Re: Bodhisattva Path: Historical Aspects In Theravāda
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:53 am
Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!
_/\_
_/\_
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
It is a disappointing essay.dhammapal wrote:Hi,
Check out: Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas by Bhikkhu Bodhi
With metta / dhammapal.
After the death of the Buddha, Buddhists (before the arising of the Mahayana) became focused on the person of the Buddha in a way that the Buddha himself at most discouraged and at least did not indulge in. From this we get a life story - a hagiography - of the Buddha not found in the suttas and interesting artifact of that is the name Siddhattha that is not found in the suttas, and we also get “life stories” of the other Buddhas.In the final analysis, I have to confess my inability to provide a perfectly cogent solution to this problem. In view of the fact that in later times so many Buddhists, in Theravāda lands as well as in the Mahāyāna world, have been inspired by the bodhisattva ideal, it is perplexing that no teachings about a bodhisattva path or bodhisattva practices are included in the discourses regarded as coming down from the most archaic period of Buddhist literary history.
It is probably with this text, the Lotus Sutra, that the word hinayana first gets used. It is a very strongly negative word. In Sanskrit and Pali, hina, however, comes from the root ha: to abandon, to forsake, to avoid, to leave behind which gives us hina: inferior, low, poor, miserable, vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable, rejected, thrown away, scorned. In idiomatic English hinayana would be the "piss-poor vehicle" or the "garbage vehicle." In and of itself, the word hinayana is an ugly derogatory, divisive, derisive epithet. It is a put down term, which is then coupled with a nasty us-versus-them polemic.Then Śāriputra again addressed the Buddha: “O Bhagavat! Please explain it [emptiness]! I entreat you to explain it, because in this assembly there are innumerable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of incalculable sentient beings, sharp in faculties and possessed of wisdom, who have previously encountered the buddhas. When they hear the teaching of the Buddha they will trust, believe, and accept it.”
. . .
Then the Buddha again tried to dissuade Śāriputra, saying: “If I explain it, the devas, humans, and asuras in all the worlds will be astounded, and arrogant monks will certainly go to their downfall.” At that time the Bhagavat again spoke in verse:
Enough, enough! Speak no more!
The Dharma that I have attained
Is excellent and incomprehensible.
Though the arrogant hear it,
They will never accept it.
. . .
Therefore listen carefully and pay close attention! I will now illuminate and explain it.”
When he said this, five thousand monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen in the assembly immediately got up from their seats, bowed to the Buddha, and left. What was the reason for this? Because the roots of error among this group had been deeply planted and they were arrogant, thinking they had attained what they had not attained and had realized what they had not realized. Because of such defects they did not stay. And the Bhagavat remained silent and did not stop them.
Then the Buddha addressed Śāriputra: “My assembly here is free of useless twigs and leaves; only the pure essence remains.
“O Śāriputra! Let the arrogant ones go! Listen carefully and I will explain it to you.”
Then Śāriputra replied: “Indeed, O Bhagavat, I greatly desire to hear it.”
Then the Buddha addressed Śāriputra: “Only very rarely do the Buddha
Tathāgatas teach such a True Dharma as this, as rarely as the uḍumbara flower blooms.
“O Śāriputra! Trust and accept what the Buddha teaches! My words are never false.
“O Śāriputra! The real intention of all the buddhas in adapting their explanations to what is appropriate is difficult to understand. Why is this? Because I have expounded the teachings with innumerable skillful means and various kinds of explanations and illustrations. Yet this Dharma is beyond reason and discernment. Only the buddhas can understand it. Why is this? Because the Buddha Bhagavats appear in this world for one great purpose alone. O Śāriputra! Now I will explain why I said that the Buddha Bhagavats appear in this world for only one great purpose.
There is equal usefullness, Hanzee, in the traditions that glorify intellectualization and mental proliferation, superiority/inferiority, and other forms of feeding the ego. Personally, I find nothing noble or compassionate in arrogance or proselytizing, regardless of tradition. They are, however, good examples of what we are not supposed to be doing.Hanzze wrote:....There is simply no motivation to spread Theravada (without a Bodhisattva motivation) except the save the existing (keeping an tradition and its follower alive). Would a "real" theravada travel to other countries to proclaim "his" dhamma?....
