The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Goofaholix »

jcsuperstar wrote:i'm not sure why anyone would say that, as all dhammas are anatta. however it is my own view that knowing whether or not the fridge really exists or not really has nothing to do with my liberation
Unless you are seeking liberation from hunger.

As you say it's what is relevant to liberation that is important, understanding what I take to be me and mine is not self and empty of a separate thingness is what is important. Understanding that the dog and the carrot and the fridge are also not self and empty of a separate thingness goes without saying and I'd have thought was obvious to most people, well maybe not so much in the case of the dog.

I've read posts where people have said that Theravada teaches the emptiness of self only whereas Mahayana teaches the emptiness of phenomena also and they've never made sense to me.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Ben »

Hi Shonin,
Shonin wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Shonin wrote:What does Theravada say about "the illusion of all phenomenal existence" ?
One thing that is clearly said is the all dhammas are empty of any sort of self existing thingness.
Well, that's what I thought. And this is what Mahayana teaches too. Ideas about it being illusion are not universally regarded as useful in Mahayana.

I recall debating with at least one Theravadin who insisted that Anatta did not mean "all dhammas are empty of any sort of self existing thingness" (and thus that it meant the same as Sunyata as I was arguing) and that rather it only implied that 'I' don't have self-existing thingness, that no phenomena are me, mine etc. Yet it seems hard to see the notion that I don't have self-existing thingness, while my dog and the carrot in the fridge do, as a coherent philosophy.
My experience has been that not everyone has the same understanding. Someone misunderstands something and the ideas based on that misunderstanding, if left unchallenged, becomes the basis of what that person thinks is the theravadin pov.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Shonin »

Ben wrote:My experience has been that not everyone has the same understanding. Someone misunderstands something and the ideas based on that misunderstanding, if left unchallenged, becomes the basis of what that person thinks is the theravadin pov.
So, the interpretation that 'all phenomena lack essential thing-ness' is more-or-less orthodox Theravada? It's interesting that this common point of contention between Mahayana and Theravada seems to be based on misunderstanding - since they both teach the same thing here albeit emphasising different terminology.
Last edited by Shonin on Tue May 25, 2010 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Dan74 »

PeterB wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Dexing wrote:. . .Anyway, hope this helps clarify the position.
What it does clarify is that Mahayana really does not understand or address the Theravada. What you have presented is the usual Mahayana polemic against the supposed hinayana, a straw man construct.
Actually I finnd Dexing's post refreshingly honest. What he is saying indeed shows all the triumphalism and assumption of superiority that is prevelant in the Mahayana. even if it is not universal.
The reality though is if one spends time in Mahayana circles that type of view is far more typical than the views of a small proportion of those Mahayana students who join a Theravada Forum. That is the real thing in its natural state. It is absolutely the default view in the Vajrayana, as it is in some Zen circles.
I can't imagine any teacher in any tradition spending more than two seconds of the introductory talk on this subject (but I may be wrong!).

Whether or not the teacher believes that their tradition is superior to the Sravakas and those of the Lesser Vehicle, it just doesn't get anyone very far along this superior tradition if one only keeps dwelling on this supposed superiority.

That's why regardless of whether these views are held (and I am sure they are held by some Mahayana teachers) I don't see how they could be important either to the teacher or to Mr and Mrs Average who have just come for their induction and totally oblivious to the fact that they had wandered into the Greater Vehicle.

I don't think the said teacher would have many people coming back if he (or she) kept carrying on how superior they tradition was.
_/|\_
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by PeterB »

Shonin wrote:
Ben wrote:My experience has been that not everyone has the same understanding. Someone misunderstands something and the ideas based on that misunderstanding, if left unchallenged, becomes the basis of what that person thinks is the theravadin pov.
So, the interpretation that 'all phenomena lack essential thing-ness' is more-or-less orthodox Theravada? It's interesting that this common point of contention between Mahayana and Theravada seems to be based on misunderstanding - since they both teach the same thing here albeit emphasising different terminology.
I think that this only covers part of the issue.
The real core issue comes from the extrapolations around " Buddhadhatu.."
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Shonin »

PeterB wrote:I think that this only covers part of the issue.
The real core issue comes from the extrapolations around " Buddhadhatu.."
I acknowledge that there may be extrapolations in that direction in some traditions as well, but this wasn't this point of contention I was referring to.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by PeterB »

I can't imagine any teacher in any tradition spending more than two seconds of the introductory talk on this subject (but I may be wrong!).

Whether or not the teacher believes that their tradition is superior to the Sravakas and those of the Lesser Vehicle, it just doesn't get anyone very far along this superior tradition if one only keeps dwelling on this supposed superiority.

That's why regardless of whether these views are held (and I am sure they are held by some Mahayana teachers) I don't see how they could be important either to the teacher or to Mr and Mrs Average who have just come for their induction and totally oblivious to the fact that they had wandered into the Greater Vehicle.

