perfectbite

Namaste back atya Vajradhara,

Where was Theravadan Buddhism in all of this? In the jungles? I can see where Mahayana Buddhism clings to the raft the Buddha said not to cling to and essentially distorts Buddhism by neglecting the call to live a moral life based on mindful loving kindness as given in the Pali Suttas in preference to the study of the impossible to comprehend, mystical Sanskrit Sutras. (carting that bloody raft around and it didn't even get them across the swollen river yet. Useless, just bloody useless.)

So in essence it was Mahayana Buddhism that succumbed to the Muslim invasion. That doesn't surprise me. The Mahayana is full of itself and it could learn some humility from the Theravada.

hinduwoman

perfectbite, it is not buddha himself but Buddhism that failed. as i said it was too close to Hinduism (including casteism) for ordinary people to make much of a difference. The Muslims delivered the finishing touches by destorying all centres of Buddhist learning and killing monks.
buddhism was a religion that depended on organization; hinduism on the other hand as decentralized and diffused. so Hinduism survived better.

Answerer

In Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.


I can see that you have a great misunderstanding of Mahayana buddhism. The story about the raft actually comes from Mahayana teachings.

A unnecessary and bad generalization. Mahayana is made up of hundreds of schools and each schools has its own unique way of teachings. But so far, I never know any schools famed for its inherent pride. Besides, til today, I don't think most people will view the entire Zen school as an arrogant Mahayana branch of Buddhism.

perfectbite

Answerer,

The story of the raft, from my studies, comes from the Majjhima Nikaya, a Theravadan discourse. The story of the blind men asked to describe an elephant from its various parts and their argumentative confusion is also from the Theravada. (The Itivuttaka I think.)

I do not wish to give offense but from my studies, the Mahayana, elbowing Theravada out of the way, has cheerfully bitten off far more than it can intellectually chew and seems to think, in all its myriad schools, that choking gracefully is expounding the Buddha's Dharma. In fact I read recently a statement made by an ordained Vajrayana monk who stated that Theravadan Nirvana and Mahayanist Nirvana resulted in different views and were different experiences!? Did he think that one up all on his lonesome then? As usual the Theravadan view was portrayed as the parochial, glow worm's view. I've had enough of that nonsense.

I am very familiar with the Mahayanist Sutras and correct me if I am wrong, wasn't it the Mahayanists who called Theravada 'Hinayana'?

If other Mahayanist schools didn't immediately leap to Theravada's defense over this insult then ALL of Mahayana is tarred with the same ignoble brush.

Hinduwoman,

Thank you, now it makes sense. The more I think about it the more I become reluctantly convinced that a dominant Mahayana may be Buddhist in name only. I can see where the low energy Theravada could be co-opted by existing royalty but I cannot really see where existing royalty would be co-opted by Theravada however I could see where the high energy Mahayanists could become political dynasties for their own religious and secular gain. The new lotus eater, don't bother me unless you have pecuniary cause, Brahmins.

I was in Bombay when Indira Gandhi's eldest son was killed in a light plane crash and there was surprisingly little sadness on the streets of Bombay. I was amazed that so many people seemed to be just downright happy. I was told by some folks that he was a privileged dacoit waiting to happen and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

After the fall of Nalanda I can see some local farmers saying to themselves 'Well they're gone. At least now if the invaders take my crops away from me they will be taking what is all mine and not the monastery's part as well.' I'll bet there was a lot of 'It is a blessing to support those studying the Dharma and we demand half of your crop for the greater glory of Buddha.' Four or five centuries of that would become a truly oppressive yoke. Does that 'for King, God and Country' BS sound familiar to the Westerners reading this?

A very convenient Mahayanist myth could have arisen that there weren't enough ordained Buddhist priests to keep Buddhism going in India after the sack of Nalanda but monolithic theocratic establishments have no real place in an agrarian society.

Answerer

The manual of Zen Buddhism has the stories as well:

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/m...n_buddhism.htm

Give me some time to confirm the original source.

