I wonder if the Blessed One himself was this touchy.
There are some people who tenaciously cling to this label and concept "Theravada" as some sort of ultimate truth. They are no better than Christian fundamentalists who believe there way is the one and only and everyone else is going to burn for eternity.
I would like a source from the canon where the Buddha explicitly states we should cling to this label and concept "Theravada"?
Where in the Four Nobel Truths, Dependent Origination, or any other teaching found in the canon for that matter, does the Buddha praise this sort of clinging to concepts?
"If you are a bodhisattva, you will suffer, if you are an arahant, you will suffer..if you are anything at all, you will suffer." - Ajahn Chah
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.
The problem is not the Theravada, but it is the Mahayana and the assumption it has built into its very structure of holding itself as being superior and as being the arbiter of all things Buddhists. It has constructed the towering edifice of the bodhisattva path, an impossibly complex path, claiming of itself the greatest nobility and anything else is, compared to that, of a considerably lesser standing (to understate it). Whatever insights that various Mahayanists have brought forth over the ages, as they have confronted the human condition in terms of anicca, dukkha, anatta and paticcasamuppada, those insight get all too easily lost in the dualistic bodhisattva construct that really runs counter to the better impulses of the Buddha's teachings.
The Theravada does not need the Mahayana, but if one is so inclined there is no reason not to study whatever aspect of the Mahayana that might grab one's fancy. There are things to be found that really are quite interesting and useful, but I strongly reject any implication - directly or indirectly - that the Theravada must measure itself in Mahayana terms or against the Mahayana. And that is the problem with the Mahayana structure, it tends force that sort of comparison by its self proclaimed superiority.
>> 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
Now -can we be good dhamma practitioners (Theravadins and Mahayanists that is..) and learn to live to gether without attacking each other? Is it too much to ask? Can we actually be civil to each other and respect (if not tolerate) each others take on the world? I rather prefer clear mahayana - theravada classification rather than elements within each pretending to be something they are not (like 'vipassana' teachers for example).
Last edited by Hanzze on Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just that! *smile* ...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html
BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_
The problem is not the Theravada, but it is the Mahayana and the assumption it has built into its very structure of holding itself as being superior and as being the arbiter of all things Buddhists. It has constructed the towering edifice of the bodhisattva path, an impossibly complex path, claiming of itself the greatest nobility and anything else is, compared to that, of a considerably lesser standing (to understand it). Whatever insights that various Mahayanists have brought forth over the ages, as they have confronted the human condition in terms of anicca, dukkha, anatta and paticcasamuppada, those insight get all too easily lost in the dualistic bodhisattva construct that really runs counter to the better impulses of the Buddha's teachings.
The Theravada does not need the Mahayana, but if one is so inclined there is no reason not to study whatever aspect of the Mahayana that might grab one's fancy. There are things to be found that really are quite interesting and useful, but I strongly reject any implication - directly or indirectly - that the Theravada must measure itself in Mahayana terms or against the Mahayana. And that is the problem with the Mahayana structure, it tends force that sort of comparison by its self proclaimed superiority.
I concur ...of course. I find it extraordinary that i should need to defend the Theravada position on a Theravada website. I think the ingrained nature of the mahayana is such that they actually do not realise when they set themselves up as the acme by which other schools are judges. It is so second nature to them that they do not realise consciously that they are doing it. So follows a series of questions which when answered honestly according to the lights of mainstream Theravada teachings..leave one open to accusations of sectarianism ! But NO well known or not well known Theravadin teacher would support the idea of chanting mantras to uncanonical " Bodhisattva's". And no amount of being emollient or quietly ignoring that inconvenient truth alters the facts of the matter.
I will make every effort to stay within the guidelines of the forum .But it remains a fact that the forum is subject to pressure to become more like the Mahayana by those who possibly do not know that they are doing it. We have even been told today that the Theravada does not exist...which is conflating the fact that the Theravada may have only a provisional existance, but that provisional existance is real and serves a purpose for those who can use it. It is not to be dismissed by those who have other apparent needs.
I find it baffling...I cannot imagine frequenting a mahayana website in order to convert them to my view. It must be exhausting.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
it is nothing about Mahayana or Theravada, and there is no offense from any Mahayana. It is just to remember to make nothing our own. From any side.
Please remember the "Wrong practice of the Buddha Dhamma.":
_/\_
with loving kindness
This is not really helpful at all, though well meaning, I am sure.
>> 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
Last edited by Hanzze on Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just that! *smile* ...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html
BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_
alan wrote:Nothing I've read in the Suttas says anything about Boddisattvas.
It's remarkably absent.
Are you suggesting that prior to his awakening the Buddha wasn't a bodhisattva and the suttas where he refers to himself prior to his awakening as a bodhisattva are fictions?
Why would I say that... Let's not assume the worst and jump to conclusions. I'm saying the Buddha was entirely silent on the path of the Bodhisattva, except when used to illustrate his own struggles or provide an example for some Dhamma lesson for the benefit of the student. Simple put, if you give the Suttas precedence: A reasonable conclusion is that the Buddha would have his student take the path to Arahantship.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
It's actually a choice whether we get offended or not. This may come as a surprise, considering our propensity to blame others for our decision to take offense. It's quite easy to take up a view that things should be THIS way, and anybody who violates my personal wish has offended me and deserves to feel bad about it! But people and situations will always violate our wishes of how things should be, then we have a choice - Equanimity or frustration.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
BlackBird wrote:
Why would I say that... Let's not assume the worst and jump to conclusions. I'm saying the Buddha was entirely silent on the path of the Bodhisattva, except when used to illustrate his own struggles or provide an example for some Dhamma lesson for the benefit of the student. Simple put, if you give the Suttas precedence: A reasonable conclusion is that the Buddha would have his student take the path to Arahantship.
Yes. The idea of path to Buddhahood developed after the death of the Buddha, taking the hagiographic material about the Buddha's life that was developed after the death of the Buddha as a major inspiration, and the sectarianized Mahayanists, (after the introduction of of the us-versus-them notion of hinayana) took the this path is a very different direction. But none of this was taught by the Buddha.
>> 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
BlackBird wrote:I'm saying the Buddha was entirely silent on the path of the Bodhisattva, except when used to illustrate his own struggles or provide an example for some Dhamma lesson for the benefit of the student.
Just asking your for clarification, that's all. And since the suttas do record the Buddha talking about his experiences as a bodhisattva, he wasn't "entirely silent" on the subject. These early sources were later expanded upon by people inspired by the example of the Buddha's life and hagiographic narratives.
BlackBird wrote:Simple put, if you give the Suttas precedence: A reasonable conclusion is that the Buddha would have his student take the path to Arahantship.
Of course. The bodhisattva path as a developed vehicle of practice postdates the suttas. No doubt it was developed to meet the needs of different groups of people at different times. And in some of the earliest textual remnants presenting the bodhisattvayāna as a unique vehicle we can clearly see a recurring desire to return to the ascetic path initiated by the śramaṇa Gautama Buddha.
Ñāṇa wrote:
Of course. The bodhisattva path as a developed vehicle of practice postdates the suttas. No doubt it was developed to meet the needs of different groups of people at different times.
Needs or desires?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta