The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

[tiltbillings]

"Mahayana" actually means "attitude" and "motivation" and not "tradition" or "school". And what is that attitude? It is striving to become a buddha for the benefit of others. Once this attitude has arisen in an individual she/he is called "bodhisattva" and is then practicing Mahayana regardless of what tradition or school she/he follows. Therefore the philosophical view or view of emptiness is not relevant at all.

Kind regards

Opinions on that significantly vary and why does one need to become a buddha to benefit others? The Buddha did not teach that?

[ground]

"Mahayana" actually means "attitude" and "motivation" and not "tradition" or "school". And what is that attitude? It is striving to become a buddha for the benefit of others. Once this attitude has arisen in an individual she/he is called "bodhisattva" and is then practicing Mahayana regardless of what tradition or school she/he follows. Therefore the philosophical view or view of emptiness is not relevant at all.

Kind regards

Opinions on that significantly vary.

You should say "exegeses vary". The view I put forth is based on Shantideva and others following Atisa. However this is the most consistent view. Because how could sectarianism or attachment to philosophical views be compatible with the goal "benefit of others"? How could it be compatible with teachings that stress that capacities and /or lineages of individuals vary and thus their paths vary too. How could "I" and "mine" making in context of traditional teachings be compatible with attaining qualities that may benefit all beings?

The Buddha did not teach that?

Here I could state my personal opinion but I won't do that.

Kind regards

[Wizard in the Forest]

Virgo that was awesome, I really want to hear more if you have more. I hardly ever hear anyone be honest about the differences and they try to dismiss the differences without giving real illustration or understanding of the differences.

[tiltbillings]

You should say "exegeses vary". The view I put forth is based on Shantideva and others following Atisa.

That is very self-serving. The reality is that the various mahayana doctors engaged in extended negative critiques of the supposed hinayana in terms of doctrine as an expression of a lower, debased attitide. And we just saw a well meaning, I am sure, Tibetan teacher expressed this negative critique and directly applied it to the Theravada. Nothing new in that.

However this is the most consistent view. Because how could sectarianism or attachment to philosophical views be compatible with the goal "benefit of others"? How could it be compatible with teachings that stress that capacities and /or lineages of individuals vary and thus their paths vary too. How could "I" and "mine" making in context of traditional teachings be compatible with attaining qualities that may benefit all beings?

Yes, that is a good set of questions for the Mahayanists.

The Buddha did not teach that?

Here I could state my personal opinion but I won't do that.

The Buddha did not teach the Mahayana/bodhisattva notion. It is a construct that evolved over a long period of time.

[Nyana]

Virgo that was awesome, I really want to hear more if you have more. I hardly ever hear anyone be honest about the differences and they try to dismiss the differences without giving real illustration or understanding of the differences.

Unfortunately, Virgo is not offering an accurate representation of anything but his own misconceptions of Mahāyāna and Buddhist history.

[Virgo]

Virgo that was awesome, I really want to hear more if you have more. I hardly ever hear anyone be honest about the differences and they try to dismiss the differences without giving real illustration or understanding of the differences.

Unfortunately, Virgo is not offering an accurate representation of anything but his own misconceptions of Mahāyāna and Buddhist history.

So then clear it up.

Thanks,

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

Out of these schisms mainly grew the Mahayana. It started as a sect that highly prized being Bodhisattvas.

Mahayana was not in its inception a singular movement. The "Mahayanist" monks existed within the framework of the exiting ordination lineages along side their Mainstream brothers. They just held funny beliefs.

That in itself is fine, but a few bad things happened. They decided not to teach a Sravaka path and by doing so they really got into cult like idealism of bodhisattvaness rather than Buddhas teachings.

If you read very early bodhisattva sutras, such as the Ugra, you'll see that that is not at all true. The path to arhatship was regarded as a legitimate, noble path to be taught. The way of the bodhisattva was for the very good men who were inspired to dedicate their lives to such a practice, but it was clearly not expected of everyone.

Unquestionably, there was a shift in attitude, maybe because the early Mahayanists were pretty much ignored by the Mainstream Buddhists:

"... 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

With the shift in attitude, the bodhisattva emphasis shifted greatly as did the characterization of the Mainstream Buddhists

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.

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.

[ground]

You should say "exegeses vary". The view I put forth is based on Shantideva and others following Atisa.

That is very self-serving. The reality is that the various mahayana doctors engaged in extended negative critiques of the supposed hinayana in terms of doctrine as an expression of a lower, debased attitide. And we just saw a well meaning, I am sure, Tibetan teacher expressed this negative critique and directly applied it to the Theravada. Nothing new in that.

I do not know of a specific one. But it may be that there are persons that are called "teacher" by some that do not qualify as teachers or sometimes they do quality and sometimes they do not which may be a manifestation of their attainments.


Kind regards

[Wizard in the Forest]

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.

[Virgo]

Virgo that was awesome, I really want to hear more if you have more. I hardly ever hear anyone be honest about the differences and they try to dismiss the differences without giving real illustration or understanding of the differences.

Dear Wizard,

I will, when the time is right. We have to watch our emotions and curtail them at times, so we do not enter a moment that is not a moment on the path.

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

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.

[Nyana]

"... 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.

[Virgo]

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.

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

[Wizard in the Forest]

.....................................

[ground]

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