The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Paññāsikhara » Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:05 am

Brizzy wrote:
Obscure? Well yes. They do not appear in the nikayas - the most complete source of the buddhas teachings. You have provided chinese references, which is not my forte. You refer to them as sutras, again this will immediately set my spider senses tingling. As for "ten or more" this is an off the cuff remark ( I could have said 20 or 30 ) my point was the Buddhas teachings are generally reiterated again & again & again & again...............................



Moreover, to only accept those doctrinal elements which "appear again & again & again", rather than find those portions which are essentially the teachings of the "real, historical Buddha", it may be quite the opposite:

In the process of transforming those teachings into a canon to be recited, the appearance of stereotyped pericopes (standard, repeated passages) became more and more important. Moreover, it is just these very pericopes which are the most inconsistent across textual traditions. This is because, due to their stereotypical and oft-repeated nature, they could easily pop in here and there, without anybody noticing their otherwise incorrect protrusion. The texts are well known for the fact that as their compilation progressed, the addition of stylized elements, which appear "again and again" became more prevalent.

This is just one reason why texts and passages are not "counted", but are "weighed". It is not always such a sound criteria.

One criteria that actual experts in textual analysis do use, however, is "lectio difficile preferenda", "the difficult reading is to be preferred". This is because whereas during the process of oral and written transmission, it is very easy for passages to gradually tend towards the most common, the fact that an otherwise uncommon or unusual passage is retained is usually considered greater testament to its authenticity.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Brizzy » Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:41 am

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Brizzy wrote:
Obscure? Well yes. They do not appear in the nikayas - the most complete source of the buddhas teachings. You have provided chinese references, which is not my forte. You refer to them as sutras, again this will immediately set my spider senses tingling. As for "ten or more" this is an off the cuff remark ( I could have said 20 or 30 ) my point was the Buddhas teachings are generally reiterated again & again & again & again...............................



Moreover, to only accept those doctrinal elements which "appear again & again & again", rather than find those portions which are essentially the teachings of the "real, historical Buddha", it may be quite the opposite:

In the process of transforming those teachings into a canon to be recited, the appearance of stereotyped pericopes (standard, repeated passages) became more and more important. Moreover, it is just these very pericopes which are the most inconsistent across textual traditions. This is because, due to their stereotypical and oft-repeated nature, they could easily pop in here and there, without anybody noticing their otherwise incorrect protrusion. The texts are well known for the fact that as their compilation progressed, the addition of stylized elements, which appear "again and again" became more prevalent.

This is just one reason why texts and passages are not "counted", but are "weighed". It is not always such a sound criteria.

One criteria that actual experts in textual analysis do use, however, is "lectio difficile preferenda", "the difficult reading is to be preferred". This is because whereas during the process of oral and written transmission, it is very easy for passages to gradually tend towards the most common, the fact that an otherwise uncommon or unusual passage is retained is usually considered greater testament to its authenticity.


If the Buddha said "his Dhamma leads to peace" only once in the whole of the suttas, I would take this as his word. Why? because it has the same "taste" to me as the rest of his teachings, which he proclaimed again & again...............
It is through my own personal experiences and understanding that I perceive that "taste", how could it be otherwise? If you have a different understanding/experience/perception that is your understanding of the "taste" of the suttas. People seem reluctant to actually question what is Dhamma and what it is not, I feel that this is a shame and inhibits discussion and understanding. It is entirely up to each individual to discover their own take on the Dhamma, but I always feel sad that the Nikayas seem more of a nuisance to some peoples take on Buddhadhamma and they would much rather prefer them not to take precedence.

:smile:
Brizzy
 

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby dhamma follower » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:39 am

Dexing wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:
As long as one is satisfied with the cessation of suffering associated with attachment to a personal self, Nirvana, as in the Arhat, then Bodhicitta cannot be developed as one rests in Nirvana


This is obviously not true. Nirvana is not the personal self of anyone. Also one can not rest in Nirvana, because there's no one there. And how there can be attachment to Nirvana, since it's the ending of ignorance and attachment ? attachment to it as a concept, may be, but not as an experience of ultimate reality.


Who said Nirvana is a personal self? I mean the "cessation of suffering associated with attachment to a personal self" is an Arhat's Nirvana.

I also didn't say attachment to Nirvana, but simply seeing no necessity for continuing. An Arhat has completed the task... of an Arhat. That is what I mean by resting in Nirvana- meaning not continuing on the Bodhisattva path. Talk about "one cannot rest in Nirvana, because there's no one there" is redundant and unnecessary. Don't correct me for using "I" in this reply.

