Do you also read Mahayana Sutras?

[bodom]

Ajahn Chah was famous for his Koan like teachings.

Have you ever seen flowing water?... Have you ever seen still water?... If your mind is peaceful it will be just like still, flowing water. Have you ever seen still, flowing water? There! You've only ever seen flowing water and still water, haven't you? But you've never seen still, flowing water. Right there, right where your thinking cannot take you, even though it's peaceful you can develop wisdom. Your mind will be like flowing water, and yet it's still. It's almost as if it were still, and yet it's flowing. So I call it ''still, flowing water.'' Wisdom can arise here.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Still_Flowing_Water1.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bodom]

More Ajahn Chah Koans:

I've already spoken of this, but some of you may be interested to hear it again: if you practice consistently and consider things thoroughly, you will eventually reach this point . . . At first you hurry to go forward, hurry to come back, and hurry to stop. You continue to practice like this until you reach the point where it seems that going forward is not it, coming back is not it, and stopping is not it either! It's finished. This is the finish. Don't expect anything more than this, it finishes right here. Khinasavo- one who is completed. He doesn't go forward, doesn't retreat and doesn't stop. There's no stopping, no going forward and no coming back. It's finished. Consider this, realize it clearly in your own mind. Right there you will find that there is really nothing at all.

http://www.purifymind.com/AjahnChah11.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bodom]

A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah, "How old are you? Do you live here all year round?" "I live nowhere," he replied. "There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."

http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/en/features/ ... nchah.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[alan]

Thanks bodom. The first two statements were metaphors. The last one was an irritated response to a dumb question. I'd do the same.
No Koans there. Similar in appearance but different in substance.

[bodom]

Thanks bodom. The first two statements were metaphors. The last one was an irritated response to a dumb question. I'd do the same.
No Koans there. Similar in appearance but different in substance.

In case you missed it the first time around:

bodom wrote

Ajahn Chah was famous for his Koan "like" teachings.

[alan]

Koan-like is one thing. Koan is another. Since this thread seems to be about differences between the sects, I'd say it is a valid to point that out.

[bodom]

Since this thread seems to be about differences between the sects,

Is it? I thought it was about Theravadin practitioners who also read Mahayana sutras? Perhaps your looking for this thread:

Mahayana better than Theravada?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 07&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kirk5a]

Ajahn Chah took one look at me, saw that I'd been in a deep meditation, and he said, "Brahmavamso, Why?"

I was completely surprised and confused, and replied, "I don't know".

Afterwards he said, "If anyone ever asks you that question again, the correct answer is, 'There is nothing'".

"Do you understand?" Ajahn Chah asked me.

"Yes," I said.

"No you don't," he replied.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... Things.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[alan]

My patience for this kind is stuff is about at an end.

[Nyana]

I've seen that video before and on a second look it is still unsatisfying. Maybe if I ever approach Ajahn Brahm's level I'll understand, but my unenlightened mind sees vast differences between the sects. Differences that are not only impossible to ignore but that really matter in terms of practice.

Hi Alan & all,

The six perfections taught in the bodhisattvayāna are all contained in the standard threefold higher training (i.e. adhiśīlaśikṣā, adhicittaśikṣā, adhiprajñāśikṣā). The only difference is that bodhisattvas have a different goal than śrāvakas. And to this end a bodhisattva must be thoroughly knowledgeable of both the śrāvakayāna and the bodhisattvayāna. This is the knowledge of all paths (mārgākārajñatā).

A comprehensive reading will reveal fundamental differences.

A comprehensive reading will also reveal fundamental commonalities in terms of practice. For example:

• Boucher, Daniel. Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahāyāna: A Study and Translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā-sūtra. University of Hawaii Press, 2008.
  
  Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). University of Hawaii Press, 2005.
  
  Ray, Reginald A. Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations. Oxford University Press, 1999.
  
  Silk, Jonathan. The Origin and Early History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism With A Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials. Doctoral Dissertation, 1994.

Since this thread seems to be about differences between the sects, I'd say it is a valid to point that out.

The Mahāyāna isn't a sect. It's a vehicle for those to aspire to awaken to buddhahood. Thus there are Theravāda bodhisattvas and Mūlasarvāstivāda bodhisattvas and Dharmaguptaka bodhisattvas.

All the best,

Geoff

[tiltbillings]

The six perfections taught in the bodhisattvayāna . . . The Mahāyāna isn't a sect. It's a vehicle for those to aspire to awaken to buddhahood. Thus there are Theravāda bodhisattvas and Mūlasarvāstivāda bodhisattvas and Dharmaguptaka bodhisattvas.

And it probably should go without saying, but probably should be said, the above is a Mahayana framework that has no real bearing upon the Theravada.

[Nyana]

The six perfections taught in the bodhisattvayāna . . . The Mahāyāna isn't a sect. It's a vehicle for those to aspire to awaken to buddhahood. Thus there are Theravāda bodhisattvas and Mūlasarvāstivāda bodhisattvas and Dharmaguptaka bodhisattvas.

And it probably should go without saying, but probably should be said, the above is a Mahayana framework that has no real bearing upon the Theravada.

The Theravāda also teaches the bodhisattvayāna. Thus a Theravāda bodhisattva wouldn't necessarily need to learn Mahāyāna sūtras, but it certainly wouldn't hurt since the bodhisattvayāna isn't explicitly taught in the Pāḷi Canon. (Hence Ven. Dhammapāla's use of the Bodhisattvabhūmi from the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra when composing his commentary on the Pāramī-s for Theravāda practitioners who wish to engage in the perfections and practice the mahābodhiyāna of bodhisattas.)

[alan]

You are assuming your conclusion, which in itself is intellectually dishonest, and the rest what you have said is smoke, designed to obscure. I don't buy it.

[tiltbillings]

The six perfections taught in the bodhisattvayāna . . . The Mahāyāna isn't a sect. It's a vehicle for those to aspire to awaken to buddhahood. Thus there are Theravāda bodhisattvas and Mūlasarvāstivāda bodhisattvas and Dharmaguptaka bodhisattvas.

And it probably should go without saying, but probably should be said, the above is a Mahayana framework that has no real bearing upon the Theravada.

The Theravāda also teaches the bodhisattvayāna. Thus a Theravāda bodhisattva wouldn't necessarily need to learn Mahāyāna sūtras, but it certainly wouldn't hurt since the bodhisattvayāna isn't explicitly taught in the Pāḷi Canon. (Hence Ven. Dhammapāla's use of the Bodhisattvabhūmi from the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra when composing his commentary on the Pāramī-s for Theravāda practitioners who wish to engage in the perfections and practice the mahābodhiyāna of bodhisattas.)

The Theravāda teaches a bodhisattva path, but there is no need to put it into a Mahayana framework. Also, the Buddha did not teach it. As for the Mahayana sutras, naw.

[Nyana]

You are assuming your conclusion

What conclusion would that be?

which in itself is intellectually dishonest

How so?

and the rest what you have said is smoke, designed to obscure.

Not a very stimulating or informed reply.

All the best,

Geoff