiness [Pali: Sunnata] then what are they seeking?
A Zen Master teaches as Buddha Now, one of many Buddhas. To a Theravadin this is outrageous.
Not really.
Buddha is now. Buddha-mind is now. Buddha-minds are many.
It is not outrageous at all.
"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One."
"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."
So who is "real"? who is the real buddhist? DD would definitely have his answer.
Indeed, DD would have an answer, albeit, merely their opinion.
The real Buddhist is one taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha, in their myriad forms.
Even if their life is one bound in defilement & degenerate behaviour, if they simply have faith in the love & compassion of a Buddha, they are a real Buddhist.
The Buddha said:
47. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven."
So lets not say everybody bows to Zen, or Theravada, or Vajrayana. How about it? Even if you think the other guy is a fake Buddhist.
To me, I only take refuge in the Theravada suttas. But when did I or any other ever think the other guy is a "fake" Buddhist, let alone speak or write it?
"Fake" vs "real"? New concepts to me.
The biggest problem with "Zen" practitioners is they are generally unlearned. They learn a minimalistic teaching then disparage other teachings as being "intellectual". This is the problem of remaining unlearned.
Where as, generally, the Theravadin is learned because the Buddha advised:
(40) Others will have no learning; we shall be learned here...
It is a sin or downfall in Mahayana to denigrate the Pali Cannon. This is naturally correct because the Pali Cannon is the original and the root.
If we go to You Tube and listen to HHDL talk about the 4NTs and DO, he often quotes the Pali Cannon.
The Mahayana was an expansion of the Budddhist teachings to attract more people to Buddhism when it lost popularity due to its focus on monasticism.
That is fact rather than emotion. The Mahayana teachers I have listened to have also taught exactly that.
The Mahayana incorporated teachings from Hinduism such as deities & non-duality. Generally, those with less natural wisdom, who do not have natural dispassion towards the world, like the teaching of non-duality.
Non-duality is a balanced teaching.
Non-dual mind is like taking drugs or having sex. It appeals to people and helps them take an interest in spiritual things without being turned away by doctrines such as celibacy, solitude, dispassion, not-self, etc.
So naturally, Theravadins who turn to the Mahayana are denigrated, just like Ajahn Brahm was recently labelled a "Mahayana" for his focus on teaching lay people rebirth and being concerned about female ordination.
When a person has grasped the actual teachings, there is no "me", no "you", no "man", no "monk", no "layperson", no "bhikkhuni".
Ajahn Chah taught like this. The Heart Sutra also teaches like this. Zen also teaches like this, namely, instant enlightenment [well...instant stream entry].
I had no intention of posting again for a while, but you are really too much who ever you are. You are problem for Theravadins, not me.
I reject the texts as completely accurate accounts of the Budda's teaching.
I feel the earlier texts will be closer to his teaching.
Even a text written the day after his death I could not consider accurate.
Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
If one week is that same as eternity, then all texts are equal. For all of them, there's an eternity between the Buddha's death and their composition.
Your arguments assume the more extreme claim. You make no attempt to determine which suttas are older or younger. Your claim is that any statement of rebirth didn't come from the Buddha, regardless of how old the sutta containing the statement is. And this contradicts your efforts to base your arguments on the suttas, because if parts of even the older suttas can be dismissed without evidence, then all of the suttas can be dismissed without evidence.
Zen regards transmission as multilayered and timeless. Vajrayana regards transmission as multylayered and originating prior to Siddartha Gautama and timeless. The Pali Canon is not "original" teaching to non-theravadins. Do you see?
No, I do not see.
Put in another way, the Pali Cannon is also a transmission that is "multilayered" and timeless.
Put in another way, he Pali Cannon is also a transmission that is "multilayered" and timeless.
I am walking away from this site. Not because you are a fundamentalist Theravadin fanatic, but because it is acceptable to the administrators of this site, and the Theravadin Moderator, that an over the top Fundamentilist Fanatic is an acceptable member for this site.
I'd really prefer that the topic of the thread be stuck to rather than deciding which members are or aren't acceptable or are doing whatever.
I think the point was that the Pali Canon did not seem to support rebirth explicitly. Next it was mentioned that the Pali Canon was not authoritative for everyone. Next that everyone should consider the Pali canon because it is part of buddhism.
That is all well and good but I felt that there was too much divergence from the topic at hand and too much focus on whether DD was legitimate for the site. I also wonder if both of you could use less inflamatory language. In other words say "I think a Zen Master would not discard the Pali Canon" rather than say "well then Zen Masters are unlettered fools who are just stoned on non-duality". I know you did not say that exactly but I am trying to make the point that by changing your langauge, DD, you can help out the discussion (obviously that is just my opinion). Richard I don't think you should speculate if someone is acceptable for the forum. If they do something specific that is unacceptable then report it to a mod. I should probably be reporting to a mod as well. :rolleyes: If you just don't like someone, well then don't talk to them. St. Ignora has been the bodhissatva to save many a internet person.
I don't think there's a need to know if there's rebirth or not.
We should live our lives as mindfully as possible and be as compassionate as possible no matter what.
But it sure seems like it would take many lifetimes to reach nirvana.
My guess is that most of us aren't advanced enough to understand rebirth. And for those who do understand it, there wouldn't be a way to explain it to us.
If we go to You Tube and listen to HHDL talk about the 4NTs and DO, he often quotes the Pali Cannon.