Do you mean there's a higher reality than Nirvana ? Or two different kinds of Nirvana ?
Then Nirvana (whether arahant's or boddhisatva's ) would not be the ultimate reality.


Nirvana is simply the cessation of suffering associated with attachment to a personal self. From a Mahayana perspective it is not seeing the true face of reality. It is not anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.

:namaste:


Dear Dexing,

Ok, some language misunderstandings !

However, you have not yet shown the relationship between this "higher" wisdom and bodhicitta. How does it happen exactly ?

And also, how this higher wisdom come about ? From intellectual analysis ? From insight ? How ? Is Nirvana a prequisite for this to happen ? If one has not attained Nirvana before having this insight, how can one know for sure that this is higher reality than Nirvana ?

D.F
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby beeblebrox » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:14 pm

Dexing wrote:That being Theravada holds the 3 marks of existence of impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. While Mahayana holds that such things marked as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self by schools such as Theravada are not even real from the start.


You don't think that this kind of statement is redundant? :tongue:

Why should someone worry about whether a phenomena is actually an illusion or not (based on what you said in here)... when this phenomena already can be observed to be something that is always changing; never perfectly established; and not in the least, lacking any kind of identity (real or otherwise)?

That would be the correct Theravadin's viewpoint... and I think probably ought to be Mahayanist's also. (If his own teachings were understood, I suspect.)
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Goofaholix » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:38 pm

beeblebrox wrote:You don't think that this kind of statement is redundant? :tongue:

Why should someone worry about whether a phenomena is actually an illusion or not (based on what you said in here)... when this phenomena already can be observed to be something that is always changing; never perfectly established; and not in the least, lacking any kind of identity (real or otherwise)?


I agree.

In a world where reality is (considered to be) an illusion, then illusion is reality. Either way you have a reality.
"Proper effort is not the effort to make something particular happen. It is the effort to be aware and awake each moment." - Ajahn Chah
"When we see beyond self, we no longer cling to happiness. When we stop clinging, we can begin to be happy." - Ajahn Chah
"Know and watch your heart. It’s pure but emotions come to colour it." — Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Goofaholix
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:42 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
Dexing wrote:That being Theravada holds the 3 marks of existence of impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. While Mahayana holds that such things marked as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self by schools such as Theravada are not even real from the start.


You don't think that this kind of statement is redundant? :tongue:

Why should someone worry about whether a phenomena is actually an illusion or not (based on what you said in here)... when this phenomena already can be observed to be something that is always changing; never perfectly established; and not in the least, lacking any kind of identity (real or otherwise)?

That would be the correct Theravadin's viewpoint... and I think probably ought to be Mahayanist's also. (If his own teachings were understood, I suspect.)
Our Mahayana evangelist uses word the words real and exists and illusion as clubs against the Theravada without defining them, which rhetorical trick; that way he he can keep shifting the meaning as Theravadin respond to him. He needs to defines these terms very carefully, which has yet to do.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19892
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Dexing » Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:58 am

I don't have as much time on here as some of you do throughout the week. But I will reply quickly to this question, which should answer most previous questions.

beeblebrox wrote:
Dexing wrote:That being Theravada holds the 3 marks of existence of impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. While Mahayana holds that such things marked as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self by schools such as Theravada are not even real from the start.


You don't think that this kind of statement is redundant? :tongue:

Why should someone worry about whether a phenomena is actually an illusion or not (based on what you said in here)... when this phenomena already can be observed to be something that is always changing; never perfectly established; and not in the least, lacking any kind of identity (real or otherwise)?

That would be the correct Theravadin's viewpoint... and I think probably ought to be Mahayanist's also. (If his own teachings were understood, I suspect.)


When the Five Aggregates for example are observed by their three marks, as in Theravada doctrine, this type of practice will lead to disenchantment and detachment, which will in turn lead to liberation from suffering. That is the goal of the practice- to end suffering, attain Nibbana, Arahantship. (That's of course super simplified, but you get my point.)

However, as long as one does not break through the illusion of the Five Aggregates altogether, one cannot see the true face of reality. One is still under the impression that there are such aggregates albeit impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. Although one no longer identifies with the Five Aggregates one cannot perceive their true nature while the Aggregates are taken for granted.

So the point of breaking through the illusion of the Five Aggregates and all phenomenal existence becomes extremely pivotal in the practice of the Bodhisattva path as taught in Mahayana traditions. It is the point of every Mahayana Sutra. It is the wisdom of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which allows them to continually enter Samsara to save all beings. Only one who has seen reality can do that effectively.

