Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

The Bodhisattva ideal comes to mind, as does the definition of an Arahant, Buddha, and Nirvana. I remember there were different Parami as well, but I don't quite grasp the main specific philosophical differences there is between the two schools of thought. I'm missing the big point, and am afraid of asking around and setting people off, so perhaps, can anyone explain to me the main philosophical differences?

(I already saw Ajahn Brahm's video, and that didn't clear it up. It just said they're mostly the same when you get to the bare fundamentals, and I know that.)

Try not fighting please (^_^)

I think the Mahayana tradition arose because of other enlightened beings that had a different approach to enlightenment, and instead of taking credit for their own teachings, they gave credit to the Buddha... thus giving them authenticity as being the Buddha's teachings, when in fact they are not (though preserving much of what the Buddha had taught). The divisiveness between the schools is in not recognizing that the Buddha taught things a certain way and that these new perspectives are not specifically his teachings; they are modified.

Now we have a school of Buddhism that prays to a Bodhisattva that enlightenment might happen in a future life, and also a school that teaches reincarnation. Further and further we go from the road to self-liberation here in this life that the Buddha (I believe) espoused. There is no difference between the death of a normal man, a Buddha, and a Bodhisattva; the aggregates are not permanently affected by the realization of Nirvana. This is a practice to end our suffering now; it doesn't remove us, or any part of us, permanently from the active universe. All things are not self... there is nothing to fear from enlightenment, but I believe both fear and wrong view lead to some of these newer forms that place higher value on restraining one's self from this very goal of the Buddha's teachings, and placing a selfishness upon those who are trying to awaken for the benefit of all mankind.

The Bodhisattva ideal is a noble one, but if seen with wrong view with a component of self still in the mix, it is misguided and will not lead to the end of suffering. Indeed, it may lead to its perpetuation and the dissolution of the Buddha's teachings.

What Cloud said.

The main difference is the authenticity of Mahayana sutras: Theravada says none of them were taught by Buddha. So any notion found only in the Mahayana sutras is, says Theravada, not Buddhist.

Certainly that is an accurate description of the view of many Theravadins.

Dear Will, dear friends,

I wrote a quote some days ago, something like that, but more English and poetic *smile*: Knowing the true, we will not dispute about it.

The way of leaving the home in the original way like the Theravadas teaches, is not possible in countries with cool season. The sangha would sooner or later be to much involved (as they are to dependent on support - especial housing and food provide in the cool season) in the worldly life. The Sangha needs the support of the layman. As there is no support in the right way of the laypeople, that teaching (sangha) gets in troubles.

The way of mahayana provides an alternative. It is able to exist also nearly "independent" of the laypeople and it also has a more "social" (from a worldly view) refection on people around even they are not much into the Buddha Dhamma.

I guess that is the main different, but I can be wrong.
The dhamma and the kind of practice on the basis is in all vehicles the same.

_/\_
with loving kindness

Wizard in the Forest wrote:The Bodhisattva ideal comes to mind, as does the definition of an Arahant, Buddha, and Nirvana. I remember there were different Parami as well, but I don't quite grasp the main specific philosophical differences there is between the two schools of thought.
I'm missing the big point, and am afraid of asking around and setting people off, so perhaps, can anyone explain to me the main philosophical differences?

If you are looking for philosophical differences then you are on the wrong track.


Mahayana teaches the way of the bodhisattva explicitely and exclusively. This is the essential difference.

Kind regards

No thats only part of it T Mingyur, the other part of it is that the Theravada does not teach the way of the Bodhisattva at all.

Sanghamitta wrote:No thats only part of it T Mingyur, the other part of it is that the Theravada does not teach the way of the Bodhisattva at all.

Fine. That makes differentiation even more straightforward.

Kind regards

I have heard there's a difference on how emptiness is taught too, but I don't know how. I mentioned the Bodhisattva ideal.

TMingyur wrote:

Sanghamitta wrote:No thats only part of it T Mingyur, the other part of it is that the Theravada does not teach the way of the Bodhisattva at all.

Fine. That makes differentiation even more straightforward.

Kind regards

I think it is. I dont see what the problem is. The Theravada is not the Mahayana. The Mahayana is not the Theravada, its only a problem if we try to create a weird hybrid.

Wizard in the Forest wrote:I have heard there's a difference on how emptiness is taught too,...

As there are different methods of learning a foreign language

So the didactical approach is different yes. But really this only distracts from the essential difference as to what is taught.

Kind regards

I learn foreign languages for a living so I'll be honest in saying that's a terrible metaphor when you're talking about a philosophical system. If a term is used in a completely different way the differentiation can be like the difference between 2 different explanations of physics.

Sanghamitta wrote:

TMingyur wrote:

Sanghamitta wrote:No thats only part of it T Mingyur, the other part of it is that the Theravada does not teach the way of the Bodhisattva at all.

Fine. That makes differentiation even more straightforward.

Kind regards

I think it is. I dont see what the problem is. The Theravada is not the Mahayana. The Mahayana is not the Theravada, its only a problem if we try to create a weird hybrid.

I dont see a problem either. and I do not advocate hybrids at all.
But obviously the OP has a problem as to recognizing the difference.


Kind regards

Wizard in the Forest wrote:I learn foreign languages for a living so I'll be honest in saying that's a terrible metaphor when you're talking about a philosophical system. If a term is used in a completely different way the differentiation can be like the difference between 2 different explanations of physics.

If you want to discuss philosophy then go ahead (without me).

I just said what the essential difference is: The teachings of the way of the bodhisattva.


Kind regards