The Nikayas are available in English, and the Agamas, for the most part, are not. It would be nice to have the Agamas available in English, but they are not, and it's a tremendous gift to have the Nikayas available.
The Mahayana was an expansion of the Budddhist teachings to attract more people to Buddhism when it lost popularity due to its focus on monasticism.
Various parts of what became Mahayana were created by various communities for various purposes. The bodhisattva teachings appear to have been created by monks for monks. If you look at early bodhisattva texts, there's a strong emphasis on monasticism.
I'd just like to make a point about something that Richard Herman said earlier in the thread, if that's ok.
Vajrayana regards transmission as multylayered and originating prior to Siddartha Gautama and timeless. The Pali Canon is not "original" teaching to non-theravadins. Do you see?
Vajrayana does not put down Theravada and the Pali Canon.
In 'Path to Buddhahood' which is a commentary on a text called Gampopa's 'Jewel Ornament of Liberation' There is a section on the different levels of the Bodhisattva path.
Insight
"The third Phase is that of insight, the direct experience of truth and the real nature of mind, the stage of Mahamudra. Here one obtains the state of an arya, which means 'raised above'. Although not yet a perfect buddha, one is nevertheless no longer a samsaric being."................
.......This third phase corresponds to the first bhumi of the bodhisattva levels as well as to the level of the "stream enterer" in the Theravada tradition "
.
*Note*
*Thanks to Dhamma Dhatu for the informative input in this topic*:)
Continuing with Ajahn Sumedho mentioned by DD #39, in his book 'The Sound of Silence' he says:
and
.
I did not put down the Pali Canon. I simply said the Pali Canon is not the final word for non-Theravadins. This is true. My first book given from a teacher was BuddhaDhamma (Abridged) By Phra Payutto. No one is throwing out the Pali Canon, but the Idea that non-Theravadins must yield to the doctrinal authority of the Pali canon is wrong, chauvinistic and ignorant of other traditions.. The Theravadin View is not all Buddhism. Thats That, thats all.
"It is very important to understand that the core teachings of the
Theravada tradition embodied in the Pali scriptures are the
foundation of the Buddha's teachings. Beginning with these
teachings, one can then draw on the insights contained in the
detailed explanations of the Sanskrit Mahayana tradition. Finally,
integrating techniques and perspectives from the Vajrayana texts
can further enhance one's understanding. But without a foundation
in the core teachings embodied in the Pali tradition, simply
proclaiming oneself a follower of the Mahayana is meaningless.
If one has this kind of deeper understanding of various scriptures
and their interpretation, one is spared from harboring mis-taken
notions of conflicts between the "Greater" versus the "Lesser"
Vehicle (Hinayana). Sometimes there is a regrettable tendency on
the part of certain followers of the Mahayana to disparage the
teachings of the Theravada, claiming that they are the teachings of
the Lesser Vehicle, and thereby not suited to one's own personal
practice. Similarly, on the part of followers of the Pali tradition,
there is sometimes a tendency to reject the validity of the
Mahayana teachings, claiming they are not actually the Buddha's
teachings.
"As we move into our examination of the Heart Sutra, what is
important is to understand deeply how these traditions complement
each other and to see how, at the individual level, each of us can
integrate all these core teachings into our personal practice."
and now from my study group as compiled by a therevadan layperson and an occultist:
The Buddha
T: Only the historical Gautama (Sâkyamuni) Buddha and past human
Buddhas are accepted.
M: Besides accepting the historical Shâkyamuni Buddha, Buddha is
considered a supermundane (World-transcending<wbr>) spiritual principle.
Thus it's personified as Supreme Celestial Buddhas of other
contemporary Buddhas, like Amitâbha and Medicine Buddha are
popular.
Sâkyamuni Buddha's Disciples
T: Basically historical disciples, whether arahats or commoners.
M: A lot of bodhisattvas are introduced by Shâkyamuni Buddha.
Most of these are not historical figures.
Bodhisattvas
T: Only Maitreya bodhisattva is accepted.
M: Besides Maitreya, Avalokiteshvara, Manjûrshrî, KSitigarbha and
Samanthabadra are four very well known bodhisattvas. The ideal of
a Bodhisattva is glorified.
Concept Of Bodhicitta
T: Main emphasis is self liberation. There is total self-reliance on one-
self to eradicate all defilements.
M: Besides self liberation, it is important for Mahayana followers to
help other sentient beings.
Buddha Nature
T: Absent from the teachings of Theravâda tradition.
M: Heavily stressed, particularly by school's inclined practices.
Doctrinal Emphasis
T: Stresses 4 Noble Truths, the 3 Trainings, the 12 Links of
Dependent Arising, Noble 8 Fold Path, and Mindfulness Meditation.
M: Stresses generating Bodhicitta, practicing the 6 Perfections, and
realizing Shûnyatâ. In it's Vajrayâna form, the stress is upon emulating
the Enlightened State's realization, goal, results, and activity.
Spiritual Levels
T: Shrâvaka bhûmis are listed as eight
M: There are ten bhûmis of bodhisattvas.
Rituals And Liturgy
T: There are some rituals but not heavily emphasized as in Mahâyâna
schools.
M: Owing to local cultural influences, there is much more emphais on
the use of rituals; e.g. Rituals for the deceased, feeding of Petas,
tantric formalities (in Vajrayâna). Devotion and Buddha-worship play
an important role
Use Of Mantras And Mudras
T: Some equivalent in the use of Parittas.