I don't think the said teacher would have many people coming back if he (or she) kept carrying on how superior they tradition was.
You can imagine what you like Dan74.
I was part of a Vajrayana sangha for rather more than 20 years and direct or indirect references to the Hinayana which was equated with the Theravada ,were a common theme , usually to distingush that approach from The View, which was the Tantric, non dual view.
So it would take the form of "this is the Hinayana ( or Theravada, the terms were used interchangably ) ) view, but the Vajrayana view is ..."
You can either accept my account as being a straight forward one, or you can reject it and decide that I must have my own reasons for distorting my experience..take your pick. I truly dont care one way or the other.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

Dan74 wrote: I can't imagine any teacher in any tradition spending more than two seconds of the introductory talk on this subject (but I may be wrong!).
Spoken like someone who really has not spent anytime with hardcore Tibetan Buddhist traditionalists.
Whether or not the teacher believes that their tradition is superior to the Sravakas and those of the Lesser Vehicle, it just doesn't get anyone very far along this superior tradition if one only keeps dwelling on this supposed superiority.

That's why regardless of whether these views are held (and I am sure they are held by some Mahayana teachers) I don't see how they could be important either to the teacher or to Mr and Mrs Average who have just come for their induction and totally oblivious to the fact that they had wandered into the Greater Vehicle.
It is part of the path structure and having right view about the path structure is necessary for right practice and right realization.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by PeterB »

Shonin wrote:
PeterB wrote:I think that this only covers part of the issue.
The real core issue comes from the extrapolations around " Buddhadhatu.."
I acknowledge that there may be extrapolations in that direction in some traditions as well, but this wasn't this point of contention I was referring to.
Certainly we are free to leave that elephant in the corner of the room unpoked.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote:
Shonin wrote:
Ben wrote:My experience has been that not everyone has the same understanding. Someone misunderstands something and the ideas based on that misunderstanding, if left unchallenged, becomes the basis of what that person thinks is the theravadin pov.
So, the interpretation that 'all phenomena lack essential thing-ness' is more-or-less orthodox Theravada? It's interesting that this common point of contention between Mahayana and Theravada seems to be based on misunderstanding - since they both teach the same thing here albeit emphasising different terminology.
I think that this only covers part of the issue.
The real core issue comes from the extrapolations around " Buddhadhatu.."
Would you be kind enough to expand on this, as to what you mean by this, please?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by PeterB »

Briefly .we can agree a form of words that says something along the lines of " all phenomena lack essential thingness "
But it counts for little if one party in the agreement then adds " except Buddhanature".
You see I think the Buddha meant it. It was totally radical. He did not offer a half way house. It was frighteningly radical.
Later developments could be seen as a failure of nerve in the face of such an uncompromising and unflinching view.
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Shonin »

PeterB wrote:Certainly we are free to leave that elephant in the corner of the room unpoked.
Yes, although I'll add that I understand it may feel like an elephant in the room for you, with your background, but for me it's a non-issue. Such metaphysical ideas have never played a role in my Zen practice. There are aspects I like about Tibetan Buddhism - the emphasis on compassion for example, but there are aspects that personally I wouldn't touch with a ten foot Vajra.
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Shonin »

PeterB wrote:But it counts for little if one party in the agreement then adds " except Buddhanature".
Are you sure this is the orthodox Tibetan position. I thought they were influenced by Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna made the exact opposite point repeatedly.

I suspect we're going off-road a little here.
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by PeterB »

Tell me more about the "exact opposite point " Shonin.
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Post by Shonin »

It was clumsy to say he holds the opposite view. To say that something ultimately exists or is non-existent is to see it as non-empty, ie. that it is inherently like so or inherently non-existent. Nagarjuna avoids holding any such ontological views about either phenomena or Buddha/Nirvana. The emptiness of Buddha/Nirvana is also expressed as it's non-separation from phenomena/samsara (if it was non-empty it would be permanent and absolutely separate). Here are some snippets.
22:16
What is the nature of the thus-gone one (the Buddha), that is the nature of the world.
The thus-gone one is devoid of nature; the world is devoid of nature...

24:18, 24:19
Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation, / Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen / Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing / Does not exist...

That image of nirvana in which the Buddha (Tathagata) either "is" or "is not"—
By him who so imagines nirvana the notion is crudely grasped...

The self-existence of the "fully completed" being is the self-existence of the world.
The "fully completed" being is without self-existence and the world is without self-existence...

And if nirvana is an existing thing, nirvana would be a constructed product (samskrta),
Since never ever has an existing thing been found to be a non-constructed-product (asamskrta).
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

This also seems pertinent:
If the most commonly accepted attribution of texts (that of Christian Lindtner) holds, then he was clearly a Māhayānist, but his philosophy holds assiduously to the non-Mahāyāna canon, and while he does make explicit references to Mahāyāna texts, he is always careful to stay within the parameters set out by the canon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna
Locked