The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

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

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

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.
The reality is that the judgments are out there, they need to be acknowledged, understood and responded to.
>> 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 »

Aloka wrote: In general, 'Mahayana ' or 'non- Mahayana' is irrelevant to our practice in the here and now.
Totally. See: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 16#p104316" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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 »

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! :)
It is not wrong but it is a conventional differentiation.
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.
A definition stands for the definiendum. You are actually saying "the definition does not belong to the definiendum."
Cloud wrote: With this logic, Mahayana then would be inferior to Vajrayana or Zen.
What definition of "Zen" and "Vajrayana" do you apply that makes you infer this?
Cloud wrote: Let us not get so stuck in our clinging to one tradition that we make this mistake.
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.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by ground »

Aloka wrote:
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.
And what is the value of such speculative chit-chat ?Is this what the Buddha taught ?
It is differentiation based on definition.

Whether the Buddha taught that or not is dependent on the meaning of "teaching" one is willing to apply.
Aloka wrote: How can we truly know about anothers inner awakening anyway ?
Why are you asking? I don't think that we can know.
Aloka wrote: In general, 'Mahayana ' or 'non- Mahayana' is irrelevant to our practice in the here and now.
This is your point of view that does not necessarily have to be shared by others.


Kind regards
User avatar
KonstantKarma
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by KonstantKarma »

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
:goodpost:

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?
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by ground »

KonstantKarma wrote:I wonder if this back-and-forth school comparison thing ...
Actually it is not a comparison of schools.


Kind regards
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by m0rl0ck »

TMingyur wrote:
KonstantKarma wrote:I wonder if this back-and-forth school comparison thing ...
Actually it is not a comparison of schools.


Kind regards
No its more in the line of sectarian squabbling. One shudders to think what kind of karma this stuff creates
“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
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by ground »

Patience, m0rl0ck .. patience!

Kind regards
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Individual »

Paññāsikhara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Individual wrote:Technically, Theravada could be considered a form of Mahayana.
Spoken like a Mahayanist, but Theravada is not a form of Mahayana.
Tilt, I don't know of any Mahayana practitioners who would call Theravada "technically" a form of Mahayana.
Please don't lump the bizarre statements of one person onto the rest of us!
Bizarre? is this incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana#H ... av.C4.81da" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Theravada is not Hinayana (which I would not regard it as), it is either Mahayana or something outside the Buddha-dhamma entirely.

The specific emphasis by Theravada on various things could be Hinayana if taken to an extreme (attachment to the Pali text, accepting the Five Aggregates as paramatha, so you yourself can live out in the woods alone and be happy), but good Theravadins avoid extremes, and the result is that great Theravadins like Ajahn Chah and Buddhadasa do not seem to differ significantly from great Mahayana teachers. The words may be different, but the essence is the same. And in any case, the terminology within Mahayana varies just as widely.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
KonstantKarma
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by KonstantKarma »

This was actually the hardest time I've had with Buddhism, and the biggest reason it took me so long to look into it. I don't know much about the history, the various schools, the different lines of thought...so I've read this thread with some interest (until I got lost).
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Individual »

Theravada:
  • Southeast Asian Buddhism (Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc.), less predominant
  • Fairly tight orthodoxy, less variation of views
  • Less terminology
  • Pali text, strictly adhered to by traditionalists
  • Emptiness is not emphasized much
  • Primary emphasis is on one's own enlightenment (some suttas emphasize compassion, but stuff like the Rhinoceros sutta stands out as distinct)
  • Goal is to enter into the four stages of enlightenment. Bodhisattva is just a technical term for a pre-Buddha.
  • Buddha and Arahant are treated as equal.
  • Gautama Buddha did die, or at least his death is not worth conjecture; Buddha is more like an intelligent human who showed us how to move beyond suffering through practical (non-esoteric) means.
  • Vegetarianism is optional, seen as an unnecessary form of ascetism
Mahayana:
  • Buddhism throughout Asia (China, Korea, Tibet, Japan, etc.), more predominant
  • Looser orthodoxy, greater variation of views
  • More terminology
  • Various Sanskrit texts (and other languages?) translated to Chinese, Korean, and Tibetan, while individual sects emphasize certain suttas more than others
  • Emptiness is a fundamentally important teaching, referenced frequently
  • Primary emphasis is on enlightening all beings, the bodhisattva vow.
  • Goal is to be a bodhisattva, to become a Buddha. Bodhisattva path is superior to Hinayana path (selfish enlightenment).
  • Arahant is inferior to Buddha
  • Gautama Buddha didn't really die; it was just an illusion to teach us a lesson and the Buddha is more like an eternal cosmic spirit that comes and goes from time-to-time for our benefit, teaching us practices which are both exoteric and esoteric.
  • Vegetarianism is mandatory or at least strongly encouraged, in order to practice compassion and non-violence
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
KonstantKarma
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by KonstantKarma »

I've been looking all over the web for the difference between a buddha and an arahant. I noticed there was some terminology difference since the 'sending to hell' teaching says you can go for wounding a buddha, or killing an arahant. What is the distinction?
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Individual »

KonstantKarma wrote:I've been looking all over the web for the difference between a buddha and an arahant. I noticed there was some terminology difference since the 'sending to hell' teaching says you can go for wounding a buddha, or killing an arahant. What is the distinction?
Theravada view: Buddha and Arahant are generally the same, except Buddhas are self-taught and may have greater knowledge of the cosmos and other supramundane things, while their knowledge relating to liberation from suffering is essentially equal.

Mahayana view: Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are generally superior to Arahants, from having more attainments of virtue and a more compassionate focus.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
KonstantKarma
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Asheville, NC
Contact:

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by KonstantKarma »

Ah, thanks. I was having the hardest time finding the difference from one to the other.
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 »

Individual wrote:
KonstantKarma wrote:I've been looking all over the web for the difference between a buddha and an arahant. I noticed there was some terminology difference since the 'sending to hell' teaching says you can go for wounding a buddha, or killing an arahant. What is the distinction?
Theravada view: Buddha and Arahant are generally the same, except Buddhas are self-taught and may have greater knowledge of the cosmos and other supramundane things, while their knowledge relating to liberation from suffering is essentially equal.

Mahayana view: Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are generally superior to Arahants, from having more attainments of virtue and a more compassionate focus.
Mahayana view on that point that I heard from a Tibetan teacher with the title of Acharya: even someone who has just "entered the path" and taking the bodhisattva vow with no previous training is superior than an Arahant because the Arahant has not yet entered that path.

Mahayanists believe that Arahants go to a pure land after they die and continue to make merit until they become Buddhas, or that their consciousness is lost in jhana for aeons until they are woken up out of it by a Buddha and get a chance to make merit towards enlightenment.

Kevin
Locked