No, Mahayana is advocating the concept of using different paths for different individuals due to the difference in their ability, personalities,etc. And this view had been in the Mahayana teachings along. The myth of supremcy of Mahayana teachings was a long misunderstanding among many critics who tend to equate the general view of Mahayana buddhists with some of its fanatics.

The monk view is hardly equivalent to the millions of buddhists out there. Most of the buddhists I had seen don't differ one Nirvana from another, much a less condemning Theravada.

The original "Hinayana" schools in India were already gone wiped out by the muslims after centuries of decay. The Theravada schools you see nowadays are no longer regarded or labelled by general buddhists as Hinyana but then again, there are people who were confused between the two.

Hardly. If there are buddhists out there insulting other buddhist sects, they are no buddhists. Similiarly, to those who insult others due to defense over some worldly reputation. Since I seldom see buddhists insulting each others' sects in my country, I believe you use of "all" word here is a bit too extreme.

premjan

It was actually Indira Gandhi's younger son (first political heir) who was killed in a plane crash (though the other son was the one who was employed as a pilot at the time -- go figure).

Vajradhara

Namaste Perfectbite,

thank you for the post.

recall, the Theravedan sect was one of 27 different Hinyana sects that existed at the time. though, only the Theravedans have managed to remain an active lineage, thus we just call the Hinyana Theravedan Buddhism and leave it at that.

there are some misconceptions, however, tied to the term Hinyana, thus, i generally think it is better to simply use the term Theravedan to describe the First Turning of the Wheel, though that does a severe disservice to the other schools of Buddhism that existed at that time.

this is, however, your perception which, seemingly, does not comport with the reality of the situation. if you can find a Sutra wherein the abandonment of the moral and ethical disciplines of the Vinya are nullified, please bring it forth. i, for one, cannot find any such teaching.

futher, i would offer that Bodhichitta is, in fact, loving kindness.

why do you find the Sanskrit impossible to comprehend? have you had a chance to study Sanskrit at all?

:huh:

what an odd view. let me see if i understand... are you saying because the Mahayana Buddhists feel that the Great Vehicle is the Vehicle that is appropos for them, it doesn't surprise you that Muslim invaders razed the university? i'm really not sure how that is connected in the least, perhaps you could elaborate?

perfectbite

Namaste Vajradhara,

The Theravadan Suttas are full of references to living in loving kindness but the Mahayanist way, based on very difficult to understand in any language, Mahayanist Sutras (I use D.T. Suzuki's translations) seem to concentrate on the self defeating of the intellect to attain enlightenment.

I will agree that the Theravadan Abhidhamma is more rote than perhaps necessary but I will stand by my claim that Theravada (especially the morally challenging but not particularly intellectually challenging Dhammapada) addresses the very mundane but necessary moral practice of the Buddha's path whilst the Mahayana seems to have put thought and study ahead of practice and there is a part of the Lankavatara Sutra that leaves moral behaviour up to the individual as they see fit up to and including taking another's life. I don't see that attitude reflected in the Theravadan Suttas.

I am not talking about the kind of tension that the Judeo Christian old and new Testaments seem to have engendered but I do feel that besides the obvious differences there is a distinct difference between the Theravadan Suttas and the Mahayanist Sutras that may lead the Mahayanists to consider scholarship and the life of the mind more valuable than practice. That's all.

Ch'an Buddhism as practiced by Bodhidharma's lineage of enlightened mind places great emphasis on Sanskrit terms like prajna, dharma etc. and the study of one's religious canonical language cannot be a bad thing but my impression is that for the Mahayana the study of the Sutras and subsequent scholarship are held in high esteem.

I feel that the Mahayana took a great amount from Theravada but for some reason never acknowledged its source. Like an errant child was Mahayana glad to be free of what it took to be an oppresive Theravadan rigidity when in fact it was merely a low energy, not particularly enthralling plodding along?

