When can say

[auto]

auto

This forum i have seen many hostile people towards mahayana and also other religions.

Just like how its inappropriate to join a Sunni Muslim page and post Shia or Catholic texts, so its inappropriate to post Mahāyāna in this section of the page. They simply have no relevance here.

If both text talk about something but talk about it differently and understandably enough that they talk about same thing. You can use local terminology what isn't part neither of these text, to show your comprehension.

What you are doing is going by the cover and not even try to understand. What makes me think you are not meditating understanding.

[Ceisiwr]

auto

This forum i have seen many hostile people towards mahayana and also other religions.

Just like how its inappropriate to join a Sunni Muslim page and post Shia or Catholic texts, so its inappropriate to post Mahāyāna in this section of the page. They simply have no relevance here.

If both text talk about something but talk about it differently and understandably enough that they talk about same thing. You can use local terminology what isn't part neither of these text, to show your comprehension.

What you are doing is going by the cover and not even try to understand. What makes me think you are not meditating understanding.

Its best not to mix up Mahāyāna and Theravāda.

[auto]

Its best not to mix up Mahāyāna and Theravāda.

Why?

[Ceisiwr]

Its best not to mix up Mahāyāna and Theravāda.

Why?

Because they have two fundamentally opposing views on how to approach the Dhamma. If we look at the Theravādin Abhidhamma, its conception of the Dhamma and awakening is totally different to what we find in Prajñāpāramitā texts. In the Abhidhamma awakening occurs through understanding the 4 ultimate realities which really exist. In Prajñāpāramitā awakening is through seeing how all dhammas are empty of inherent existence and the suspension of all ontological based thinking. In Theravādin Abhidhamma Nibbāna is not a mere concept but is instead an external and permanent timeless dhamma. In Prajñāpāramitā we find the idea of concept only, with Nibbāna only having a nominal existence. The Prajñāpāramitā texts are essentially attacking the Abhidhamma, albeit likely the Sarvāstivādin one. All of this is before we even get onto the bodhisattva stuff.

[Ceisiwr]

All of this essentially goes back to the first schism and what followed. For the most part the Sthaviras and their descendents subscribed to realism when it came to understanding the Dhamma. The Mahāsāṃghikas and their descendents, for the most part, subscribed to Prajñapti (concept only) and nominalism. These are two opposing views of the Dhamma which cannot be reconciled. Mahāyāna is the continuation of the Mahāsāṃghika line of thinking whilst Theravāda is a continuation of the Sthavira view.

[auto]

Prajñapti (concept only) and nominalism.

on what basis or why you think Prajñā is about concept?
is it because of the term 'suñña' means emptiness as like hollow without inherent existence?
--
also thanks for elaborating what you think so far, its appreciated.

[Ceisiwr]

auto

on what basis or why you think Prajñā is about concept?
is it because of the term 'suñña' means emptiness as like hollow without inherent existence?

1) Prajñā (प्रज्ञा, “wisdom”) or prajñāpāramitā represents the last of the “six perferctions” (ṣaṭpāramitā) as defined in the Dharma-saṃgraha (section 17). The Dharma-samgraha (Dharmasangraha) is an extensive glossary of Buddhist technical terms in Sanskrit (eg., ṣaṣ-pāramitā and prajñā). The work is attributed to Nagarjuna who lived around the 2nd century A.D.

Prajñapti (प्रज्ञप्ति) refers to “thought construction” or “mental images”, according to the The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra chapter 3.—“the triple world is no more than thought-construction (prajñapti), there is no reality in its self-nature; by means of this thought-constructed reality, logicians go on discriminating. Individual form, reality, thought-construction, — these are [only] a mental disturbance; transcending all this, my sons will walk where there is no discrimination”.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/prajnapti

As far as I understand the Prajñāpāramitā texts wisdom (Prajñā) is in understanding how dhammas are non-existent, or how they only have nominal existence and so are only concepts (Prajñapti).

Edward Conze lists six ways in which the ontological status of dharmas is considered by the Prajñāpāramitā:[35]

Dharmas are non-existent because they have no own-being (svabhava).
Dharmas have a purely nominal existence. They are mere words, a matter of conventional expression.
Dharmas are "without marks, with one mark only, ie., with no mark." A mark (laksana) being a distinctive property which separates it from other dharmas.
Dharmas are isolated (vivikta), absolutely isolated (atyantavivikta).
Dharmas have never been produced, never come into existence; they are not really ever brought forth, they are unborn (ajata).

Non-production is illustrated by a number of similes, i.e., dreams, magical illusions, echoes, reflected images, mirages, and space. It is through seeing this Tathātā that one is said to have a vision of the Buddha (the Tathāgata), seeing this is called seeing the Buddha's Dharmakaya (Dharma body) which is a not his physical body, but none other than the true nature of dharmas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita

This is totally different to the Abhidhamma. In the Abhidhamma dhammas are empty of self or what belongs to self, but they aren't empty of existence.

also thanks for elaborating what you think so far, its appreciated.

You're welcome.

[Ceisiwr]

The Prajñāpāramitā and other early Mahāyāna texts, as well as the likes of Nagarjuna, were essentially a reaction against the Abhidhamma. This of course means they are either A) Proposing something that goes back to what the Buddha intended or B) Introducing new ideas.

[auto]

auto

on what basis or why you think Prajñā is about concept?
is it because of the term 'suñña' means emptiness as like hollow without inherent existence?

