Spoken like a Mahayanist, but Theravada is not a form of Mahayana.Individual wrote:Technically, Theravada could be considered a form of Mahayana.
The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Tilt, I don't know of any Mahayana practitioners who would call Theravada "technically" a form of Mahayana.tiltbillings wrote:Spoken like a Mahayanist, but Theravada is not a form of Mahayana.Individual wrote:Technically, Theravada could be considered a form of Mahayana.
Please don't lump the bizarre statements of one person onto the rest of us!
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I was hoping you would make an appearance in this threadPaññāsikhara wrote: "In the wild", it is really quite hard to make such a clear distinction between Chan and Pure Land.
The vast majority of Chinese Buddhists do not identify themselves to any particular school, eg. "I am a Chan Buddhist" or "I am a Pure Land Buddhist" at all.
The fact that in terms of ordination lineages the Linji zong is by far the largest does not say much about the actual practices of those people associated with this lineage, be they monastic or lay. One can find everything from the Kosa to Tiantai, from Jingtu to Huayan, from Mijiao to Lvzong.
Unless one wishes to put it the other way around, and say that what is now called Chan contains all the forms of classic Chinese Buddhism, plus the modern Humanistic Buddhism, in addition to Tibetan Buddhist influences and also Theravada Buddhism as well.
This is how Chinese Mahayana Buddhism exists "in the wild". It is going to get even more complex this century, too, by the way. That is obvious.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Now you know of one. Individual has identified himself to me in a PM as a Mahayanist, which is probably no secret, given in his signature he links the Diamond Sutra (and the translation is not even Conze's). Also, there are Mahayanists (some) who try to subsume the Theravada, claiming that the Mahayana includes the Theravada and it is with the Mahayana that we get the Buddha's full teachings. So, it is more likely that a Mahayanist would say something as off-the-wall as Individual's statement than a Theravadin: Technically, Theravada could be considered a form of Mahayana.Paññāsikhara wrote:Tilt, I don't know of any Mahayana practitioners who would call Theravada "technically" a form of Mahayana.tiltbillings wrote:Spoken like a Mahayanist, but Theravada is not a form of Mahayana.Individual wrote:Technically, Theravada could be considered a form of Mahayana.
Please don't lump the bizarre statements of one person onto the rest of us!
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Someone in whom the Mahayana motivation is awakened can be considered a Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
This is how it is taught by Great Bodhisattvas.
Kind regards
Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
This is how it is taught by Great Bodhisattvas.
Kind regards
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
From a Mahayana standpoint, maybe, but the Mahayana is not the arbiter of all things Buddhist.TMingyur wrote:Someone in whom the Mahayana motivation is awakened can be considered a Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
I see no real world evidence that Mahayanists, those with the supposed "Mahayana motivation," are any more compassionate or wiser than Theravadin practitioners (who may never have heard of the Mahayana or who even directly reject the Mahayana).Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
I agree as to "the Mahayana" because the arbiter can only be wisdom which usually is something buddhists are striving for.tiltbillings wrote:From a Mahayana standpoint, maybe, but the Mahayana is not the arbiter of all things Buddhist.TMingyur wrote:Someone in whom the Mahayana motivation is awakened can be considered a Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
I did not put this forth intending comparison, competition or speculating about others' qualities or achievements.tiltbillings wrote:I see no real world evidence that Mahayanists, those with the supposed "Mahayana motivation," are any more compassionate or wiser than Theravadin practitioners (who may never have heard of the Mahayana or who even directly reject the Mahayana).Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
Kind regards
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
To say that one has or doesn't have "Mahayana motivation" and then is either Mahayana or non-Mahayana is akin to the koan "does a dog have Buddha-nature?". It's wrong from the get-go!
The intention to awaken not only for one's self but for all sentient beings does not belong to Mahayana; Mahayana has no permanent or abiding self. It is a collection of teachings with emphasis on this intent; but it does not own this intent, and this intent is not called the Mahayana motivation.
This more than anything seems to be a sore point and something to look into... that one school judges another as inferior. With this logic, Mahayana then would be inferior to Vajrayana or Zen. Let us not get so stuck in our clinging to one tradition that we make this mistake. Each school or tradition can take on the aspects of a "self"; realize that these schools are tools and nothing more. Use them and then discard them; all motivation and intent is your own, and we as humans already have such great hearts of wisdom within us before ever hearing of these forms of Buddhism.
Find the Buddha within, and let your awakened heart speak out of compassion and wisdom.
Namaste
The intention to awaken not only for one's self but for all sentient beings does not belong to Mahayana; Mahayana has no permanent or abiding self. It is a collection of teachings with emphasis on this intent; but it does not own this intent, and this intent is not called the Mahayana motivation.
This more than anything seems to be a sore point and something to look into... that one school judges another as inferior. With this logic, Mahayana then would be inferior to Vajrayana or Zen. Let us not get so stuck in our clinging to one tradition that we make this mistake. Each school or tradition can take on the aspects of a "self"; realize that these schools are tools and nothing more. Use them and then discard them; all motivation and intent is your own, and we as humans already have such great hearts of wisdom within us before ever hearing of these forms of Buddhism.
