The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Locked
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Individual »

Will wrote:It is not correct to say that bodhisatta path is not taught in Theravada, but only in Mahayana. Both teach it, but Theravada gives little emphasis to it and the Mahayana a great deal. See this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is not correct to say that the bodhisattva path is taught in Mahayana either, because it is not merely a new form of sravakayana.
tiltbillings wrote:
BlackBird wrote: I certainly don't agree with the undertones that the emphasis of historical authenticity being a modern phenomenon makes it any less important or valid, I think it's very important.
Mainstream Indian Buddhists questioned the authenticity of Mahayana sutras from the beginning - that is, when they paid any attention to them. This concern for authenticity is found in the Mahayana cult of the book sutras that curse anyone who would dare question the authenticity of such sutras, as we graphically played out in the Lotus Sutra:

If a person fails to have faith
but instead slanders this sutra,
...
The things he says
people will not believe,
the breath from his mouth will be constantly foul
...
If there are monks who,
for the sake of comprehensive wisdom,
seek the Law in every direction,
pressing palms together, gratefully accepting,
desiring only to accept and embrace
the sutra of the Great Vehicle
and not accepting a single verse
of the other sutras
,
to persons such as this
it is permissible to preach it [the Lotus Sutra].
If a person, earnest in mind,
seeks this sutra
as though he were seeking the Buddha's relics,
and having gained and gratefully accepted it,
that person shows no intention
of seeking other sutras
and has never once given thought
to the writings of the non-Buddhist doctrines,
to a person such as this
it is permissible to preach it.


The Lotus Sutra Chapter 3
Is all of Mahayana like this? No, but it is there and it does have its influence.
The Pali canon is your Vedas, your Bible, your Lotus Sutra. These things -- the holy books written in holy languages, taught by holy sectarians -- these things do not exist outside oneself (at least not as troubling matters) if one does not harbor sectarian feelings within.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual wrote:The Pali canon is your Vedas, your Bible, your Lotus Sutra. These things -- the holy books written in holy languages, taught by holy sectarians -- these things do not exist outside oneself (at least not as troubling matters) if one does not harbor sectarian feelings within.
You are writing this as the Mahayanist you claim to be? And what point are you trying make here? You certainly do not have somnething quite right.
>> 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
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

protosphere wrote:Well, that was an interesting reading. Had a few laughs, learned a few things.

to the "Wizard in the Forest": is that more clear now? :stirthepot:
Not quite... I'm still wondering where all this came from.

I am very curious about the authenticity of these doctrinal differences, and what the main ones are.

I'm always grateful that people are willing to answer, but I still have only a vague cryptic idea. So ultimately, Mahayana Buddhists don't quite adhere to the 3 marks of existence in the way Theravada Buddhists do, they believe in a docetic emanation of the Buddha rather than a real historically existing Buddha, they believe in an innate awakened state (which is weird, how would someone become defiled and unawakened then? :cookoo: ), they believe in a different definition of enlightenment, a different definition of Buddhahood, and that doctrinal authenticity is expedient?
:shrug:


Correct me if I am wrong.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Individual »

tiltbillings wrote:
Individual wrote:The Pali canon is your Vedas, your Bible, your Lotus Sutra. These things -- the holy books written in holy languages, taught by holy sectarians -- these things do not exist outside oneself (at least not as troubling matters) if one does not harbor sectarian feelings within.
You are writing this as the Mahayanist you claim to be? And what point are you trying make here? You certainly do not have somnething quite right.
You keep calling me a Mahayanist and therefore that's what I seem to be. But honestly I don't choose to be a Mahayanist; it's just that Theravadins seem too intolerant to accept me as a Theravadin, Theravadins seem more upset when I speak when I feel is the truth, and the average person would probably claim that the views they think that I have line up most closely with Mahayana. I honor and respect your religion; I do not understand why there is no reciprocity of the same attitude of honor and respect. Instead, you and many others like you would turn Mahayana and Theravada into something like political parties and sports teams.

It's like there's two friends with two different vehicles (maybe a Corvette and a Camaro?) who both like to drive their cars. But instead of these two friends each appreciating one another's unique qualities, and just enjoying the ride, some treat the two vehicles as a drag race.
Last edited by Individual on Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

Individual wrote: Instead, you and many others like you would turn Mahayana and Theravada into something like political parties and sports teams.

Well if it's any comfort, both political parties where I live both adhere to classical liberalism, and essentially have few defining characteristics, and both sports teams have and understand the rules of the same game, they just have different teams.

As for the alleged intolerance of Theravada, it's merely that we don't agree. Nor do we have to agree, and that's not intolerance to disagree. If you don't adopt the same rules of the game, you're not playing the same game. That's ultimately the reality.
Last edited by Wizard in the Forest on Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Individual wrote:The Pali canon is your Vedas, your Bible, your Lotus Sutra. These things -- the holy books written in holy languages, taught by holy sectarians -- these things do not exist outside oneself (at least not as troubling matters) if one does not harbor sectarian feelings within.
You are writing this as the Mahayanist you claim to be? And what point are you trying make here? You certainly do not have somnething quite right.
You keep calling me a Mahayanist
You identified yourself, quite unbidden, to me as a Mahayanist in a PM. As for your assessment of Theravadins being intolerant, to follow your line, it naught more than stuff existing inside yourself that you are projecting outwards.

As for the your mini-rant about the Pali Canon being this and that. The Pali Canon was never held by the Theravadsin in the same way the authors of the Lotus Sutra portrayed the Lotus Sutra. Pali is not a "holy" language.
>> 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
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Individual »

Wizard in the Forest wrote:
Well if it's any comfort, both political parties where I live both adhere to classical liberalism, and essentially have few defining characteristics, and both sports teams have and understand the rules of the same game, they just have different teams.

As for the alleged intolerance of Theravada, it's merely that we don't agree. Nor do we have to agree, and that's not intolerance. If you don't adopt the same rules of the game, you're not playing the same game. That's ultimately the reality.
That is good to hear. :)
tiltbillings wrote:You identified yourself, quite unbidden, to me as a Mahayanist in a PM.
That might have been a mistake. Seeing me as a Mahayanist seems to be easier to relate to than just thinking I'm a weird and crazy person, you know?
tiltbillings wrote: As for your assessment of Theravadins being intolerant, to follow your line, it naught more than stuff existing inside yourself that you are projecting outwards.
That is possible. Do you deny it is possible that the reverse may be true? It could be. We should both be mindful of these things. :)
tiltbillings wrote: As for the your mini-rant about the Pali Canon being this and that. The Pali Canon was never held by the Theravadsin in the same way the authors of the Lotus Sutra portrayed the Lotus Sutra. Pali is not a "holy" language.
...Also good to hear. :)
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

Individual wrote: It's like there's two friends with two different vehicles (maybe a Corvette and a Camaro?) who both like to drive their cars. But instead of these two friends each appreciating one another's unique qualities, and just enjoying the ride, some treat the two vehicles as a drag race.
They're not driving 2 cars. This is 2 almost completely different doctrines. So it's like one person is driving a car, and another is driving a motorcycle. Sure, they might make it to the same place, might even both be really awesome, but to call them the same is to ignore that they're fundamentally different.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Wizard in the Forest »

Image

Theravada

Image

Mahayana.

Image

The path to enlightenment.

In order to make it through the gap, we got to let go of both vehicles, but admittedly I think one can get through more easily, so that is why I am Theravada.

makes sense?
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by Virgo »

I see it like this:

Theravada:

Image

Mahayana:

Image

Kevin
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The specific differences between Mahayana and Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Now this thread has gone silly (or sillier).
>> 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
Locked