A few quick questions about Terawada Buddhism

[Manjusri108]

So i'd like to preface this post with a bit of backstory, and a bit about the voice I chose to write this. Roughly a month ago I applied to be ordained at Wat Tamagai, via the international ordination program in Feburary. the ordination got pushed back due to lack of applicants for this Feberary ordination, until June actually, so I'm still in Thailand, and am takeing a break from the Tamagai campus, living nearby hanging out in the internet, watching tv, just relaxing. The intent of *my* ordination was to become ordained until just about june, delve deep into the roots of Buddhism, (i'm really head over heals into Buddhism) where i would return to college, finish my degree, and come back about a year later. The voice I chose to write up these questions was all about my personality, I love to hang out late and watch my daily show, colbert report, conan o'brien, and craig furgeson...love those late night talk show hosts/news satires. When I'd ask the monks at Wat Tamagai certain dharma questions, they would of course be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, however their answers were typically; "that's mahayana, or that's hindu" we don't recognize him, that's mahayana." and their answers were so quick and one shot that i can easily suramass a vast majority of the questions i've posted here with that response. They knew *of* the concept...or at times didn't, but were politely telling me that i was taught falsehoods. So I jotted down a quick Q/A about pertenant questions that were about my interests in delving deeper in this root of buddhism, and henceforth w/ a list of personal questions, i wanted to voice to be written in a personal manner.

This is a copy and paste of what i posted about five hours ago on Dharma Wheel:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p209818

--

I'm in Thailand atm, and spent a brief sojourn right around the corner from Wat Tamagai. It was with talking to a few of the Lompis (reverends) there that i shot off a few dharma questions, and would like to ask the same ones here, and get some answers, let alone get your guy's feedback on the Tamagai school. My past is Tibetan Buddhism, and this will be formatted like a game show's lightning round Q/A, and completely candid, so it'll read as if certian talking points are somewhat insider info, but you should be able to gather a quick fingerprint, ascertain the question set, and fire back with some potent, wisdom bearing answers.

Manjusri's completely fabricated? so too were the four major Bodhisattvas, the Amitaba sutra, the Baisajye-guru-vairdurya-prabha raja sutra? any sutra that right off the bat even mentions Manjusri, or the other great bodhisatvas are considered apocryphal?

and what about the Mahavairocana adisambodhi tantra? mostly lord Buddha Talking to lord Mahavairocana, vairocana, Vajrapani, vajradaravimalaphraba, vajradarasarvavinshanaviscombin...(just joking at my Sanskrit here), i know the tripitika is the three baskets, sutras, vinaya precepts, and the tantras...so is this not one of the tantras just not recognized by the Terawada?

The heart sutra never happened? the kalachakra conversation w/ suchandra never happened? then why is there a kalachakra living buddha?

Vimalakirti-nirdesa sutra, this too not recognized by the Terawada in the Pali Tipitaka? as i write this i realize it can't, simply as it features Manjusri as the 32 Bodhisattva to delineate his expression of enlightenment to Vimalakirti.

Lord Shakyamuni Buddha's prediction of Guru Padmasambava, (one who's text "The Great Liberation through Hearing) i hold very, very close to my heart, also apocryphal?

Lord Buddha's prediction of the karmapa apocryphal?

In the prajna paramita sutra in 8000 lines, the lord Buddha carries on a conversation w/ Lord Indra. they use monikers i've never heard before until talking to the Lompis here at Wat Tamagai, Kausika, and Saruka...are these "familar names?" such as vegetta refering to goku as kakkarot, or zod refering to superman as Cal'el? Why is it that they refer to each other in such a familar tone?

in the pakabrama sutra, Lord Buddha visits a Brahma emination, if the Pali Tipitaka recognizes Bhrama, regardless of deva form, or bhrama heaven he may inhabit, why do the Terawada not recognize Vishnu, JIva, or even the kalagni?

(now this ones completely candid, kinda going for laughs) The lord Buddha had to tell his own cousin, Ananda, 16 times that he was going to slip into nirvanna...was Ananda really that stupid? i always held Ananda w/ the honorific, the great learner; or he who asks questions on behalf of all sentient beings in this vajra-kalpa to the Buddha) and I, personally always yielded to the guise that Ananda was merely attracted to form, and didn't penetrate deep into the meditative states (i'm referring to Ananda not becoming enlightened during Shakyamuni Buddha's lifetime) and was of that state to lead sentient beings in the vajra kalpa, to liberation through Shakyamuni Buddha's Buddha-Dharma.

The bit where Buddha Shakyamuni held a flower to his nose, Mahakasyapa laughed, and the Lord Buddha chose Mahakasyapa as the heir to the Buddha Dharma lineage, never happened?

