Mahayana

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Mahayana

Post by jcsuperstar »

i was thinking about the origins of the mahayana buddha, and wondering if it is a sort of mistaking the buddha for the dhamma. the dhamma was not born with our buddha, but was rediscovered by him. the dhamma has an eternal quality, comming into the world whenever it is needed, or lost. and the buddha says he who sees the dhamma sees me.
so it could be easy to assume that the buddha has this same quality as the dhamma, that he is eternal, primordial, comming back to us when ever neeed or lost. and since all buddhas know this same dhamma, you get the impression that all buddhas are the same buddha or manifestations of the same primordial dhamma, or buddha. just a thought.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Mahayana

Post by christopher::: »

jcsuperstar wrote:i was thinking about the origins of the mahayana buddha, and wondering if it is a sort of mistaking the buddha for the dhamma. the dhamma was not born with our buddha, but was rediscovered by him. the dhamma has an eternal quality, comming into the world whenever it is needed, or lost. and the buddha says he who sees the dhamma sees me.
so it could be easy to assume that the buddha has this same quality as the dhamma, that he is eternal, primordial, comming back to us when ever neeed or lost. and since all buddhas know this same dhamma, you get the impression that all buddhas are the same buddha or manifestations of the same primordial dhamma, or buddha. just a thought.
That makes sense to me, jcs. When a Zen Buddhist says that all people are actually buddhas or have Buddha Nature what we mean (i think) is that all beings have the potential to awaken, to express the dhamma perfectly, to become enlightened. The primordial dhamma you speak of sounds very much like what we call Dhammakaya.

This is one reason i shake my head a bit whenever i hear a Mahayana Buddhist saying to be a Buddha is somehow "superior" to being an Arahant. Every description i've ever heard of an Arahant sounds like what we Zen Buddhists call a Buddha.

I could be wrong with any or all of the above, so please don't whack me on the head with a stick. In Zen though we don't hold onto words or categories too tightly. They're usually pointing to something that may simply be indescribable, from our present point of view...

:smile:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Mahayana

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

tiltbillings wrote:bodom_bad_boy,

Item 5 of the list, as an obvious example:

5 Concept of Bodhicitta Theravada: Main emphasis is self liberation.
There is total reliance on one-self to eradicate all defilements
.
Mahayana: Besides self liberation, it is important for Mahayana followers to help other sentient beings

This is so singularly simplistic, making essentially meaningless, but it is a typical sort of distinction made by Mahayanists who either know little about the Theravada or who should know better but are driven by sectarian needs.
This is embarrassing and in fact it misrepresents Mahayana on a certain level.

/\
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Mahayana

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

According to the Abhidhamma and certain passages in the Pali Canon, not every being is capable of Enlightenment in a particular Lifetime, which seems to preclude the idea that we're all born with an inherent "Buddha Nature" just waiting to emerge. I'll give some examples:

In Nina van Gorkon'sAbhidhamma in Daily Life she says in the Chapter on Bhvangha-Citta:
All bhavanga-cittas during a lifespan are of the same type as the patisandhi-citta of that life. If one is born with two hetus, with alobha (non-attachment or generosity) and adosa (non-aversion or kindness), but without wisdom, then all bhavanga-cittas have only two hetus. Such a person can cultivate wisdom, but he cannot become enlightened during that life.
http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-12.htm

Which seems to have support in the Pali suttas in such passages as this one from Dhammapada:
Though a fool, through all his life, associates with a wise man, he no more understands the Dhamma than a spoon (tastes) the flavour of soup.
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/Dhammapada/fool.html

Which I take to mean a person born without panna can never "get" dhamma. We've all encountered this type of person. Ms. van Gorken goes on to say:
If one is born with three hetus, which means that one is born with alobha, adosa and panna (wisdom), all bhavanga-cittas are accompanied by these three sobhana hetus (beautiful roots) as well. Thus that person is more inclined to cultivate wisdom and he can attain enlightenment during that life. If one is born with somanassa (happy feeling), all bhavanga-cittas of that life are accompanied by somanassa.
Just something to think about. :lol:

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Post Reply