M: Heavily practised in the Vajrâyana school of Mahâyâna
Buddhism. Other schools also have included some mantras in their
daily lithurgy.
Stupa Worship
T: Honoring the Historical Buddha
M: The cult of stûpas becomes prominent as the expression of the
Enlightened Mind.
Dying And Death Aspects
T: Very little research and knowledge on the process of dying and
death. Usually, the dying persons are advised to meditate on
impermanence, suffering and emptiness. Rebirth is to be dreaded.
M: The Vajrâyâna school is particularly meticulous in these areas.
There are many inner and external signs manifested by people before
they die. There is heavy stress in doing transference of merit practices
in the immediate few weeks following death to assist in the deceased's
next rebirth. Contemplating on rebirth becomes a salient feature of the
works. Pure Land rebirth was sought and eulogised. The Bodhisattva
is reborn voluntarily in order to aid all living beings to become
enlightened.
Bardo
T: This in-between stage after death and before rebirth is ignored in
Theravâda school.
M: All Mahâyâna schools teach this after death aspect.
Focus Of Worship In The Temple
T: Simple layout with the image of Sâkyamuni Buddha the focus of
worship.
M: Can be quite elaborate; with a chamber/hall for Shâkyamuni
Buddha and two disciples, one hall for the 3 Buddhas (including
Amitâbha and Medicine Buddha) and one hall for the 3 key
bodhisattvas; besides the protectors, etc.
Goal Of Training
T: Arhat or Pacceka-buddha. Believes that while attaining
Buddhahood is ideal, it is extremely difficult and beyond most
people’s capabilities. Only those who practice the meditative
monastic life (i.e., the monks) can attain spiritual perfection.
Enlightenment is not thought possible for those living the secular life.
M: Buddhahood (via Bodhisattva path). Believes that restricting
oneself to attaining Arhat Ideal is too limiting. Mahâyâna school says
anyone, including laity, can attain enlightenment by practicing the
Bodhisattva values. The Mahâyâna tradition thus includes numerous
Bodhisattva saviors.
NirvâNa (Nibbana in Pâli)
T: No distinction is made between NirvâNa attained by a buddha
and that of an arhat or pacceka buddha. Aspire to achieve NirvâNa,
or to have a better rebirth in the next life.
M: Also known as 'liberation from SaMsâra,' there are subtle
distinctions in the level of attainment for the three situations.
Emancipation can be attained through grace of a Buddha, a
Bodhisattva or through practices such as repetition of their names.
Tri-kâya Concept
T: Very limited emphasis on the 2 bodies of a buddha. References
are mainly on rûpa-kâya (Physical-Form) and dharma-kâya (as the
Body of Teachings).
M: Widely mentioned in Mahâyâna Buddhism. Rûpa-kâya is
divided up into 2: NirmâNa-kâya (Apparitional Emanation-Body)
& Samboga-kâya (Reward/Enjoyment-<wbr>body) and the Dharma-kâya
is considered as not only the essence of phenomena, but also the self-
nature of all beings in NirvâNa, completes the Tri-kâya concept.
Organization Of Buddhist Scriptures
T: The Pâli Canon is divided into 3 baskets (Ti-piTaka): Vinaya
PiTaka of 5 books, Sutta PiTaka of 5 collections (many suttas) and
Abhidhamma PiTaka of 7 books. The Theravâda school rejects the
Mahâyâna Sûtras and does not recognize the "expansive" teachings
of the Mahâyâna about Bodhisattvas and about the Buddhas of the
other directions.
M: The Mahâyâna Buddhist Canon also consists of Tri-piTaka of
disciplines, discourses (sutras) and dharma analysis. It is usually
organized in 12 divisions of topics like Cause and Conditions and
Verses. It contains virtually all the Theravâda Ti-piTata and many
sutras that the latter does not have. They claimed that their canon of
scriptures represented the final teachings of Buddha, the "Second" &
"Third Turnings" of the Wheel of Dharma.
Language Of Dharma Teaching
T: Ti-piTaka is strictly in Pâli. Dharma teaching in Pâli supplemented
by local language.
M: Original language of transmission is Sanskrit. Buddhist canon
is translated into the local language (except for the 5 untranslatables)<wbr>,
e.g. Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese.
Transmission Route
T: Southern Transmission: Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Laos,
Cambodia and parts of Southeast Asia.
M: NorthernTransmissio<wbr>n: Tibet, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea,
Mongolia and parts of Southeast Asia.
Schools/Sects Of The Tradition
T: One surviving major school following years of attrition reducing the
number from as high as 18.
M: Most of the works gave birth to particular cults. Cult of Amitâbha
is one of them. In China/Japan 8 major schools based on the partial
doctrines (sûtras, shâstras or vinaya) of the teachings. The four
schools inclined towards practices like Pure Land/Amitâbha, Ch'an,
Vajrayâna and Vinaya (not for lay people) are more popular than the
philosophy based schools like Tien-Tai, Avatamsaka, Yogâcâra and
Madhyamika.
Vegetarianism
T: This aspect is not necessary. In places like Thailand where daily
morning rounds are still practised, it is very difficult to insist on the
type of food to be donated.
M: Very well observed in all Mahâyâna schools (except the Tibetans
due to the geographical circumstances)<wbr>. However, this aspect is not
compulsory.
One Meal A Day Practice
T: This the norm among Theravâda sanghas.
