It's a Mahābodhiyāna framework.tiltbillings wrote:The Theravāda a teaches the bodhisattva path, but there is no need to put it into a Mahayana framework.
There is really no homogeneous "Mahāyāna."
It's a Mahābodhiyāna framework.tiltbillings wrote:The Theravāda a teaches the bodhisattva path, but there is no need to put it into a Mahayana framework.
I think you left out an important word: 'alleged'.Ñāṇa wrote:(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.)tiltbillings wrote: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.Ñāṇa wrote: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.
The Theravada "framework" is not the same as the much later systematized frameworks developed by the Mahayanists, just as the Theravadin Buddha is not the same as the Buddha in much of the Mahayana, not to mention the Theravadin arahant compared with the unfortunate Mahayana arhat stuck in a make believe nirvanaÑāṇa wrote:It's a Mahābodhiyāna framework.tiltbillings wrote:The Theravāda teaches a bodhisattva path, but there is no need to put it into a Mahayana framework.
There certainly is not.There is really no homogeneous "Mahāyāna."
Okay then, Dhammapāla's commentary on the four shackles to giving, and the accomplishments resulting from practicing the pāramī-s, are coincidentally also found in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra.Virgo wrote:I think you left out an important word: 'alleged'.Ñāṇa wrote:(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.)
You should really read the Lotus Sutra. It is far more than a matter of emphasis. Did you know that the Buddha really, truly got himself enlightened ages ago. The Buddha that we think of as the Buddha is naught more than a docetic emanation of that Buddha.m0rl0ck wrote:alan wrote: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.
So far i have found most of the mahayana in the suttas, it seems more a matter of emphasis to me.
Impressive. Integrity. That is rare these days.Ñāṇa wrote:Okay then, Dhammapāla's commentary on the four shackles to giving, and the accomplishments resulting from practicing the pāramī-s, are coincidentally also found in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra.Virgo wrote:I think you left out an important word: 'alleged'.Ñāṇa wrote:(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.)
All the best,
Geoff
The Theravāda teaching on the bodhisattvayāna is centuries later than the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras and commentaries.tiltbillings wrote:The Theravada "framework" is not the same as the much later systematized frameworks developed by the Mahayanists,Ñāṇa wrote:It's a Mahābodhiyāna framework.tiltbillings wrote:The Theravāda teaches a bodhisattva path, but there is no need to put it into a Mahayana framework.
There are Mahāyāna sūtras and commentaries which fully respect the arahant fruition as a valid and final goal, and there are also Mahāyāna sūtras and commentaries which make no mention of the triple body of a buddha, etc., etc. Which is why it's worth mentioning that there is no homogeneous "Mahāyāna."tiltbillings wrote:just as the Theravadin Buddha is not the same as the Buddha in much of the Mahayana, not to mention the Theravadin arahant compared with the unfortunate Mahayana arhat stuck in a make believe nirvana
Glad we can agree.There certainly is not.There is really no homogeneous "Mahāyāna."
If you look in the stuff in the later commentarial stuff, sure, but the basic structure was found in the Buddhavamsa and the Cariyapitaka. Much of this stuff predates the Mahayana and was pan-Buddhist. And much of the early Mahayana, once it gets into the Mahayana/hinayana dichotomy, presents as an oppositional movement.Ñāṇa wrote:The Theravāda teaching on the bodhisattvayāna is centuries later than the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras and commentaries.
Yes, the sutras – composed over a thousand years time - are all over the place with the very earlier ones tending to be less oppositional, but once the hermeneutic systems start developing, things generally start taking on a more consistent look.There are Mahāyāna sūtras and commentaries which fully respect the arahant fruition as a valid and final goal, and there are also Mahāyāna sūtras and commentaries which make no mention of the triple body of a buddha, etc., etc. Which is why it's worth mentioning that there is no homogeneous "Mahāyāna."tiltbillings wrote:just as the Theravadin Buddha is not the same as the Buddha in much of the Mahayana, not to mention the Theravadin arahant compared with the unfortunate Mahayana arhat stuck in a make believe nirvana
Just as a matter of clarifying my stance, I do not subscribe to this locution. While the sutras are not the suttas, they are an expression of insight by the authors into what they felt represented the Buddha's teaching. I do not have to agree with what they said, but I am not going to to dismiss it with such teminology, even when referring to something I find as unsavory as the Lotus Sutra.phony Sutras
Hi friendsÑāṇa wrote:Okay then, Dhammapāla's commentary on the four shackles to giving, and the accomplishments resulting from practicing the pāramī-s, are coincidentally also found in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra.Virgo wrote:I think you left out an important word: 'alleged'.Ñāṇa wrote:(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.)