So you see how Bodhicitta, the Bodhisattva path, and the attainment of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, full Buddhahood is directly related to seeing through the illusion of phenomenal existence, to unveil reality, the true nature, in order to most effectively fulfill the vows of a Bodhisattva to liberate all sentient beings.

:namaste:
Dexing
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Dexing » Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:05 am

tiltbillings wrote:Our Mahayana evangelist uses word the words real and exists and illusion as clubs against the Theravada without defining them, which rhetorical trick; that way he he can keep shifting the meaning as Theravadin respond to him. He needs to defines these terms very carefully, which has yet to do.


I'm only discussing the Mahayana Bodhisattva position for what it is. Taking it offensively against Theravada is your personal decision. Remember you started that when you put the word Hinayana in my mouth and began yelling at me for how nasty of a word it is, when I never even used it.

But regardless, my use of the terms are literal. Real and exists mean just what they say. Illusion means unreal and non-existent, although seeming so.

:namaste:
Dexing
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:14 am

Dexing wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Our Mahayana evangelist uses word the words real and exists and illusion as clubs against the Theravada without defining them, which rhetorical trick; that way he he can keep shifting the meaning as Theravadin respond to him. He needs to defines these terms very carefully, which has yet to do.


I'm only discussing the Mahayana Bodhisattva position for what it is. Taking it offensively against Theravada is your personal decision. Remember you started that when you put the word Hinayana in my mouth and began yelling at me for how nasty of a word it is, when I never even used it.
You are the one continually referring to the Theravada as "Small Vehicle" which is nothing more than a Chinese euphemism for hinayana. Does not matter what kimono you put on it, its lineage is clear. Your claim is a bit disingenuous.

But regardless, my use of the terms are literal. Real and exists mean just what they say. Illusion means unreal and non-existent, although seeming so.
Not at all clear what you mean here.

And here, Dexing, is another one you have avoided:

tiltbillings wrote:
Dexing wrote:Now my point here is that the Bodhisattva path is not found within Theravada because it teaches a completely different view of phenomenal existence altogether- that of; "Three Realms Only Mind".

Perhaps if agreeable we can move forward from there.
And what about the Mahayanists who do not agree with your interpretation, such as, oh, say someone such as the Dalai Lama? By your argument, the bodhisattva path is not found in the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, or any of the Indian lineage of Madhyamikas, it would seem.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19892
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Shonin » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:00 am

I don't think I've come across a Mahayana who took the common beginner's misunderstanding of Sunyata as literal nothingness and ran with it for so far, with so much apparent articulateness and in spite of so much counter-argument.

Apart from anything else, it's a self-defeating argument. If we say 'everything is an illusion' then presumably that 'truth' is itself an illusion and all your ideas about the non-existence of everything, even any experiences that you believe verifies this - thus 'everything is an illusion/non-existent' is false.

And if that truth isn't isn't an illusion then it is already an exception to it's own rule, and again, therefore false.

So, you may want to say, everything is an illusion/nonexistent except that everything is an illusion/nonexistent, which is reality. That is positing an essence, self or fixed nature (of nothingness) to reality which contradicts both Sunyata and Anatta.

There is nothing that could ever verify such beliefs. It is ontological/metaphysical speculation that goes nowhere.

Rather than thinking about some imagined reality behind phenomena it is more relevant surely to investigate the actual nature of phenomena as they appear to us.
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:33 am

Shonin wrote:I don't think I've come across a Mahayana who took the common beginner's misunderstanding of Sunyata as literal nothingness and ran with it for so far, with so much apparent articulateness and in spite of so much counter-argument. . . .
It is so unclear what he means by "illision" and "exists" that is difficult to respond. What it is looking like, if we are to take dexing literally is that we have, not any standard school of Buddhism, rather, we are getting something that looks like Hinduism
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19892
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Paññāsikhara » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:53 am

Scholars must take extreme care never to transfer the conceptions of one “lineage” to another “lineage”, and never to explain Mādhyamika terms by anything else except Mādhyamika definitions, Yogācāra terms by anything else except Yogācāra definitions, and so for the Sarvāstivādins, Theravādins, Mahīśāsakas and all other sects. (Conze 1975: 204)

Conze, E. (1975). Further Buddhist studies : selected essays. Oxford [Eng.]; London: B. Cassirer ; Distributed by Luzac.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Sanghamitta » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:55 am

Hear Hear !!!
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby jcsuperstar » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:56 am

Paññāsikhara wrote:Scholars must take extreme care never to transfer the conceptions of one “lineage” to another “lineage”, and never to explain Mādhyamika terms by anything else except Mādhyamika definitions, Yogācāra terms by anything else except Yogācāra definitions, and so for the Sarvāstivādins, Theravādins, Mahīśāsakas and all other sects. (Conze 1975: 204)

Conze, E. (1975). Further Buddhist studies : selected essays. Oxford [Eng.]; London: B. Cassirer ; Distributed by Luzac.