M: This is a highly respected practice but it is left to the disposition of
each individual in the various sanghas.
Non Buddhist Influences
T: Mainly pre-Buddhism Indian/Brahmin influences. Many terms like
karma, sangha, etc were prevailing terms during Sâkyamuni Buddha's
life time. References were made from the Vedas and Upanishads.
M: In the course of integration and adoption by the people in other
civilizations, there were heavy mutual influences. In China, both
Confucianism and Taoism exerted some influence on Buddhism which
in turn had an impact on the indigenous beliefs. This scenario was
repeated in Japan and Tibet.
Its logically and semantically the same thing, I was trying to clarify it for you. If it is logically or semantically differnt please say how.
If one week is that same as eternity, then all texts are equal. For all of them, there's an eternity between the Buddha's death and their composition.
No, my point is that it doesnt matter of its a day or an aeon.
Your arguments assume the more extreme claim. You make no attempt to determine which suttas are older or younger.
Again, you simply do not understand the simple reasoning.
I have spent tens of thousands of words here and elsewhere discussing which are older and younger, even in this thread there is no debate, eg Zen and Therevada. But that's not relevant to this point, extreme or moderate isnt relevant, its the fact there is a any discontinuity.
Your claim is that any statement of rebirth didn't come from the Buddha, regardless of how old the sutta containing the statement is.
No, my claim is that we cannot know that any statement or principle came from the Buddha. You misunderstand me, missrepresnet me and then miss my point.
And this contradicts your efforts to base your arguments on the suttas, because if parts of even the older suttas can be dismissed without evidence, then all of the suttas can be dismissed without evidence.
Exactly! I dismiss all suttas as I said in the post you first replied to which you clearly didnt read. Here it is again.
I dont believe any of Buddhism today is accurate or authentic, my way, your way, their way, but the crucial thing is, and this is a recent revelation to me, even in the Buddha's lifetime it seems there were many ways
After three times you still haven't shown what the contradiction is. Pithy quoting from a bluffers guide to philosophy isn't helpng.
Either I am a dunce or you are not as smart as you think. Because I am very confused by your attempts to refute what you haven't refuted and which wasn't even there as an argument but was a statement of my beleifs.
Sometimes I read things said by Buddhists who died mere centuries ago or are alive today and, though I assume there is no connection to the Buddha I think that what they say utterly captures dharma and the spirit of the Buddha that's so clear in the ancient texts.
This is a reply to the thread in general, no one in particular; a quote from "Sects & Sectarianism" by Bhikkhu Sujato
If we reflect on the basic issues that divided the schools, we find much that is reminiscent of contemporary Buddhist dialogue. It is a shame that the complex and profound history of Buddhist philosophical thought becomes so easily reduced to the facile dismissal of other schools simply because they disagree with the interpretation of one's own chosen party. As much as we would like to imagine that all the answers are wrapped up, the nature of philosophy is such that the basic issues that generated schools of thought remain, and reappear in varied guises in discussions within the school itself.
In the dependent origination, the Buddha is teaching how ignorance colours or obscurs consciousness, which leads to consciousness absorbing itself into various sense objects.
No, my claim is that we cannot know that any statement or principle came from the Buddha. You misunderstand me, missrepresnet me and then miss my point.
Exactly! I dismiss all suttas as I said in the post you first replied to which you clearly didnt read.
Apparently I did read it, since I'm pointing out that you're dismissing all suttas. The issue here is not whether you dismiss all suttas. It's the fact that you dismiss all suttas while trying to support your claims with suttas. If you're going to dismiss all suttas and sutras, then you have no way of supporting claims about what the Buddha taught.
Because I am very confused by your attempts to refute what you haven't refuted and which wasn't even there as an argument but was a statement of my beleifs.
It was a statement of belief that contained a contradiction. I pointed out the contradiction.
I am walking away from this site. Not because you are a fundamentalist Theravadin fanatic, but because it is acceptable to the administrators of this site, and the Theravadin Moderator, that an over the top Fundamentilist Fanatic is an acceptable member for this site.
Goodbye. Who ever you are. have reign.
You always start off comments about Therevadha and the Pali Canon and then shout "foul" when others reply to you.
Comments
There is only one sutta that I know of where consciousness is described as "something that lands on the mother's womb" and that sutta is Mahanidhana sutta. This particular sutta's credibility is in question. Consciousness is explained in all the other suttas that I have read so far as "something that arises based on a sense base". The birth in DO is the birth of the self-concept or the ego not a physical birth
I am not saying there is nothing called rebirth. It's just that, it is not relevant. Rebirth is not described in the core Buddhist teachings like the DO and certainly is not relevant to the practice. From what I understand the whole rebirth theory entertains an ego - the very thing we are running away from.
However, I was in the same situation you are in few months back. This text as well as a lot of other essays from the Buddhadasa Bhikku are great reads so please have a look at them:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm
Incidentally last I checked this website was called "New Buddhist" not "New Theravadin". The Pali Canon is no more the final say than the Mahayana Sutras, or the words of the Patriarchs.
Perhaps it would be skillfull to clarify ones measure of things as vehicle specific when posting a thread. Then others can recognize and respect that distinction. I'll certainly make the effort to respect that.
This was one of the many reasons that started my skeptisism about mystical buddhism. Its profound, when you think about it.
Salome
Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen:)
So who is "real"? who is the real buddhist? DD would definitely have his answer. While there are Vajrayana practitioners who see Theravada as partial or even degenerate.