It is a pity that the 'only don't know' saying came from a (in my view) Mahayanist unenlightened "Zen master" because I feel that the Theravadan view implicitly holds the 'only don't know' view but not only does it state that one can live a moral life it also uses the sayings of the Buddha as a guide.

I don't see Theravadan and Mahayana Buddhisms as being separate but I can see where some Buddhists, exercising their intellects, could be self convinced that they are separate.

For instance from Answerer:

"No, Mahayana is advocating the concept of using different paths for different individuals due to the difference in their ability, personalities,etc."

As opposed to....? (Mormonism, Santaria, Theravada)

(I thought Metta was loving kindness or perhaps that is Pali. My question then is why does Sanskrit have to have a compound word to describe loving kindness and why also does that word have reference to bodhi?)

Premjan,

I did mean to say Indira Ghandi's heir apparent, not her eldest son, and I did not mean to give the impression that everyone I spoke to in Bombay at that time was happy that he was out of the picture.

Answerer

You missed out the important details or stories on the countless of Bodhisattvas who gived up their enlightenment just to help sentinel beings trapped in the six realms. They are the best examples of loving kindness in Mahayana Buddhism. I don't know what you mean by self-defeating of the intellect to attain enlightenment but only requirements for humans to gain enlightenment are their focus, will, sincerity and effort. The encouraged abandonment of intelligence pursuits is just to advise people from focusing on the wrong thing at the wrong time.

I don't think where you get that. But all monks are subjected to the five precepts and are expected to follow them despite some variants of rules in different schools. The Karmic laws are universal and Buddha's rules is to avoid or rather minimize the bad karma in his followers and most Buddhists know that, so its their responsibility now to think before they act.

Zen and Ch'an are examples of schools that emphasis practice rather than theorizing. In fact, they see the danger of focusing too much on the worldly thing (scholarship). But anyway, to each his own, every people has its own preferences and unique of reaching enlightenment and who are we to say they are wrong?

Ch'an school is set up in China, the monks at that time used Chinese as their main language. The sankrist terms you mentioned are transliterated since there are no chinese words available that could fully advocate its full meaning. And you will be surprised that both Ch'an and Zen school only used 10% to 30% of their time studying scriptures. Thats because their founders understood the dangers of dogmas, fanaticism, power struggles and corruptions that had been affecting various Buddhist sects and other religions in the past.

And to avoid that, Zen monks had been told to place great emphasis on their practise of Zazen and one pointness focusing of their mind.

The source of Mahayana and Theravada originalized from the Buddha's semons. Its just that one is direct and another is not.

If you ever studied the history of Buddhism, you will know the fact that in the past, Thervada followers didn't want to accept the existence of Mahayana, some fanatics even called it a Mara's inspired work created to mislead the followers of Buddhism while theravada is the only true path.

In my opinions, any theravada fanatics is just as bad as their Mahayana counterparts. Having to done with two different kinds of fanatics before in my life makes me realized that both sides are ridculously wrong.

To each his own again, you can't say that using the Buddha's words must be always right. I can tell you straightaway that many especially in this forum will view that as dogmatic. And one thing in buddhism is that you must never judge one person level of enlightenment.

You misunderstood my original statement. I meant to say that Mahayana was not created as opposed to another ideology or path, rather it was created to provide an additional main path or option for people to choose and follow, so is Theravada and Vajrayana (some buddhists even include other religions). They are all different parts of a great dharma wheel.

perfectbite

Answerer,

I don't know what to say. My understanding of Buddhist doctrine (mind only) is obviously insufficent to address either the corruption and distortion of Theravadan or Mahayanist beliefs.

I do however take exception to the 'to each his own' view (and, before the feminists start salivating, I am a man) especially when the Buddha was very clear on what it took to achieve enlightenment. Being a good person is just the start of Bodhisattvahood, being an excellently good person could lead us to sotapannahood and surely the goal of Bodhisattvahood is sotapannahood or is it?