Find the Buddha within, and let your awakened heart speak out of compassion and wisdom.
Namaste
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Yes, and there those Mahayanists who hold that the Thertavada does not have the capacity for proper wisdom: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p103998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; And without the proper wisdom, no proper compassion/motivation.TMingyur wrote:I agree as to "the Mahayana" because the arbiter can only be wisdom which usually is something buddhists are striving for.tiltbillings wrote:From a Mahayana standpoint, maybe, but the Mahayana is not the arbiter of all things Buddhist.TMingyur wrote:Someone in whom the Mahayana motivation is awakened can be considered a Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
The problem is that the comparision is already built into the Mahayana structure. If it is not Mahayana, it is hinayana, and one is better than the other. Fortunately there are Mahayanists who see beyond that.I did not put this forth intending comparison, competition or speculating about others' qualities or achievements.tiltbillings wrote:I see no real world evidence that Mahayanists, those with the supposed "Mahayana motivation," are any more compassionate or wiser than Theravadin practitioners (who may never have heard of the Mahayana or who even directly reject the Mahayana).Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
And what is the value of such speculative chit-chat ?Is this what the Buddha taught ? How can we truly know about anothers inner awakening anyway ? In general, 'Mahayana ' or 'non- Mahayana' is irrelevant to our practice in the here and now.TMingyur wrote:Someone in whom the Mahayana motivation is awakened can be considered a Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
The reality is that the judgments are out there, they need to be acknowledged, understood and responded to.Cloud wrote: This more than anything seems to be a sore point and something to look into... that one school judges another as inferior. With this logic, Mahayana then would be inferior to Vajrayana or Zen. Let us not get so stuck in our clinging to one tradition that we make this mistake. Each school or tradition can take on the aspects of a "self"; realize that these schools are tools and nothing more. Use them and then discard them; all motivation and intent is your own, and we as humans already have such great hearts of wisdom within us before ever hearing of these forms of Buddhism.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Totally. See: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 16#p104316" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Aloka wrote: In general, 'Mahayana ' or 'non- Mahayana' is irrelevant to our practice in the here and now.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
It is not wrong but it is a conventional differentiation.Cloud wrote:To say that one has or doesn't have "Mahayana motivation" and then is either Mahayana or non-Mahayana is akin to the koan "does a dog have Buddha-nature?". It's wrong from the get-go!
A definition stands for the definiendum. You are actually saying "the definition does not belong to the definiendum."Cloud wrote:The intention to awaken not only for one's self but for all sentient beings does not belong to Mahayana; Mahayana has no permanent or abiding self. It is a collection of teachings with emphasis on this intent; but it does not own this intent, and this intent is not called the Mahayana motivation.
What definition of "Zen" and "Vajrayana" do you apply that makes you infer this?Cloud wrote: With this logic, Mahayana then would be inferior to Vajrayana or Zen.
Sorry, but why do you equate "putting forth definitions" with "clinging". Definitions simply are a means to specify what one is talking about when applying certain terminology.Cloud wrote: Let us not get so stuck in our clinging to one tradition that we make this mistake.
Kind regards
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
It is differentiation based on definition.Aloka wrote:And what is the value of such speculative chit-chat ?Is this what the Buddha taught ?TMingyur wrote:Someone in whom the Mahayana motivation is awakened can be considered a Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
Someone in whom no Mahayana motivation is awakened or who has lost this motivation can be considered a non-Mahayana practitioner regardless of what tradition's teachings she/he is following.
Whether the Buddha taught that or not is dependent on the meaning of "teaching" one is willing to apply.
Why are you asking? I don't think that we can know.Aloka wrote: How can we truly know about anothers inner awakening anyway ?
This is your point of view that does not necessarily have to be shared by others.Aloka wrote: In general, 'Mahayana ' or 'non- Mahayana' is irrelevant to our practice in the here and now.
Kind regards
- KonstantKarma
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Asheville, NC
- Contact:
Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?
Cloud wrote:To say that one has or doesn't have "Mahayana motivation" and then is either Mahayana or non-Mahayana is akin to the koan "does a dog have Buddha-nature?". It's wrong from the get-go!
The intention to awaken not only for one's self but for all sentient beings does not belong to Mahayana; Mahayana has no permanent or abiding self. It is a collection of teachings with emphasis on this intent; but it does not own this intent, and this intent is not called the Mahayana motivation.
This more than anything seems to be a sore point and something to look into... that one school judges another as inferior. With this logic, Mahayana then would be inferior to Vajrayana or Zen. Let us not get so stuck in our clinging to one tradition that we make this mistake. Each school or tradition can take on the aspects of a "self"; realize that these schools are tools and nothing more. Use them and then discard them; all motivation and intent is your own, and we as humans already have such great hearts of wisdom within us before ever hearing of these forms of Buddhism.
Find the Buddha within, and let your awakened heart speak out of compassion and wisdom.
Namaste
I wonder if this back-and-forth school comparison thing is something humans do world-wide, or is it something we do more here in the west since most of us were Christian and did it as Baptists-Methodists-Catholics-Lutherans-Presbyterians and each had the "right view" of the path?