So lets not say everybody bows to Zen, or Theravada, or Vajrayana. How about it? Even if you think the other guy is a fake Buddhist.
Richard,
Zen is Middle ages
Therevada is earlier.
What is the issue here?
Mat
Oy vey
Zen regards transmission as multilayered and timeless. Vajrayana regards transmission as multylayered and originating prior to Siddartha Gautama and timeless. The Pali Canon is not "original" teaching to non-theravadins. Do you see? Say of it what you will from a theravadin perspective but it is so. The pali canon is not the final authority for non-theravadins. It isnt. oy vey!!
Once again call that bullshit or whatever, but recognize this fact of differences.
maybe once these difference are just ackowledged, just acknowledged, there can be dialogue.
These are only issues when yapping. But this medium is a yapping medium so it matters.
anyway.... clearly time for a break.:)
Im not talking about who thinks what of what. Maybe Zen is the divine vehicle handed down by Lord Buddha direct from nibbana...I really dont know... etc etc
I do know that its a much later (1000+ years) school than therevada, which is a much later (500+/- years?) than the period of Buddhism that I am interested in.
This period is when there was no vehicles or schools, just Buddha Dharma and Sanga:)
Shalome
Mat
So just for sake of communication maybe it is a good idea to be clear in that respect, especially if the context is a General Buddhist one like on this forum. You have your own unique take on things. We disagree on some stuff but I repect where you are coming from.
Anyway no more responses. It definitely time to take a break from this forum. it will be interesting to see what it looks like at a later time. lots of new people.
For sure. Though my view is you cant use any suttra, from any school, for anything other than guidance, a guidance that I personally will always doubt until I know it myself:)
Ya likewise:) I guess in my terms I follow this equation:
Greater Closeness to Buddha's time=Greater representitiveness of Buddha's teachings.
I don't really have anything to back that up and its not really that important to me because for me it all stops the day the Buddha died. Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
Sometimes I read things said by Buddhists who died mere centuries ago or are alive today and, though I assume there is no connection to the Buddha I think that what they say utterly captures dharma and the spirit of the Buddha that's so clear in the ancient texts.
I dont believe any of Buddhism today is accurate or authentic, my way, your way, their way, but the crucial thing is, and this is a recent revelation to me, even in the Buddha's lifetime it seems there were many ways:)
We should stop using this forum to fight about whose middle path is the best:)
Cowabunga,
Mat;)
But the next paragraph says
Clearly you read through the post with the typical "fault finder" rather than open reader attitude:)
I often make mistakes, I rarely contradict myself.
I shall explain, though I doubt you will give it anything but a combative appraisal.
A:Agree but the PC is as close as we have to the originals, certainly it cannot be accurate but its obviously closer than say Zen or Shinyoen
B:Greater Closeness to Buddha's time=Greater representitiveness of Buddha's ... C: for me it all stops the day the Buddha died. Even if we find a suttra that's 1 week after his death, that's an eternity for my skepticism.
Demonstrably A is true, though new discoveries could change that.
As I say, I am not sure of why B is true but it seems to be. In common sense and clear reason B seems true to me.
A and B are fully compatible. I don't believe the PC is at all the word of Buddha as I have discussed many times.
C is compatible with this, moreover its supporting.
It doesn't make a jot of difference to me if we find a suttra that comes from the very first meeting after the Buddha's death or was written last week.
Its all open to doubt and question.
I know you find that hard,
But do try to at least be nice if you do reply.
Laters,
mat
meh.. not so nice
nicer!
In Pali, the word nirodha does not mean 'cessation'. It means to extinguish, quench & liberate
Parileyyaka Sutta
:winkc:
The contradiction pointed out is the basis for your attempts to support your views. You've expressed it over and over, although not as explicitly as you did this time.
Ad hom.
Please explain how contradictory statements can be compatible.
That's both an ad hom attack and a straw man argument.
There is no contradiction.
I reject the texts as completely accurate accounts of the Budda's teaching.
I feel the earlier texts will be closer to his teaching.
Even a text written the day after his death I could not consider accurate.
Where is the contradiction?
Sometimes we think we are smarter than we are.
For example, ignorance is a defilement, craving is a defilement, attachment is a defilement but consciousness is merely a basic aggregate, body-mind are basic aggregates, sense organs are basic aggregates, feeling is a basic aggregate and fabricators [in & out breathing, thought and perception & feeling] are basic aggregates.
When the term 'cessation' is used, it refers to the cessation of the "fires" mentioned in the third sermon. It does not refer to the cessation of the five aggregates but the 'quenching' of the aggregates.
When the cessation of consciousness occurs, it means the "fire" has been put out in consciousness; just like when the fire department put out a fire in a building. The fire is put out but the building remains (until its natural decay).
Kind regards
DD
If we go to You Tube and listen to HHDL talk about the 4NTs and DO, he often quotes the Pali Cannon.
The Mahayana was an expansion of the Budddhist teachings to attract more people to Buddhism when it lost popularity due to its focus on monasticism.
That is fact rather than emotion. The Mahayana teachers I have listened to have also taught exactly that.
The Mahayana incorporated teachings from Hinduism such as deities & non-duality. Generally, those with less natural wisdom, who do not have natural dispassion towards the world, like the teaching of non-duality.
Non-duality is a balanced teaching.
Non-dual mind is like taking drugs or having sex. It appeals to people and helps them take an interest in spiritual things without being turned away by doctrines such as celibacy, solitude, dispassion, not-self, etc.