1) Prajñā (प्रज्ञा, “wisdom”) or prajñāpāramitā represents the last of the “six perferctions” (ṣaṭpāramitā) as defined in the Dharma-saṃgraha (section 17). The Dharma-samgraha (Dharmasangraha) is an extensive glossary of Buddhist technical terms in Sanskrit (eg., ṣaṣ-pāramitā and prajñā). The work is attributed to Nagarjuna who lived around the 2nd century A.D.

Prajñapti (प्रज्ञप्ति) refers to “thought construction” or “mental images”, according to the The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra chapter 3.—“the triple world is no more than thought-construction (prajñapti), there is no reality in its self-nature; by means of this thought-constructed reality, logicians go on discriminating. Individual form, reality, thought-construction, — these are [only] a mental disturbance; transcending all this, my sons will walk where there is no discrimination”.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/prajnapti

As far as I understand the Prajñāpāramitā texts wisdom (Prajñā) is in understanding how dhammas are non-existent, or how they only have nominal existence and so are only concepts (Prajñapti).

Edward Conze lists six ways in which the ontological status of dharmas is considered by the Prajñāpāramitā:[35]

Dharmas are non-existent because they have no own-being (svabhava).
Dharmas have a purely nominal existence. They are mere words, a matter of conventional expression.
Dharmas are "without marks, with one mark only, ie., with no mark." A mark (laksana) being a distinctive property which separates it from other dharmas.
Dharmas are isolated (vivikta), absolutely isolated (atyantavivikta).
Dharmas have never been produced, never come into existence; they are not really ever brought forth, they are unborn (ajata).

Non-production is illustrated by a number of similes, i.e., dreams, magical illusions, echoes, reflected images, mirages, and space. It is through seeing this Tathātā that one is said to have a vision of the Buddha (the Tathāgata), seeing this is called seeing the Buddha's Dharmakaya (Dharma body) which is a not his physical body, but none other than the true nature of dharmas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita

This is totally different to the Abhidhamma. In the Abhidhamma dhammas are empty of self or what belongs to self, but they aren't empty of existence.

also thanks for elaborating what you think so far, its appreciated.

You're welcome.

'all dhammas are like a dream' is preparatory for to gain understanding 'emptiness is not empty' this realization comes from the compulsory nature. There is one more or more understanding(s) and that will address the real or realness.

the list what E. Conze made is about preparatory. It is not full understanding.

[Ceisiwr]

auto

the list what E. Conze made is about preparatory. It is not full understanding.

Ok, my point however was that Mahāyāna and Theravāda have two opposing views when it comes to the Dhamma.

[auto]

auto

the list what E. Conze made is about preparatory. It is not full understanding.

Ok, my point however was that Mahāyāna and Theravāda have two opposing views when it comes to the Dhamma.

Ok i don't know about Theravada followers but Sutta doesn't conflict, you can even mistake MN suttas with being Mahayana. But it can be also the hypnagogic effect from reading too much one subject.

[Coëmgenu]

Prajñapti (concept only) and nominalism.

It's actually prajñaptisat, or existence-via-prajñapti. It's still prajñapti, and it's still sat, because what is prajñapti is a form of sat. "Sat" is the present participle of "as," which appears in conjugated forms as "asmi, asti (Pali: atthi), etc." and form astitā (existence, or more literally "it-is-ness") as another form of it. Of course, existence and non-existence as terms come from the realm of relational thinking, since there is no such thing as non-existence and the notion of "non-existence" is a mere utility as much as "existence." That is another way to look at things.

[Ceisiwr]

Prajñapti (concept only) and nominalism.

It's actually prajñaptisat, or existence-via-prajñapti. It's still prajñapti, and it's still sat, because what is prajñapti is a form of sat. "Sat" is the present participle of "as," which appears in conjugated forms as "asmi, asti (Pali: atthi), etc." and form astitā (existence, or more literally "it-is-ness") as another form of it. Of course, existence and non-existence as terms come from the realm of relational thinking, since there is no such thing as non-existence and the notion of "non-existence" is a mere utility as much as "existence." That is another way to look at things.

Interesting. What are your views on the incompatibility of Theravada and Mahayana?

[auto]

Its best not to mix up Mahāyāna and Theravāda.

Why?

Because they have two fundamentally opposing views on how to approach the Dhamma. If we look at the Theravādin Abhidhamma, its conception of the Dhamma and awakening is totally different to what we find in Prajñāpāramitā texts. In the Abhidhamma awakening occurs through understanding the 4 ultimate realities which really exist. In Prajñāpāramitā awakening is through seeing how all dhammas are empty of inherent existence and the suspension of all ontological based thinking. In Theravādin Abhidhamma Nibbāna is not a mere concept but is instead an external and permanent timeless dhamma. In Prajñāpāramitā we find the idea of concept only, with Nibbāna only having a nominal existence. The Prajñāpāramitā texts are essentially attacking the Abhidhamma, albeit likely the Sarvāstivādin one. All of this is before we even get onto the bodhisattva stuff.

if to explain things then issues get resolved. Higher teachings - the 'higher' means it requires explanation and then understanding comes and you need do it every time if want access this teachings, these teachings are not to be written down but if you understand that they are not to be written down you can understand that these teachings exist, also in written form.

Do you understand abhidhamma? higher teachings

[Kim OHara]

What are your views on the incompatibility of Theravada and Mahayana?

Not answering for Coëmgenu but for myself...

The incompatibility neither exists nor doesn't exist.


Kim