The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Wizard in the Forest wrote:Tilt, maybe you have a clear understanding of the differences, so I would like to hear what you think they are if you don't mind.
I think, Alice, if you are intersted I can suggest a couple of books. Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
"... even after its initial appearance in the public domain in the 2nd century
[Mahayana] appears to have remained an extremely limited minority movement - if
it remained at all - that attracted absolutely no documented public or popular
support for at least two more centuries. It is again a demonstrable fact that
anything even approaching popular support for the Mahayana cannot be documented
until 4th/5th century AD, and even then the support is overwhelmingly monastic,
not lay, donors ... although there was - as we know from Chinese translations - a large
and early Mahayana literature there was no early, organized, independent,
publicly supported movement that it could have belonged to."

-- G. Schopen "The Inscription on the Ku.san image of Amitabha and the
character of the early Mahayana in India." JIABS 10, 2 pgs 124-5
And this is why it is important to set the Mahāyāna in an accurate historical context. In all likelihood the monks who accepted some type of bodhisattvayāna (prior to the 5th or 6th centuries CE at least) would have been living alongside or in some sort of proximate relationship to their mainstream Nikāya brethren. They would have known the Āgama/Nikāya discourses, and the development of the bodhisattvayāna would have been embedded in this mainstream orthopraxy. Even Śāntideva's two texts on the bodhisattvamārga (~7th-8th century CE) are quite unremarkable and mainstream in terms of ethical conduct, renunciation, meditations on impurity, cemetery contemplations, impermanence, conditioned arising, etc.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Virgo »

tiltbillings wrote:
Some other differences include that Mahayanists feel that it is perfectly OK to break your vows if it is done to help others. For example, if you know someone who drinks a lot, it is OK to have some drinks with them to befriend them and possibly bring them around to the path.
If you are going to criticize the Mahayana, try to do it accurately, rather than with such a caricature.
It was taught by my old Vajrayana teacher, who was a "Khenchen". From http://www.bodhitpath.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, "The Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakyapa schools use the title of Khenpo for those who have achieved the highest levels of mastery in Shedras. Why? The reason is that in Tibet, the teachers who achieved such mastery also were the ones who gave the monks vows."... "Khenpo is a term in the vinaya meaning "the one who gives the monks vows"—one who has demonstrated the highest vinaya conduct and has become very accomplished, a senior monk. Khenchen means "Senior Khenpo"." So you can see he was very well respected.

It was also a common example used in Vajrayana circles to demonstrate how your Bodhisattva vows supercede your, what they called "hinayana" vows.
tiltbillings wrote:
The difference in the understanding of emptiness is vast. Even among Mahayanists there is great debate about it and different schools that believe different things exist, yet they all think they have the right understanding of emptiness. There is a doctrine of "Two Truths" which basically says that there are two levels of reality. They are the conventional and the ultimate levels (this is borrowed from Theravada and other earlier sects) but they define these much differently than Theravada did. They say that on the conventional level, things are impermanent, dukkha, and so on and that actions have effects, but that on the ultimate level, all things are dream like, not real manifestations.
This is a distortion of the two truths. If there are Mahayanists who hold it as you say, they are not indicative of the Mahayana as a whole.

While there is much for which one might criticize the Mahayana, it is best to accurately portray that which you are criticizing. It is also worth keeping in mind there is also much within the Mahayana that worthy and of great value.
Simply read about the "two truths" and Madhyamaka. It is all contained therein. I have not inaccurately displayed how they approach emptiness.

Thanks,
Kevin
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

.....................................
Last edited by Wizard in the Forest on Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by ground »

tiltbillings wrote:Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
It is utterly wrong to refer to Vajrayana sources as "the Mahayana" or even "classical Indian Mahayana"


Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

Okay.... this is weird. Upon reading this... :jumping: Ohh' kay Alice is out of the Poppy fields now... whooosh :woohoo:
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

TMingyur wrote:It is utterly wrong to refer to Vajrayana sources as "the Mahayana" or even "classical Indian Mahayana"
Kind regards
Can you clarify?
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
It is utterly wrong to refer to Vajrayana sources as "the Mahayana" or even "classical Indian Mahayana"


Kind regards
First of all this hardly a Vajrayana text and secondly it present a classical Indian take on the Mahayana - okay - from a Tibetan standpoint.
>> 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
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by ground »

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
It is utterly wrong to refer to Vajrayana sources as "the Mahayana" or even "classical Indian Mahayana"


Kind regards
First of all this hardly a Vajrayana text and secondly it present a classical Indian take on the Mahayana - okay - from a Tibetan standpoint.
You can hardly find any tibetan source that is not Vajrayana. And of course Gampopa and his Kagyu school "are" Vajrayana.

Kind regards
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche's translation of The Jewel Ornament of Liberation is a more contemporary, accessible read.

An even better source of Indian Mahāyāna thought would be The Way of the Bodhisattva by Śāntideva.

Or Four Illusions: Candrakīrti's Advice for Travelers on the Bodhisattva Path by Candrakīrti.


:buddha1:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote: You can hardly find any tibetan source that is not Vajrayana. And of course Gampopa and his Kagyu school "are" Vajrayana.
The Vajrayana in that book is, at best, minimal. The bulk of it is standard Mahayana foundation teachings.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche's translation of The Jewel Ornament of Liberation is a more contemporary, accessible read.
I prefer Guenther's book.
An even better source of Indian Mahāyāna thought would be The Way of the Bodhisattva by Śāntideva.
I would prefer his Compendium if it were in a better translation.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Virgo wrote: Simply read about the "two truths" and Madhyamaka. It is all contained therein. I have not inaccurately displayed how they approach emptiness.
I have, which is why I do not find your accounting all that credible.
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:An even better source of Indian Mahāyāna thought would be The Way of the Bodhisattva by Śāntideva.
I would prefer his Compendium if it were in a better translation.
I've heard that Lozang Jamspal (Columbia University) has made or is in the process of making a new translation. Much needed and long, long overdue.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by ground »

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote: You can hardly find any tibetan source that is not Vajrayana. And of course Gampopa and his Kagyu school "are" Vajrayana.
The Vajrayana in that book is, at best, minimal. The bulk of it is standard Mahayana foundation teachings.
That depends on what you prefer to label "Vajrayana". Actually "Vajrayana" is a view that pervades the rest. If you refer to "Vajrayana" solely in the sense of methods classically labelled as "Varjrayana practice" then you may be right. But the impression you then get is misleading.
tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Herbert Guenther's translation of Gompopa'sThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation gives a very classic view of the Mahayana and is worth a read. From that you should get some idea of where the Theravada and classical Indian Mahayana touch and where they separate.
Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche's translation of The Jewel Ornament of Liberation is a more contemporary, accessible read.
I prefer Guenther's book.
Because it supports your view of Mahayana in the first place, right? But this may be caused by "Vajrayana" view being acctually the view you can pin down as deviant very easily which may not be the case if you referred to classical Indian sutra Mahayana which actually teaches methods not differing from those in the Pali canon except the words and terminology applied may be different.

But of course the Mahayana attitude/motivation is prevalent also in sutra Mahayana and that and all the accompanying narratives ("bhumis" etc) may not be findable in the pali suttas.

Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked