Contradiction between Mahayana's and Theravada's vehicle to enlightenment.

Joshua

So I was taking a gander at this article:

... (14) Belittling the shravaka vehicle

The sixth root downfall is to repudiate that the texts of the shravaka or pratyekabuddha vehicles are the authentic words of the Buddha. Here, we accept that they are, but deny the effectiveness of their teachings and maintain that it is impossible to become rid of disturbing emotions and attitudes by means of their instructions, for example those concerning vipassana (insight meditation).

And I wondered, what in the hell does this mean exactly?

Vangelis

It means that it's not clear and as far as I'm concerned, anything that's not clear is not dhamma.

Joshua

Well, I'm aware that modern Vajrayana Buddhist's don't stress jhanic meditation, rather they prefer tantra. This seems to imply that jhana is so inferior that it ought not even be pursued. Is this nonsense?

Dazzle

"So I was taking a gander at this article"

Ah yes,the site where we can also find descriptions of "Dharma Lite" and "The Real Thing Dharma". Lol !

Joshua

It may be odd terminology, but overall the man is pretty enlightening. At least, I use the site far more than, say, Access to Insight, and I've had far more epiphanies with the site than with AtI. In this case, it's not a lecture so opinions aside it's not an interpretation or point of view of Berzin's but a solid fact that I really need elucidated.

Vincenzi

it means vipassana is hocus pocus.

there's anapanasati, 4 jhåna's and 4 arupa jhåna's.

bodhipunk

it means vipassana is hocus pocus.

That's not exactly what I got out of it. It was not refuting the teachings or practices of Sravakayana or Pratyekabuddhayana, but questioning its effectiveness in uprooting what it called "disturbing emotions and attitudes". There have been cases when people have dug up some old repressed memories and thoughts buried deep within their mind during vipassana and began crying. Perhaps it is instances such as these that this article is referring to? Are those instances really such a bad thing? How else is one supposed to "become rid of disturbing emotions and attitudes" without first uncovering and confronting them?

bodhipunk

Sorry for the double post. Internet is acting weird. :-/

Joshua

I was wondering if it was referring to the Mahayanist teaching that only by becoming a bodhisattva and purifying your mindstream/mental continuum--for as Berzin would say 'three zillion eons'--that one will become a buddha; the goal, of course, of Mahayana Buddhism. Whereas if one is scripturally orthodox and seeks only personal liberation then mastering jhanic meditation is the preliminary goal. This would explain why some of the more orthodox types, like Thai Forest Buddhists, prefer constant deep, jhanic meditation. Or perhaps it functions simply to condescend on the 'Hinayana' method in favor of tantra?

Vangelis

It just struck me that I'm used to reading the ancient texts which have no mention whatsoever of different "Buddhisms". There is only the Buddha-dhamma. Shame that it has come to this in this time. The fragmentation of the dhamma is the beginning of the end with possibly the dhamma dying out within the next few thousand years. Better have good rebirths coz there's not much time to go...

Cloud

I think the greatest offense was to cause a schism in the Sangha. Oops. So... we forgot that, might as well let it slide? ahahaha

bodhipunk

I was wondering if it was referring to the Mahayanist teaching that only by becoming a bodhisattva and purifying your mindstream/mental continuum--for as Berzin would say 'three zillion eons'--that one will become a buddha; the goal, of course, of Mahayana Buddhism. Whereas if one is scripturally orthodox and seeks only personal liberation then mastering jhanic meditation is the preliminary goal. This would explain why some of the more orthodox types, like Thai Forest Buddhists, prefer constant deep, jhanic meditation. Or perhaps it functions simply to condescend on the 'Hinayana' method in favor of tantra?

The term "Hinayana" can seem condescending because what's "modest" or "lesser" about seeking "liberation from samsara", for either oneself or others (as suggested by some Mahayana teachings)? The thing is, even the "Mahayana" would have to incorporate supposed "Hinayana" teachings if you wish to help others attain liberation. Whether a "Theravadin arahant" or "Mahayana bodhisattva", both would have to fall under the category of "shravaka" or "hearer" as there was already a Buddha who expounded the teachings and practice which they both follow. The only real difference between the approaches Mahayana and the "more orthodox types" (as you put it) is that the "more orthodox types" kinda stress scholarly understanding and the vinaya, whereas the "Mahayana" tries to make teachings and practices more accessible to laity. After all, didn't the "zen" in "Zen Buddhism" come from a translation of "jhana"?