:goodpost:
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
jcsuperstar
 
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Dexing » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:27 am

tiltbillings wrote:You are the one continually referring to the Theravada as "Small Vehicle" which is nothing more than a Chinese euphemism for hinayana.


I have explained what Small vs Large Vehicle refers to from this tradition. Small because it only deals with the non-existence of personal selfhood within the Five Aggregates. Large because it also deals with the non-existence of the Five Aggregates and phenomena themselves. And looking into Theravada doctrine I find that it is fitting.

So far, neither you nor anyone else, has been able to provide Sutta reference to prove this wrong.

But regardless, my use of the terms are literal. Real and exists mean just what they say. Illusion means unreal and non-existent, although seeming so.
Not at all clear what you mean here.


Try dictionary.com then. No hidden meaning.

And here, Dexing, is another one you have avoided:

tiltbillings wrote:
Dexing wrote:Now my point here is that the Bodhisattva path is not found within Theravada because it teaches a completely different view of phenomenal existence altogether- that of; "Three Realms Only Mind".

Perhaps if agreeable we can move forward from there.
And what about the Mahayanists who do not agree with your interpretation, such as, oh, say someone such as the Dalai Lama? By your argument, the bodhisattva path is not found in the Gelugpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, or any of the Indian lineage of Madhyamikas, it would seem.


I haven't avoid this. My last post addresses it as well. I'm not afraid to share my understanding here, because what I have said is found explicitly across many many Mahayana Sutras. I have already provided references. It is just not accepted in Western culture yet.

:namaste:
Dexing
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby pt1 » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:34 am

Hi Dexing and all,
Dexing wrote:When the Five Aggregates for example are observed by their three marks, as in Theravada doctrine, this type of practice will lead to disenchantment and detachment, which will in turn lead to liberation from suffering. That is the goal of the practice- to end suffering, attain Nibbana, Arahantship. (That's of course super simplified, but you get my point.)

However, as long as one does not break through the illusion of the Five Aggregates altogether, one cannot see the true face of reality. One is still under the impression that there are such aggregates albeit impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. Although one no longer identifies with the Five Aggregates one cannot perceive their true nature while the Aggregates are taken for granted.

So the point of breaking through the illusion of the Five Aggregates and all phenomenal existence becomes extremely pivotal in the practice of the Bodhisattva path as taught in Mahayana traditions.


Shonin wrote:I don't think I've come across a Mahayana who took the common beginner's misunderstanding of Sunyata as literal nothingness and ran with it for so far, with so much apparent articulateness and in spite of so much counter-argument.

Apart from anything else, it's a self-defeating argument. If we say 'everything is an illusion' then presumably that 'truth' is itself an illusion and all your ideas about the non-existence of everything, even any experiences that you believe verifies this - thus 'everything is an illusion/non-existent' is false.


I don't know how representative of certain Mahayana schools is what Dexing is saying, but I've heard the same argument before on e-sangha and I always found it interesting, though hard to understand.

As I understand it, in Theravada it's said (as per my understanding of the mahavihara commentarial tradition) that during insight - a dhamma is the object of citta at that instance, not a concept (which is considered an illusion). So, that distinction is made that dhammas (aggregates basically) are real (within constraints of the 3 marks and conditioned nature), while concepts are not real. So, insight/wisdom itself is dependent on a dhamma (a real thing) being an object of citta, and on wisdom arising with that same citta and understnading that particular conditioned dhamma as having the 3 marks.

That's why I find it hard to comprehend how can it be said that dhammas (aggregates) are also illusory, which is what Dexing seems to be saying that a bodhisattva realizes. In other words, if concepts are an illusion, and dhammas (aggregates) are also an illusion - so they don't exist - then what is the object of citta during a moment when insight/wisdom occurs for a bodhisattva? I mean, if all he sees are illusions, then how can wisdom arise for him in the first place? I.e. by theravadin standards (I understand they might not apply in case of mahayana, but that's the only reference point I have at the moment), I just can't make sense of the statement.

What's insight in mahayana based on - what's the object of citta during a moment of insight when wisdom arises? Of course, I'd appreciate an answer according to any particular mahayana school, I just used the term "mahayana" in general, since I don't know the distinctions between different traditions. Thanks.