All the best,
Geoff
Now I do not know if this is related to Yogacarabhumisatra in anyway. But what I found interesting about this is that so-called 'later texts' were not necessarily disregarded by Asian Buddhists in Theravada countries as irrelevant--well, at least before Western scholarship on Buddhism gained a foothold. I must admit that this does not address the question of Mahayana texts per se, but the article does give some indication as to how the notion that 'later texts' are of less relevance to Theravada came about. By analysing the historical circumstances of early Western Buddhist scholarship, the article suggests that our understanding of what is 'canonical' has been influenced by Western academic assumptions--and quite possibly the assumptions of biblical scholarship.Asian Buddhist patrons funded a number of the society’s publications.53 This was not only a gesture of support and a modern transformation of the traditional merit-making practice of sponsoring the propagation of the dharma. It was also a way of ensuring that texts they considered important were disseminated in the West. Asian patronage and endorsement did not guarantee prompt publication, however. When the prominent Ceylonese Buddhist reformer Anagarika Dharmapala passed through England on his way to Chicago in 1893, he presented Rhys Davids with a manuscript of Yogāvacara’s Manual. When it eventually appeared thirteen years later, retranslated by Mrs. Rhys Davids, she explained that it had been published even then only because “it was incumbent upon us to meet the wishes of one who had shown the Society so much generosity.”54 It was clearly not a priority from her point of view. She apologized that “the publication of a translation of it now, when so much important matter in the Pāli canon is still only accessible to Pāli readers, may seem untimely,” and further undermined its authority by criticizing the quality of the manuscript and the late date of its composition. She warned the reader that this was not original Buddhism; it was of historical interest but was of little value to those who seek the Founder’s true gospel. In spite of the importance it held for practicing Buddhists, the editor’s preface effectively excluded the work as a nonauthoritative copy of a nonoriginal text, on a subject of dubious relation to Buddhism. Even the translated title colored its reception. Mysticism was the antithesis of humanism.
My point is the difficulty Asian Buddhists had in being heard, even though they made considerable attempts to intervene in the discourse. Language was a problem: few local translators would have the specialist vocabulary. They had neither the established authority nor the connections needed for access to a reputable metropolitan publishing house and its systems of distribution. Other obstacles were the rules of the Western academic paradigm that determined which texts were relevant and authoritative representations of Buddhism. These were determined in relation to Western interest, not the recommendation of Asian Buddhists. Though enthusiastic partners in the project to publish the Pāli canon, the aims of the society and its Asian patrons diverged.
Despite the difficulties of the task Hardy proceeded with his work anyway, and Rhys Davids was to later adopt it as the premises for his work. Do have a read of the article for a fuller picture of the historical circumstances influencing the way we now understand 'canonical' Theravada texts.A most important feature of Hardy’s work was that it offered the first thorough narrative of the life of the Buddha, a “biography” pieced together by Hardy from various sources, covering his previous births through to his death, cremation, and the distribution of his relics.17 As the designation “Buddhism” suggests, Westerners had assumed, ordering the world through a Christian gaze, that the Buddha, whose image was so prevalent in Buddhist cultures, was the founder of the religion. The search for a life of the Buddha was therefore central to early studies, the logical prerequisite of the scholarly paradigms of the time—the pattern of contemporary Biblical scholarship—that sought to retrieve the very words of the Founder from the sacred texts.18 The search had been frustrated by the fact that the Buddhist texts had been composed for a different purpose. While they recount numerous episodes in the Buddha’s life, they nowhere offered the kind of life narrative Westerners sought in a biography.19
You cant really take everything literally you know i have only read excerpts of the lotus sutra, it isnt high on my list, but if i live long enough i may get to it.tiltbillings wrote:You should really read the Lotus Sutra. It is far more than a matter of emphasis. Did you know that the Buddha really, truly got himself enlightened ages ago. The Buddha that we think of as the Buddha is naught more than a docetic emanation of that Buddha.m0rl0ck wrote:alan wrote: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.
So far i have found most of the mahayana in the suttas, it seems more a matter of emphasis to me.