Not in people I would pay any attention to.Wizard in the Forest wrote:I've seen this pattern too many times for it to be assumed as a coincidence. You've seen it too, it seems.
Mike
Not in people I would pay any attention to.Wizard in the Forest wrote:I've seen this pattern too many times for it to be assumed as a coincidence. You've seen it too, it seems.
You are mixing up different concepts. One is the "Bodhisattva ideal" and the other is "Buddha nature". Whereas the term "nature" refers to a concept of an existing complete status, the term "ideal" refers to a difference - a difference between how it is and how it should be (i.e. "ideal"). Now if "how it should be" is not "how it is" this implies that something has to be done.Wizard in the Forest wrote:I've never seen the Bodhisattva ideal used to enhance practice. I've seen it used to say "I don't need to practice, I'm already a buddha with Buddha nature, so what I've got to do is save all the other non-Buddhas I see in front of me". That's not enhancing practice last I have seen. It's only seeing the dirt in someone else's eye when you're caked in mud.
The problem with Ven. Rahula’s analysis is that it really does not acknowledge notions of bodhisattva in the Mahayana and the notion of bodhisatta in the Theravada are very different from each other. Also, it is something of an overstatement to say that the Theravada holds the bodhisatta in the highest position. While there is a “bodhisatta literature” within the Theravada, it is fairly minimal and as a way of practice, it barely registers an appearance.Jechbi wrote:"Just like the Mahayana, the Theravada holds the Bodhisattva in the highest position." From Ven. Dr. W. Rahula.
From the Theravada standpoint, taking the suttas as the touchstone, this analysis is seriously flawed. It seems to assume, though it is unclearly stated in the above, that a bodhisattva practice is more compassionate, more concerned with others welfare than other. There is no justification for such a claim, and the use of the term hinayana, the discarded/abject vehicle, even as suggested above, really only adds confusion, not clarity, to the issue. Basically, from a Theravadin standpoint there is no need to utilize sectarian polemical terms in talking about one’s practice.In any form of Buddhist practice, the approach we take only is beneficial to the extent that it inclines toward liberation. Each of us uses terms and ideas as part of our particular path at this moment, regardless of whether we label ourselves according to "Theravada" or "Mahayana" or anything else. When the term "Hinayana" is used to refer to Theravada, it's inaccurate. But when it is used in context, and as a pointer to a level of personal spiritual unfolding, the term "Hinayana" has its legitimate place.
The Boddhisattva ideal can be a great reminder of where we still need to work in our practice.
The post you reference contains no assumption about whose practice is more compassionate.tiltbillings wrote:From the Theravada standpoint, taking the suttas as the touchstone, this analysis is seriously flawed. It seems to assume, though it is unclearly stated in the above, that a bodhisattva practice is more compassionate, more concerned with others welfare than other. There is no justification for such a claim, and the use of the term hinayana, the discarded/abject vehicle, even as suggested above, really only adds confusion, not clarity, to the issue. Basically, from a Theravadin standpoint there is no need to utilize sectarian polemical terms in talking about one’s practice.
The problem is that Mahayana concept of the bodhisattva is held by Mahayanists to be more compassionate, by definition, than the concept of the arhat, and it is clearly portrayed that way within the Mahayana. My point is that that is a sectarian claim that the Theravadin do not need to buy into. The Theravadins do not need to buy into the Mahayana bodhisattva concepts in terms of comparison.Jechbi wrote:The post you reference contains no assumption about whose practice is more compassionate.tiltbillings wrote:From the Theravada standpoint, taking the suttas as the touchstone, this analysis is seriously flawed. It seems to assume, though it is unclearly stated in the above, that a bodhisattva practice is more compassionate, more concerned with others welfare than other. There is no justification for such a claim, and the use of the term hinayana, the discarded/abject vehicle, even as suggested above, really only adds confusion, not clarity, to the issue. Basically, from a Theravadin standpoint there is no need to utilize sectarian polemical terms in talking about one’s practice.
The only legitimate contexts the word hinayana (and its baggage) have -- as I have said more than once here and elsewhere -- is solely within a Mahayana context. There it works fine, but any attempt of usage of a strictly Mahayana concept outside that is at best confusing. Hinayana (and it baggage) is, at its inception, a derogatory polemical term. And we need to keep in mind that the Mahayana does not get to define what Buddhism is for the Theravadins.I disagree with the position that the term "Hinayana" never has its legitimate place in any context.
Sure, as an historical term.I agree that in a Theravada context the term isn't useful unless one is discussing it as an example of terminology used in other traditions.
Is this point you were trying make in your initial msg? In your initial msg it was certainly less than clear. Of course, the term hinayana needs to be understood as it was used in its inception and how its meaning has changed somewhat over time, to refer to a level of motivation, but the original usage still lurks in the background, still exerts all too often an influence on how some Mahayanists view the Theravada. Theravadins certainly should understand that, which allow them not to get caught up in unneeded wrangling.But when we are speaking of other traditions or other faiths, in a Theravada context, it's important to be appreciative and respectful. One way to be respectful is to understand the terms used in other traditions in the context in which they were intended, and to describe them accordingly. To do otherwise introduces confusion, not clarity, to the issue.
Since we continually bump against the sectarian claim embodied in Mahayana and hinayana, it is worth looking at them in an historical context. Hinayana solely within a Mahayana context is not a problem. And as far as value to be found in the Mahayana, outside its polemics, I would not deny - and have not denied - thatJechbi wrote:I am merely suggesting, in the context of this thread, that the underlying teachings of various Buddhist traditions share important elements in common insofar as they offer a path of practice that can incline toward liberation. In my opinion, that's worth remembering. It's easy to get distracted by these "sectarian claims," as you put it.
Perhaps some of my notes will also be useful.Ñāṇa wrote:Here are some resources for anyone interested in the historical aspects of the bodhisattva path in Sri Lanka and other Theravāda locations:
As you'll see at the heading of this forum, it is "a Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the Theravada". Thus, it isn't about enlightenment generally, nor even really about Buddhism generally.revolutionary wrote:I guess I need to know where you can actually practice aspects of enlightenment and simply not argue over the interpretation of it...... Does that exist on this forum?