So naturally, Theravadins who turn to the Mahayana are denigrated, just like Ajahn Brahm was recently labelled a "Mahayana" for his focus on teaching lay people rebirth and being concerned about female ordination.
When a person has grasped the actual teachings, there is no "me", no "you", no "man", no "monk", no "layperson", no "bhikkhuni".
Ajahn Chah taught like this. The Heart Sutra also teaches like this. Zen also teaches like this, namely, instant enlightenment [well...instant stream entry].
Mahayana may have developed different techniques to transmit these core teachings.
What else could be regarded as the core teachings?
If a Zen practitioner is not seeking entry & abiding in Emptiness [Pali: Sunnata] then what are they seeking?
Buddha is now. Buddha-mind is now. Buddha-minds are many.
It is not outrageous at all.
:cool:
A person that shows no acknowledgement or gratitude towards their mother & father cannot be a "master".
They can only be described as a "fool" or "puttujana" .
As I said, it is a downfall of a [Tibetan] Bodhisatva to denegrate the Pali Cannon.
:smilec:
The real Buddhist is one taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha, in their myriad forms.
Even if their life is one bound in defilement & degenerate behaviour, if they simply have faith in the love & compassion of a Buddha, they are a real Buddhist.
The Buddha said:
"Fake" vs "real"? New concepts to me.
The biggest problem with "Zen" practitioners is they are generally unlearned. They learn a minimalistic teaching then disparage other teachings as being "intellectual". This is the problem of remaining unlearned.
Where as, generally, the Theravadin is learned because the Buddha advised: A Theravadin master is fluid in conversing in any spiritual language, be it Zen, Vajrayana, Christianity, etc.
:smilec:
take care.
If one week is that same as eternity, then all texts are equal. For all of them, there's an eternity between the Buddha's death and their composition.
Your arguments assume the more extreme claim. You make no attempt to determine which suttas are older or younger. Your claim is that any statement of rebirth didn't come from the Buddha, regardless of how old the sutta containing the statement is. And this contradicts your efforts to base your arguments on the suttas, because if parts of even the older suttas can be dismissed without evidence, then all of the suttas can be dismissed without evidence.
Ad hom.
Put in another way, the Pali Cannon is also a transmission that is "multilayered" and timeless.
I am walking away from this site. Not because you are a fundamentalist Theravadin fanatic, but because it is acceptable to the administrators of this site, and the Theravadin Moderator, that an over the top Fundamentilist Fanatic is an acceptable member for this site.
Goodbye. Who ever you are. have reign.
I think the point was that the Pali Canon did not seem to support rebirth explicitly. Next it was mentioned that the Pali Canon was not authoritative for everyone. Next that everyone should consider the Pali canon because it is part of buddhism.
That is all well and good but I felt that there was too much divergence from the topic at hand and too much focus on whether DD was legitimate for the site. I also wonder if both of you could use less inflamatory language. In other words say "I think a Zen Master would not discard the Pali Canon" rather than say "well then Zen Masters are unlettered fools who are just stoned on non-duality". I know you did not say that exactly but I am trying to make the point that by changing your langauge, DD, you can help out the discussion (obviously that is just my opinion). Richard I don't think you should speculate if someone is acceptable for the forum. If they do something specific that is unacceptable then report it to a mod. I should probably be reporting to a mod as well. :rolleyes: If you just don't like someone, well then don't talk to them. St. Ignora has been the bodhissatva to save many a internet person.
I don't think there's a need to know if there's rebirth or not.
We should live our lives as mindfully as possible and be as compassionate as possible no matter what.
But it sure seems like it would take many lifetimes to reach nirvana.
My guess is that most of us aren't advanced enough to understand rebirth. And for those who do understand it, there wouldn't be a way to explain it to us.
The Nikayas and the Agamas share a common root.
The Nikayas are available in English, and the Agamas, for the most part, are not. It would be nice to have the Agamas available in English, but they are not, and it's a tremendous gift to have the Nikayas available.
Various parts of what became Mahayana were created by various communities for various purposes. The bodhisattva teachings appear to have been created by monks for monks. If you look at early bodhisattva texts, there's a strong emphasis on monasticism.
Vajrayana does not put down Theravada and the Pali Canon.
In 'Path to Buddhahood' which is a commentary on a text called Gampopa's 'Jewel Ornament of Liberation' There is a section on the different levels of the Bodhisattva path.
.
*Note*
*Thanks to Dhamma Dhatu for the informative input in this topic*:)
.
.
Have a nice day.
BTW. Nice to see you back Richard (for another "rebirth").
I came across this information..
DO THESE TRADITIONS CONTRADICT?
His Holiness the Dalai Lama noted the following in the book 'The
Heart Sutra':
http://www.viewonbu<wbr>ddhism.org/<wbr>vehicles.<wbr>html
"It is very important to understand that the core teachings of the
Theravada tradition embodied in the Pali scriptures are the
foundation of the Buddha's teachings. Beginning with these
teachings, one can then draw on the insights contained in the
detailed explanations of the Sanskrit Mahayana tradition. Finally,
integrating techniques and perspectives from the Vajrayana texts
can further enhance one's understanding. But without a foundation
in the core teachings embodied in the Pali tradition, simply
proclaiming oneself a follower of the Mahayana is meaningless.