That is why elsewhere on the website this is pretty much summed up as, "Denying that all or just certain scriptures of either vehicle derive from the Buddha is a root downfall." There is no real contradiction, though sometimes these different schools may appear condescending (but that's more personal bias than anything). There are no different "Buddhisms", just different approaches or means to an end for different people. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Vangelis and Cloud are right, of course. Causing schisms within the Sangha can't be good. In fact, I believe Buddha even touched on this subject in the Itivuttaka. Didn't he say something along the lines that when people are constantly bickering and arguing that their "dhamma" or practice is better, or cause any kind of split, that its to the detriment of everyone? People with little confidence will lose all, and those with confidence would become otherwise?

Vincenzi

it means vipassana is hocus pocus.

That's not exactly what I got out of it. It was not refuting the teachings or practices of Sravakayana or Pratyekabuddhayana, but questioning its effectiveness in uprooting what it called "disturbing emotions and attitudes". There have been cases when people have dug up some old repressed memories and thoughts buried deep within their mind during vipassana and began crying. Perhaps it is instances such as these that this article is referring to? Are those instances really such a bad thing? How else is one supposed to "become rid of disturbing emotions and attitudes" without first uncovering and confronting them?

it is a way of saying "vipassana is another misquote of tathagatha"

Vincenzi

I was wondering if it was referring to the Mahayanist teaching that only by becoming a bodhisattva and purifying your mindstream/mental continuum--for as Berzin would say 'three zillion eons'--that one will become a buddha; the goal, of course, of Mahayana Buddhism. Whereas if one is scripturally orthodox and seeks only personal liberation then mastering jhanic meditation is the preliminary goal. This would explain why some of the more orthodox types, like Thai Forest Buddhists, prefer constant deep, jhanic meditation. Or perhaps it functions simply to condescend on the 'Hinayana' method in favor of tantra?

jhåna as prerequsite, bodhisattva vows as enabler... or way to make the process quicker.

Vincenzi

I think the greatest offense was to cause a schism in the Sangha. Oops. So... we forgot that, might as well let it slide? ahahaha

we are on time to merge the different buddhist schools, into bodhi/buddha-dharma. (dharma for short).
we are at time! maybe the "dharma will die out" was the worst case scenario.
we are at time to revive the dharma, to the benefit of all conscient beings.

Joshua

I'm not sure that I think of it as a schism. Don't forget that even theravadins will aim for unlabored bodhicitta as the bodhisattva vow is a scripturally sound theravadin option; and when several of those very scriptures are combined into one multi-accomplishing tantric regimen via some explicitly odd physical or mental exercise is that second and third dharma wheel turning necessarily a schism? Like the empirical demands of the noble truths so tantra requires experience before contempt can be found.

Joshua

Also, according to Tantric Buddism--because we're currently in an age of decline--every one hundred years the human life expectancy will lower by one year until humans live but ten years at which point the opposite situation will occur; that every one hundred years the life expectancy will raise one year until it reaches eighty thousand years when Maitreya is expected to incarnate to revive the teachings. This doesn't indicate when the teachings will initially disappear nor why someone ought to believe this account, but under this analysis I doubt that they will disappear any time soon.

Dazzle

"I think the greatest offense was to cause a schism in the Sangha. Oops. So... we forgot that, might as well let it slide? ahahaha"

Wasn't he refering to his Sangha at that time though, rather than the much wider ranging later developments in Buddhism such as the different traditions and schools of thought which occured in various countries around the world?
These days there seem to be a few scandals or disagreements happening which eventually get public attention, even within the same traditions.

Cloud

Beats me, I was just being clever and practicing wrong speech. I don't get to do it often. My bad.

federica

So I was taking a gander at this article:
*snip*
And I wondered, what in the hell does this mean exactly?

Do more research.
Accept what is validated by your research and that which resonates as True for you.
Reject what is not validated by your research and does not resonate as True for you.
Digest what your research cannot conclusively decide and leave it aside to possibly ponder in the future.
or not, as the case may be.
personally, I just adhere to the 4 the 8 and the 5.

So much simpler.
Everything returns to these anyway.
Any diversion, or confounding distraction is unskillful and Mindless.