Best wishes
pt1
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Dexing » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:47 am

Shonin wrote:I don't think I've come across a Mahayana who took the common beginner's misunderstanding of Sunyata as literal nothingness and ran with it for so far, with so much apparent articulateness and in spite of so much counter-argument.


There has been no solid scriptural counter argument. It is also written explicitly in Mahayana Sutras, and taught in very minute detail in the Chinese lecture series from Buddhist University classrooms that I linked to. Word for word. The thing is Westerners run from it as soon as they hear it because it sounds like Nihilism and is not what the Buddha taught. Spending more time with the teaching it becomes obvious, and all the misunderstandings and questions find obvious answers as well. It mostly has to do with the Eight Consciousnesses which is not taught in Theravada to my knowledge, so it's extremely difficult to follow without that sort of background.

Apart from anything else, it's a self-defeating argument. If we say 'everything is an illusion' then presumably that 'truth' is itself an illusion and all your ideas about the non-existence of everything, even any experiences that you believe verifies this - thus 'everything is an illusion/non-existent' is false.


The point is anything we can know, all phenomena, through our consciousness is a subjective object of consciousness and unreal, coming from seeds ripening in the Eighth Consciousness. Therefore since the object (perceived) is illusory and unreal, there can be no subject (perceiver- first 6/7 consciousnesses). In fact they are both coming from seeds of grasping planted since time without beginning in the Eighth Consciousness.

However, these Eight Consciousness can be transformed into their original state of Wisdom of a Buddha, which is of four types. This is the real dependent origination. Dependent Origination as taught in Theravada is based on illusory objects created within the first consciousness- eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind, etc.. It is taught to loosen our grasping to them. But Mahayana emptiness is to see that they are unreal altogether, not just dynamically existing with the 3 marks.

To really make sense of this would take a lot more explanation. But it's all right there in your Mahayana Sutras.

The relevance is as I described in my previous post about the Bodhisattva path, breaking illusion, seeing true nature, effectively functioning to save all beings by continually entering Samsara without confusion.

:namaste:
Dexing
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:34 am

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby Hoo » Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:58 pm

Hi Dexing,

....To really make sense of this would take a lot more explanation. But it's all right there in your Mahayana Sutras.....


The Chan that I'm exposed to seem much more willing to explore every aspect of Buddhist belief and practice. Mine is limited exposure, to be sure, but I was privileged to join a Mahayana Buddhist Study Group at a Chan monastery - studying a book by Bikkhu Nanamoli (Theravada). It wasn't to argue against it, it was to learn from it, gain further illumination of Mahayana practice by examining the Pali Canon as presented by the Bikkhu.

It is with kindness that I offer this observation, not all the Mahayana I've encountered elsewhere were so willing. They seem to have arrived at a position of faith in their particular belief and they halt there for a while. I wonder if Dharma Wheel is a better place to continually present the Mahayana Suttras as explanations of positions, especially on the ideal in Theravada.

Here on Dhamma Wheel I appreciate references to the Suttas, too, or at least questions to where concepts can be found in the Suttas so others can point them out.

Not trying to intefere, just more interested in the bodhisatva ideal in Theravada than in repeated references to what it means in Mahayana.
Hoo
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby PeterB » Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:09 pm

PeterB wrote:Clearly Bhante I am unfamiliar with living Theravada tradition.


Or possibly I should have made it clear that what I was actually adressing is what actually happened in this thread..which is that it became The Mahayana Bodhisattva Ideal In The Theravada...a perusal of the thread will i think bear this out.


I agree Hoo with your final para. and it is in line with the above point I made back on the 26/5.
PeterB
 
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada

Postby dhamma follower » Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:32 pm

That's why I find it hard to comprehend how can it be said that dhammas (aggregates) are also illusory, which is what Dexing seems to be saying that a bodhisattva realizes. In other words, if concepts are an illusion, and dhammas (aggregates) are also an illusion - so they don't exist - then what is the object of citta during a moment when insight/wisdom occurs for a bodhisattva? I mean, if all he sees are illusions, then how can wisdom arise for him in the first place? I.e. by theravadin standards (I understand they might not apply in case of mahayana, but that's the only reference point I have at the moment), I just can't make sense of the statement.

What's insight in mahayana based on - what's the object of citta during a moment of insight when wisdom arises? Of course, I'd appreciate an answer according to any particular mahayana school, I just used the term "mahayana" in general, since I don't know the distinctions between different traditions. Thanks


Very well put question ! I'd like it to be addressed as well !
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nicolas and 8 guests