Strange...I have heard Mahayana practitioners make almost identical remarks about the Theravada. Recently, at a Buddhist conference I publicly attacked one Vajrayana speaker for disparaging the Theravada, as suitable for those incapable of following the 'superior' Vajrayana. Lord Buddha did not teach an inferior vehicle, which means that they are all equally excellent. It depends on the individual, one with inferior motivation and effort will make a poor job even if taught personally by a Buddha. In truth we are one family, Ekayana, and no brother or sister is superior to another. In the present age it is imperative that we overcome perceived differences between teachings and work together.DAWN wrote:Actualy Mahayana is wery usefull to Dhamma, because peoples wich mind is much aflicted can not enter, and accept directly Buddha words of renonciation, so they comes to Mahayana
“Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
Lord Buddha did not teach vajrayana. One accepts that it was held in Naga realms, or what-have-you, without any more evidence than that offered for the Qu'ran having been delivered to Mohammad via angel.Raksha wrote:Lord Buddha did not teach an inferior vehicle, which means that they are all equally excellent.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
Ānanda, in the future, if the bhikkhus can't handle anatta, teach them about buddha nature. If the bhikkhus become obsessed with dhamma analysis, teach them emptiness. If the bhikkhus cherish scriptures instead of practise, teach them about a special transmission outside the scriptures. If the bhikkhus lack interest in morality and meditation, teach them about secret tantras they'll receive later.
-Buddha, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, classified attachment "Skillful Means"
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
Where is this passage, for example, in the following link:ALot wrote:Ānanda, in the future, if the bhikkhus can't handle anatta, teach them about buddha nature. If the bhikkhus become obsessed with dhamma analysis, teach them emptiness. If the bhikkhus cherish scriptures instead of practise, teach them about a special transmission outside the scriptures. If the bhikkhus lack interest in morality and meditation, teach them about secret tantras they'll receive later.
-Buddha, Mahaparinibbana Sutta, classified attachment "Skillful Means"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part and section, if possible.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
It belongs here, between paragraphs 1 and 2, but it's classified stuff, not visible for everyone:daverupa wrote:Part and section, if possible.
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh067-u.html# ... xhortation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But all this super secret classified stuff probably doesn't belong to "Early Buddhism".1. Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ānanda, saying: “It may be, Ānanda, that to some among you the thought will come: ‘Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.’ But it should not, Ānanda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.
--confidential Skillful Means--
Ānanda, in the future, if the bhikkhus can't handle anatta, teach them about buddha nature. If the bhikkhus become obsessed with dhamma analysis, teach them emptiness. If the bhikkhus cherish scriptures instead of practise, teach them about a special transmission outside the scriptures. If the bhikkhus lack interest in morality and meditation, teach them about secret tantras they'll receive later.
--confidential--
2. “And, Ānanda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as ‘friend,’ let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ānanda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as ‘friend’; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as ‘venerable sir’ or ‘your reverence.’
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
Good joke
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytism
I agree. Even though Theravada and Mahayana (Vajrayana included) are different branches of Buddhism, we're still one big family.Raksha wrote:Strange...I have heard Mahayana practitioners make almost identical remarks about the Theravada. Recently, at a Buddhist conference I publicly attacked one Vajrayana speaker for disparaging the Theravada, as suitable for those incapable of following the 'superior' Vajrayana. Lord Buddha did not teach an inferior vehicle, which means that they are all equally excellent. It depends on the individual, one with inferior motivation and effort will make a poor job even if taught personally by a Buddha. In truth we are one family, Ekayana, and no brother or sister is superior to another. In the present age it is imperative that we overcome perceived differences between teachings and work together.DAWN wrote:Actualy Mahayana is wery usefull to Dhamma, because peoples wich mind is much aflicted can not enter, and accept directly Buddha words of renonciation, so they comes to Mahayana
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "
--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "
--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
- Paribbajaka
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 am
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlJames the Giant wrote:When I first learned about "Skillful Means" I was appalled and aghast:
"You're saying the Buddha DELIBERATELY LIED for 45 years of teaching!?"
After a bit of study I understand the idea of Upaya better, but it still seems a bit icky and dishonest to me.
To be honest, (and without a shred of evidence offered by me) it seems like exactly the kind of thing a new sect would fabricate in order to discredit the old school.
How is the above different from skillful means?
May all beings be happy!
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
In the case of Venerable Nanda, the trick involves two people, one who is in on the trick and one who isn't. And it was resolved within foreseeable time.Paribbajaka wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
How is the above different from skillful means?
As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
How do you mean?binocular wrote:In the case of Venerable Nanda, the trick involves two people, one who is in on the trick and one who isn't. And it was resolved within foreseeable time.Paribbajaka wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
How is the above different from skillful means?
As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
_/|\_
- Paribbajaka
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 am
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
The Buddha deliberately lied to achieve an aim. This is actually very similar to the accepted definition of skillful means in the Mahayana.binocular wrote:In the case of Venerable Nanda, the trick involves two people, one who is in on the trick and one who isn't. And it was resolved within foreseeable time.Paribbajaka wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
How is the above different from skillful means?
As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
As far as deliberately deluding themselves, most modern Mahayanists accept that their sutras were not spoken by the Buddha,but do not lose sleep over it too much. In this modern world where all scripture is looking to be of somewhat dubious authenticity (even, let's be honest, the Tipitaka), it is a virtue to be able to accept that your scruiptures are not true in the historical sense but true in a spiritual sense
May all beings be happy!
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;Dan74 wrote:How do you mean?
I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.
This I gathered from Stcherbatsky's Buddhist logic.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
- Paribbajaka
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 am
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
Binocular, that is just the Mahayana way of expressing Dhamma. Theravada also spends a good deal of time speaking of love and compassion for beings that are inehrently "without self". The understanding is that on a relative level there are sentient beings, but on a deeper level there are not.binocular wrote:On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;Dan74 wrote:How do you mean?
I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.
This I gathered from Stcherbatsky's Buddhist logic.
Studying the teaching of anatta, one sees that each of us is a temporary amassing of "stuff" that naturally dissipitates. We have no real, fundamental anything yet we live, go to work, eat food, etc.
One truth, two sets of words
May all beings be happy!
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
binocular wrote: As things stand, the Mahayanist "skillful means" look more like an attempt to deliberately fool oneself, actually knowing that one is fooling oneself but doing it anyway. And this for an unspecified time duration.
Yes but that does not differentiate Mahayana from Theravada. Theravada also appeals to sense of self in the first place. As long as there arises sense of self that has to be fooled. But actually nothing is fooled and sense of self is foolishness itself.binocular wrote:On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.
Re: “Skillful Means” and the rhetoric of Mahāyāna proselytis
This is well-explained by the two truths doctrine. I don't think this is too different to Theravada.binocular wrote:On the one hand, they talk about the necessity of having compassion for other living beings, of training for the sake of other living beings, and how all living beings have Buddha nature;Dan74 wrote:How do you mean?
I am not aware of Mahayana Buddhists deliberately fooling themselves as part of their practice.
and on the other hand, they say there actually are no living beings.
This I gathered from Stcherbatsky's Buddhist logic.
On the one hand conventionally we speak of beings. Until the truth of anatta is seen, we think largely in terms of selves and discrete entities. Ultimately there are no selves, no beings, as we conceive of them. But until we know it, there is no sense in trying to brainwash ourselves in thinking so.
_/|\_