....Those people protecting the simple teachings given by the Budhha making it sure that many can make there vehicle (raft) depending on there conciseness and the environment they live. I guess it is good to speed over those teachings....
Hi Hoo,Hoo wrote:With respect to all, I ask if you think the comments made in this thread were of any use or help to anyone but the ones who spoke them?
And is anyone doing that in this thread?Hoo wrote: Personally, I find nothing noble or compassionate in arrogance or proselytizing, regardless of tradition.
If this is idle chatter, you are adding to it why?I no longer spend much time on discussions such as this thread. They simply don't yield anything but idle chatter, 99% of the time.
That depends, but my above long msg is drawn from the latest scholarship by the best and the brightest. It is worth looking at the history of Buddhist ideas as it plays itself out, which helps put things into a broader context.Never believe what one tradition says about another - they don't know enough to be authorities.
Really. Goodness. The Buddhist history of ideas is full incidences of one group trying to show the inadequacy of another. It seems to be the Buddhist thing to do. It is a Buddhist sport, but at least Buddhists did very little bodily harm to those with whom they disagreed.Never try to concinve another team that they are wrong and you are right - ain't the Buddhist thing to do
Why would anyone want to believe that? I welcome the diversity, but that does not mean I welcome supersessionism or procrusteanism without comment.Believe that the Theravada will all one day become Mahayana if you wish - just be prepared to believe that the Mahayana will not be equipped to achieve their great goals without becoming Theravada first
Another very silly argument. If this were true and if everyone followed this then we would have no knowledge of Buddhism of any sort.Just be aware that what you believe and espouse makes not one iota's difference to anything.
And you have done so in this thread?But beware of the 8 worldly concerns when you are espousing what you believe.
Goodness, an appeal to age.Hoo - who was living and practicing compassion before some of you had even read your first tradition-propoganda
And who are you serving?Comments are welcome, just be aware of who you are serving in making them
Myself, and you, Tilt, of course My background is philosophy, psychology and related research. I see less than thorough positions taken and presented as 'truth,' and my disagreement helps me to not laugh at times, not feel quite sad at others. I serve you, too, Tilt, in that I give you opportunities to practice kindness and restraint I know that you and I do not agree at times, rare though they are. Your questions to me were most kind and to the pointAnd who are you serving?
Hoo wrote:Myself, and you, Tilt, of course My background is philosophy, psychology and related research. I see less than thorough positions taken and presented as 'truth,' and my disagreement helps me to not laugh at times, not feel quite sad at others. I serve you, too, Tilt, in that I give you opportunities to practice kindness and restraint I know that you and I do not agree at times, rare though they are. Your questions to me were most kind and to the pointAnd who are you serving?
And still, the problem remains that 'us and them' is demonstrable in threads like this one, though this one has less than many I've read. But once again, no one group has the lock on interpreting history or is the measure of what is factual, correct and what is not.
The hoise that I'm contributing is as noisy as any before it, and should thus be no more or less welcome. The particular noise is that these discussions differ little, IMHO, from the crowd noise at sporting events. To those who believe that they are gaining historical benefit, I rejoice if that is so. I'm thankful for that.
Hoo - going back to just not reading threads like this one (hold the applause, please) It's good restraint practice for me, too - chuckle.
I suspect you are making a huge logical leap here. I'm sure that what you describe happens, because I occasionally have seen it expressed on some Internet forums. However, I have not encountered it in real-life practitioners, or in the majority of Internet contacts.Wizard in the Forest wrote:I've never seen the Bodhisattva ideal used to enhance practice. I've seen it used to say "I don't need to practice, I'm already a buddha with Buddha nature, so what I've got to do is save all the other non-Buddhas I see in front of me". That's not enhancing practice last I have seen. It's only seeing the dirt in someone else's eye when you're caked in mud.