--
thanks for reading my questions

[Manjusri108]

"In the prajna paramita sutra in 8000 lines, the lord Buddha carries on a conversation w/ Lord Indra. they use monikers i've never heard before until talking to the Lompis here at Wat Tamagai, Kausika, and Saruka...are these "familar names?" such as vegetta refering to goku as kakkarot, or zod refering to superman as Cal'el? Why is it that they refer to each other in such a familar tone?"

what i mean by this is that i've never read the Buddha nor Indra refered to by these two monikers. When I arrived at Wat Tamagai the Lompi there was so knowledable he knew of these names! but I've never come across these names in anyother sutra. Regardless of the other sutras that may use these names, why are they refering to each other with them?

[Manjusri108]

"(now this ones completely candid, kinda going for laughs) The lord Buddha had to tell his own cousin, Ananda, 16 times that he was going to slip into nirvanna...was Ananda really that stupid? i always held Ananda w/ the honorific, the great learner; or he who asks questions on behalf of all sentient beings in this vajra-kalpa to the Buddha) and I, personally always yielded to the guise that Ananda was merely attracted to form, and didn't penetrate deep into the meditative states (i'm referring to Ananda not becoming enlightened during Shakyamuni Buddha's lifetime) and was of that state to lead sentient beings in the vajra kalpa, to liberation through Shakyamuni Buddha's Buddha-Dharma."

and this one's just common sense. Your cousin is a Buddha tells you on 16 different occasions that mara came to him and told him he'll die, you should take it in eventually, if not the first time, but not 16!!
--
and i'm not trying to upset anyone, i'm not trying to screw around, these are my personal questions, and i'm not trying to glorify nor defame Ananda nor anyone else mentioned in my posts. I was jsut trying to crack jokes with a colbert report style of humor and pacing as i typed the OP to break the ice.

[SarathW]

Hi Manjusri
Welcome to Dhamma wheel.

A good book to read about Theravada Buddhism.
I use this as my handbook.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Manjusri108,

I can really only respond with a few counter-questions....

1. If your background is Mahayana and you wish to ordain, why are you choosing a non-Mahayana lineage to ordain into?

2. Wat Tamagai appears to be related to the Dhammakaya cult... do you really have any idea what you're getting into there? See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=339



Metta,
Retro.

[chownah]

Manjusri108,
You have seen that the body of Buddhist writings taken as a whole presents a hugely huge amount of contradictory references and ideas. I suggest you start by finding the simplest and most direct expressions of the buddha's teachings and see if you can make sense of it first then expand your study to include other sources. I believe that the set of scriptures which is most widely accepted as being a simple and direct expression of the buddha's teachings is The Tipitaka......and.....it just so happens that the Tipitaka is exactly the collection of scriptures which Theravada Buddhists use......so I suggest starting by making sense of things from a Theravadan point of view first and then if you are still wanting to study other texts go ahead and do it.........seems that you are jumping in at the deep end so to speak.
chownah

[culaavuso]

http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/is-the- ... hu-sujato/

That the Lotus Sutra and other Mahayana Sutras were not spoken by the Buddha is unanimously supported by modern scholarship. I don’t know of a single academic in the last 150 years who has argued otherwise. The basic historical background is given in Wikipedia.

This has obvious relevance for those interested in Fake Buddha Quotes. From a certain point of view, all Mahayana Sutras are Fake Buddha Quotes. But this doesn’t undermine their spiritual relevance or usefulness. I’ve never claimed that the message of any Fake Quote is diminished because it the words don’t happen to stem from the Buddha. In saying that a quote isn’t from the Buddha, I am not automatically saying that the quote isn’t valid. The validity of the quote is a separate matter.

[mikenz66]

Welcome Manjusri108,

I would put it this way:

The various sutras you mention are not in the Pali (Theravada) Canon and are therefore not part of Theravada doctrine. Academic scholarship suggests that they were composed hundreds of years after the historical Buddha.

This does not mean that they are not "true" or "useful" in some sense. And it also doesn't mean that the Theravada Canon is historically accurate. Again, academic scholarship suggests that their current form was composed over a period of time. And, of course, ancient and modern teachers and commentators of the Theravada Canon add their own interpretations, based on their experience, or the experience of other practitioners.

I quite like the way Malcolm put it here:

Buddhists, like all other religionists, like to think that they are the only ones who have a true story. Among Buddhists, all assert their preferred story of liberation as the best, or most practical, or the only possible, or the most historically accurate, and so on.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 0&start=40

I think that it is important to acknowledge that there are some rather large differences between Theravada and the various Mahayana schools. However, it seems pointless to me to dispute over which path is the most true, practical, or effective. Different paths seem to suit different individuals.


Mike

[Mkoll]

Hi,

I don't have a wisdom-bearing answer, but I say the following as an honest answer to all of your questions in as polite a way as can be possible across an internet forum...

I do not know nor do not care to know the answers to your questions because they have nothing to do with the Noble Eightfold Path or the Four Noble Truths.

That's just one's opinion; you will take it as you will.