Cornelius

devnet:

I believe chapter 3 is the one you want, the one with the parable of the burning house. The hell descriptions start after the parable and then are picked back up in detail near the end of the chapter. My copy is hard to follow at times because the translator mixes his commentary in with the actual text and does little to distingish the two.

I should point out that all scholars agree, despite what the Lotus Sutra claims, the historical Buddha is not responsible for the text. It was written some time after his death.

regards,

Cornelius

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: Cornelius ]

kctan

The Lotus Sutra you're talking about, is it the orginal sankrit or the one translated by Tripitaka during the Tang Dynasty which maybe heavily influence by traditional chinese mythology by the time it gets translated into english ?

lpetrich

Some comments:

That bit about Mahayana vs. Hinayana Buddhism reminds of what some Russian Communist revolutionaries had called themselves and some of their rivals -- Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (something like "majority" and "minority"). The Mensheviks actually accepted that name for themselves!

The controversial Nichiren Shoshu set of Buddhism regards the Lotus Sutra as the only really "necessary" one; its followers chant "I call upon the Lotus Sutra" in some language (I forget which).

And as to KCTAN's comments, I wonder if he could produce an original, supposedly-uncorrupted copy of the Lotus Sutra.

Also, I'm not sure that I wish to get into the question of the historicity of the putatively historical Buddha; he could be partially or even completely mythical.

lpetrich

Another difference worth noting is that Theravada Buddhism tends to be rather plain in practice, for lack of some better description, while various Mahayana sects add lots of gods and demons and so forth.

Mahayana Buddhism invented at least some of its gods by an ingenious route. In Mahayana Buddhism, some beings about to achieve Nirvana can become Bodhisattvas, who then proceed to assist others; these have become de facto deities. Thus, Chinese Buddhism features a goddess of mercy, Kwan Yin.

When one looks at what Buddhism had become, I'm sure that the historical Buddha would be spinning in his grave.

boneyard bill

Actually "Christian" was originally a derogatory term from what I have heard.

The Theravada school is the only remaining non-Mahayana school. They generally accept a realist view of the world and don't use the "maya" concept. They discourage speculation about the "nature" of the world as a fruitless and circular endeavor that is not at all conducive to enlightenment.

Mahayana, however, extended the concept of "anatta" i.e. "no self" to the physical world where the Buddha himself had only used it in a psychological sense. The idea of "self" is an illusion in the sense that nothing in the universe actually possesses any kind of unchanging essence. Everything comes into existence and goes out of existence and it is doing it all the time.

Both Buddhist schools accept this view but the Mahayana went on the depict a more or less idealist picture of the universe. In my opinion Mahayana doctrine is implicit in the Theravada but Theravadins may well be right that such speculations are waste of time where enlightenment is concerned.

It is certainly true that the Four Noble Truths form the basis of anything that can call itself Buddhism, but I think most scholars certainly believe that the Buddha was a real person and that he taught the Four Noble Truths though certainly a great deal that we hear about him is legendary.

The doctrine of "maya," as I understand it, is not a claim that the physical world does not exist but that we misunderstand its nature. It is a constantly changing process where we perceive it as a world of "things" this has to do with the nature of our own perceptions which are constantly interacting with the world to shape its appearance to us. There's nothing really fantastical about it.

When it comes to indulging in worldly pleasures Buddhism is the most abstemious of all the major while Islam is the most permissive. That's at the level of their scripture. At the level of actual practice it would seem to me that the opposite is true.

emotional

It seems a lot of founders of religions would be spinning in their graves. I'm not sure Jesus would approve to what Paul made of him. Mahavira or Jina, the founder of the Jain religion, which is doctrinally atheistic, would be appalled to see his followers today laying gift to the Hindu god Ganesh. And Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, would be at least surprised to find the hereditary role of the Guru replaced by a book (the Adi Granth, which the Sikhs call Sri Guru Granth Sahib. It was established as eternal Guru by the last living Sikh Guru, Gobind Singh).

kctan

Nah, I don't I could produce the original sankrit script but you could try to get it in india if you want. Or maybe Sri Lanka.

As to Kwan Yin (Guang Yin), better known as Avalokiteshvara - was a guy but some how turned into a women when he reached China.

Well the buddha is definitely turning in his grave as regards to what he says during his death "Follow the way not me".

hinduwoman

No matter what you try to preach, your followers are bound to screw it up sooner or later. then it is the same old problems again.

Cornelius

The one I own is translated from Chinese. I believe that the chapter on Kuan-Yin is a Chinese addition not found in the original Sanskrit, do you know of any other major alterations?

regards,

Cornelius

Waning Moon Conrad

Devnet,

Out of the two vehicles Hinayana is lesser in that the motivation for practising is to free oneself from suffering and the Mahayana motivation is to free all beings.

It is included within Mahayana in the sense that it is a beginning point from where one's view may expand to encompass the concept, development and practice of compassion for all sentient beings.

Your condemnation of Buddhism as "childish junk" and "intolerant" is, in my view, a little over the top.

If you heard a roof state that it is higher than the walls and foundations, would you condemn the roof as arrogant and intolerant?

National Geographic is wonderful for an overview of geography and people and animals and stuff, but I don't think much of it as a source of information about the ethical implications of a particular piece of intra-Buddhistic nomenclature.

Don't mix the concept of tolerance with the concept of political correctness, the two are not the same.

Incidentally, no Buddhist who actually has an understanding of Buddhist philosophy, believes in God, and no Buddhist believes that the purpose of life is sucking up to fictional, transcendant creator.

Even if you're right about what you see as an example of disappointing intolerance and hypocrisy, you're definitely way off the mark with that one!

[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]