If one has this kind of deeper understanding of various scriptures
and their interpretation, one is spared from harboring mis-taken
notions of conflicts between the "Greater" versus the "Lesser"
Vehicle (Hinayana). Sometimes there is a regrettable tendency on
the part of certain followers of the Mahayana to disparage the
teachings of the Theravada, claiming that they are the teachings of
the Lesser Vehicle, and thereby not suited to one's own personal
practice. Similarly, on the part of followers of the Pali tradition,
there is sometimes a tendency to reject the validity of the
Mahayana teachings, claiming they are not actually the Buddha's
teachings.
"As we move into our examination of the Heart Sutra, what is
important is to understand deeply how these traditions complement
each other and to see how, at the individual level, each of us can
integrate all these core teachings into our personal practice."
and now from my study group as compiled by a therevadan layperson and an occultist:
The Buddha
T: Only the historical Gautama (Sâkyamuni) Buddha and past human
Buddhas are accepted.
M: Besides accepting the historical Shâkyamuni Buddha, Buddha is
considered a supermundane (World-transcending<wbr>) spiritual principle.
Thus it's personified as Supreme Celestial Buddhas of other
contemporary Buddhas, like Amitâbha and Medicine Buddha are
popular.
Sâkyamuni Buddha's Disciples
T: Basically historical disciples, whether arahats or commoners.
M: A lot of bodhisattvas are introduced by Shâkyamuni Buddha.
Most of these are not historical figures.
Bodhisattvas
T: Only Maitreya bodhisattva is accepted.
M: Besides Maitreya, Avalokiteshvara, Manjûrshrî, KSitigarbha and
Samanthabadra are four very well known bodhisattvas. The ideal of
a Bodhisattva is glorified.
Concept Of Bodhicitta
T: Main emphasis is self liberation. There is total self-reliance on one-
self to eradicate all defilements.
M: Besides self liberation, it is important for Mahayana followers to
help other sentient beings.
Buddha Nature
T: Absent from the teachings of Theravâda tradition.
M: Heavily stressed, particularly by school's inclined practices.
Doctrinal Emphasis
T: Stresses 4 Noble Truths, the 3 Trainings, the 12 Links of
Dependent Arising, Noble 8 Fold Path, and Mindfulness Meditation.
M: Stresses generating Bodhicitta, practicing the 6 Perfections, and
realizing Shûnyatâ. In it's Vajrayâna form, the stress is upon emulating
the Enlightened State's realization, goal, results, and activity.
Spiritual Levels
T: Shrâvaka bhûmis are listed as eight
M: There are ten bhûmis of bodhisattvas.
Rituals And Liturgy
T: There are some rituals but not heavily emphasized as in Mahâyâna
schools.
M: Owing to local cultural influences, there is much more emphais on
the use of rituals; e.g. Rituals for the deceased, feeding of Petas,
tantric formalities (in Vajrayâna). Devotion and Buddha-worship play
an important role
Use Of Mantras And Mudras
T: Some equivalent in the use of Parittas.
M: Heavily practised in the Vajrâyana school of Mahâyâna
Buddhism. Other schools also have included some mantras in their
daily lithurgy.
Stupa Worship
T: Honoring the Historical Buddha
M: The cult of stûpas becomes prominent as the expression of the
Enlightened Mind.
Dying And Death Aspects
T: Very little research and knowledge on the process of dying and
death. Usually, the dying persons are advised to meditate on
impermanence, suffering and emptiness. Rebirth is to be dreaded.
M: The Vajrâyâna school is particularly meticulous in these areas.
There are many inner and external signs manifested by people before
they die. There is heavy stress in doing transference of merit practices
in the immediate few weeks following death to assist in the deceased's
next rebirth. Contemplating on rebirth becomes a salient feature of the
works. Pure Land rebirth was sought and eulogised. The Bodhisattva
is reborn voluntarily in order to aid all living beings to become
enlightened.
Bardo
T: This in-between stage after death and before rebirth is ignored in
Theravâda school.
M: All Mahâyâna schools teach this after death aspect.
Focus Of Worship In The Temple
T: Simple layout with the image of Sâkyamuni Buddha the focus of
worship.
M: Can be quite elaborate; with a chamber/hall for Shâkyamuni
Buddha and two disciples, one hall for the 3 Buddhas (including
Amitâbha and Medicine Buddha) and one hall for the 3 key
bodhisattvas; besides the protectors, etc.
Goal Of Training
T: Arhat or Pacceka-buddha. Believes that while attaining
Buddhahood is ideal, it is extremely difficult and beyond most
people’s capabilities. Only those who practice the meditative
monastic life (i.e., the monks) can attain spiritual perfection.
Enlightenment is not thought possible for those living the secular life.
M: Buddhahood (via Bodhisattva path). Believes that restricting
oneself to attaining Arhat Ideal is too limiting. Mahâyâna school says
anyone, including laity, can attain enlightenment by practicing the
Bodhisattva values. The Mahâyâna tradition thus includes numerous
Bodhisattva saviors.
NirvâNa (Nibbana in Pâli)
T: No distinction is made between NirvâNa attained by a buddha
and that of an arhat or pacceka buddha. Aspire to achieve NirvâNa,
or to have a better rebirth in the next life.
M: Also known as 'liberation from SaMsâra,' there are subtle
distinctions in the level of attainment for the three situations.
Emancipation can be attained through grace of a Buddha, a
Bodhisattva or through practices such as repetition of their names.
Tri-kâya Concept
T: Very limited emphasis on the 2 bodies of a buddha. References
are mainly on rûpa-kâya (Physical-Form) and dharma-kâya (as the
Body of Teachings).
M: Widely mentioned in Mahâyâna Buddhism. Rûpa-kâya is
divided up into 2: NirmâNa-kâya (Apparitional Emanation-Body)
& Samboga-kâya (Reward/Enjoyment-<wbr>body) and the Dharma-kâya
is considered as not only the essence of phenomena, but also the self-
nature of all beings in NirvâNa, completes the Tri-kâya concept.
Organization Of Buddhist Scriptures
T: The Pâli Canon is divided into 3 baskets (Ti-piTaka): Vinaya
PiTaka of 5 books, Sutta PiTaka of 5 collections (many suttas) and
Abhidhamma PiTaka of 7 books. The Theravâda school rejects the
Mahâyâna Sûtras and does not recognize the "expansive" teachings
of the Mahâyâna about Bodhisattvas and about the Buddhas of the
other directions.
M: The Mahâyâna Buddhist Canon also consists of Tri-piTaka of
disciplines, discourses (sutras) and dharma analysis. It is usually
organized in 12 divisions of topics like Cause and Conditions and
Verses. It contains virtually all the Theravâda Ti-piTata and many
sutras that the latter does not have. They claimed that their canon of
scriptures represented the final teachings of Buddha, the "Second" &
"Third Turnings" of the Wheel of Dharma.
Language Of Dharma Teaching
T: Ti-piTaka is strictly in Pâli. Dharma teaching in Pâli supplemented
by local language.
M: Original language of transmission is Sanskrit. Buddhist canon
is translated into the local language (except for the 5 untranslatables)<wbr>,
e.g. Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese.
Transmission Route
T: Southern Transmission: Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Laos,
Cambodia and parts of Southeast Asia.
M: NorthernTransmissio<wbr>n: Tibet, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea,
Mongolia and parts of Southeast Asia.
Schools/Sects Of The Tradition
T: One surviving major school following years of attrition reducing the
number from as high as 18.
M: Most of the works gave birth to particular cults. Cult of Amitâbha
is one of them. In China/Japan 8 major schools based on the partial
doctrines (sûtras, shâstras or vinaya) of the teachings. The four
schools inclined towards practices like Pure Land/Amitâbha, Ch'an,
Vajrayâna and Vinaya (not for lay people) are more popular than the
philosophy based schools like Tien-Tai, Avatamsaka, Yogâcâra and
Madhyamika.
Vegetarianism
T: This aspect is not necessary. In places like Thailand where daily
morning rounds are still practised, it is very difficult to insist on the
type of food to be donated.
M: Very well observed in all Mahâyâna schools (except the Tibetans
due to the geographical circumstances)<wbr>. However, this aspect is not
compulsory.
One Meal A Day Practice
T: This the norm among Theravâda sanghas.
M: This is a highly respected practice but it is left to the disposition of
each individual in the various sanghas.
Non Buddhist Influences
T: Mainly pre-Buddhism Indian/Brahmin influences. Many terms like
karma, sangha, etc were prevailing terms during Sâkyamuni Buddha's
life time. References were made from the Vedas and Upanishads.
M: In the course of integration and adoption by the people in other
civilizations, there were heavy mutual influences. In China, both
Confucianism and Taoism exerted some influence on Buddhism which
in turn had an impact on the indigenous beliefs. This scenario was
repeated in Japan and Tibet.
Its logically and semantically the same thing, I was trying to clarify it for you. If it is logically or semantically differnt please say how.
No, my point is that it doesnt matter of its a day or an aeon.
Again, you simply do not understand the simple reasoning.
I have spent tens of thousands of words here and elsewhere discussing which are older and younger, even in this thread there is no debate, eg Zen and Therevada. But that's not relevant to this point, extreme or moderate isnt relevant, its the fact there is a any discontinuity.
No, my claim is that we cannot know that any statement or principle came from the Buddha. You misunderstand me, missrepresnet me and then miss my point.
Exactly! I dismiss all suttas as I said in the post you first replied to which you clearly didnt read. Here it is again.
After three times you still haven't shown what the contradiction is. Pithy quoting from a bluffers guide to philosophy isn't helpng.
Either I am a dunce or you are not as smart as you think. Because I am very confused by your attempts to refute what you haven't refuted and which wasn't even there as an argument but was a statement of my beleifs.
I hope you find happiness
mat
Nios.
Among other things.:p
P
This makes all texts the same.
This allows for the possibility that some texts are more accurate that others.
But the point is moot. You're restated your original, extreme claim.
Ad homenim argument.
And you've also repeatedly expressed an extreme skepticism that makes all texts the same. All texts are an "aeon" or "eternity" from the Buddha.
I'm only responding to what you've written.
Apparently I did read it, since I'm pointing out that you're dismissing all suttas. The issue here is not whether you dismiss all suttas. It's the fact that you dismiss all suttas while trying to support your claims with suttas. If you're going to dismiss all suttas and sutras, then you have no way of supporting claims about what the Buddha taught.
I've shown it several times now.
I'm not quoting, I've never seen a bluffers guide to philosophy, and this is ad hom.
Please drop the personal comments.
It was a statement of belief that contained a contradiction. I pointed out the contradiction.
You always start off comments about Therevadha and the Pali Canon and then shout "foul" when others reply to you.