Similarities of Mahayana and theravada

[Vlcimba]

Let's forget about the differences shall we ? Just to be simple, I think they share rather similar goals and of course their teacher: the Buddha.

[Kim O'Hara]

For a list of shared doctrines, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_Mahayana


Kim

[Vlcimba]

:candle:
For a list of shared doctrines, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_Mahayana


Kim

Thanks babe . good info

[Dan74]

Kim may indeed be a babe. I kind of imagine him somewhere between this kind of a babe



and the iconic



But being a North Queenslander, he might look like this



or indeed this



But not like this



because although Dianne Cilento, Sean Connery's ex, is also a North Queenslander, unlike Kim, she is female.

[Ben]

You party-pooper, Danielle!

[Dan74]

Shshshsh!

ban copy.gif (2.01 KiB) Viewed 515 times

[daverupa]

It's not really accurate to juxtapose Mahayana and Theravada, is it? Suppose we juxtaposed Yogacara and Theravada, for example - this seems much more likely to yield fruit, though whether such fruit looks like an interfaith effort or ecumenism is up in the air...

[Vlcimba]

It's not really accurate to juxtapose Mahayana and Theravada, is it? Suppose we juxtaposed Yogacara and Theravada, for example - this seems much more likely to yield fruit, though whether such fruit looks like an interfaith effort or ecumenism is up in the air...

Yeah but I am just trying to unite different branches of buddhism , although it ain't helping much xD
( yeah I know it's actually quite united but yeah you get the point

[Vlcimba]

Kim may indeed be a babe. I kind of imagine him somewhere between this kind of a babe



and the iconic



But being a North Queenslander, he might look like this



or indeed this



But not like this



because although Dianne Cilento, Sean Connery's ex, is also a North Queenslander, unlike Kim, she is female.

You just made my day sexay

[whynotme]

From the wiki link above:

4. We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth

No, it is more a thinker than buddhist. The Buddha didn't teach the purpose of life, he directly taught life is suffering. The above statement it is like running with light in front of a car (an idiom in my language) much like Putting the cart in front of the horse.

8. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others

No, if Bodhisattva is the highest, noblest way then the 4 main Nikayas would be full of teachings about it. In reality quite the opposite, none of the statement in the Nikayas teachs the Bodhisattva way, or encourage people follow it (exclude Khuddaka Nikaya coz it includes many later works)

And some of others statement in that link are not totally false but are not well said as well.

Yeah but I am just trying to unite different branches of buddhism

There is the disunion in the sangha, it happened in the Buddha time as well and he already taught about how to deal with it. Many efforts for it in modern time, but I guess not so much succeed

There is only one right way to do it, false things must be accepted as false things, wrong teachings must be accepted as wrong teaching, non dharma must be accepted as non dharma. Otherwise, the sangha has the ability to isolate monks with wrong views

Regards

[santa100]

whynotme wrote:
"There is only one right way to do it, false things must be accepted as false things, wrong teachings must be accepted as wrong teaching, non dharma must be accepted as non dharma. Otherwise, the sangha has the ability to isolate monks with wrong views"

Well, there's a proverb that says: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". There was a great man who practiced that highest, noblest way, and his name was Siddhattha Gotama. There's also another great man following this highest and noblest path right now in the Tusita and his name is Metteyya. Out of compassion for other beings, maybe you should tell him that he's doing it all wrong because the path he's following wasn't mentioned in the Nikayas..

[whynotme]

whynotme wrote:
"There is only one right way to do it, false things must be accepted as false things, wrong teachings must be accepted as wrong teaching, non dharma must be accepted as non dharma. Otherwise, the sangha has the ability to isolate monks with wrong views"

Well, there's a proverb that says: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". There was a great man who practiced that highest, noblest way, and his name was Siddhattha Gotama. There's also another great man following this highest and noblest path right now in the Tusita and his name is Metteyya. Out of compassion for other beings, maybe you should tell him that he's doing it all wrong because the path he's following wasn't mentioned in the Nikayas..

Dear santa100,

No, IMO, the most noble way, also the only way that can lead to the nirvana is the Noble Eightfold Path (NEP). If there is another way that can lead to nirvana without NEP, then the Buddha would not teach on many occasions, this is the only way.
By that logic, all the Bodhisattvas in the past and in the future attained nirvana the same way as all other arahants, using the most noble way around, it is Noble Eightfold Path. It is the noblest way, there is nothing higher than NEP. The only difference is that the Bodhisattvas find the way themselves, and master in the way.

If there is another way, so you think the Siddhattha prince achieved nirvana without NEP? So by that you mean nirvana can be achieved without NEP? Or do you think there is another way nobler than the way lead to nirvana, which is NEP?

No my friend, without NEP there is no other way that can lead to nirvana, or there is another way nobler than the way lead to nirvana. Or you should teach your invention to our lord, sir Siddhattha: dear sir, I've found another way than NEP that lead to nirvana. Well, maybe he would accept you

Regards

[santa100]

Obviously, there's no question that the 8NB is the way to go. But you seemed to imply that only the sravaka path practices this 8NP while bodhisattva path does not. But now you clarified(or at least seems to) that all paths practice 8NP, which means whether it's Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, they are still the Buddha's teaching. If this is what you mean, then I totally agree with you. If not, then we certainly differ in our opinions..

[whynotme]

Obviously, there's no question that the 8NB is the way to go. But you seemed to imply that only the sravaka path practices this 8NP while bodhisattva path does not. But now you clarified(or at least seems to) that all paths practice 8NP, which means whether it's Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, they are still the Buddha's teaching. If this is what you mean, then I totally agree with you. If not, then we certainly differ in our opinions..

No, I didn't mean all Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana are still the Buddha's teaching. I don't consider commentary is Buddha teaching but it is some monks teaching. Similar to that, Mahayana and vajrayana are some other monks' teaching, no more, no less.

Truth is hard to face, n8p is the ultimate path but mahayana likes to create a myth there are a nobler way than n8p. No there isn't any, an arahat followed the same way as the buddha, and no way is higher than that, that why the Nikayas didn't mention any thing about bodisattva way, because there isn't any.

Actually the bodhisattva way (if we consider what he did before enlightenment is a way) is a random way, mainly is inferior to n8p, that why the buddha didn't teach that. Because he tried many ways, some lead to brahma, some lead to devas, until his last life he still hadn't founded the n8p so he tried extreme ascetic and many other things. Those things, they are inferior to n8p. Otherwise, he should teach his followers: let do extreme ascetic because I did it before, let try to hold your breath as long as possible, let try to eat as little as possible, those are things I did when I was bodhisattva. No, that is the wrong way and he also pointed out it is the wrong way, and every wrong way is inferior to n8p.

Regards

[suttametta]

It's something like trying to find the commonalities between science and astrology.

[Ben]

Shshshsh!

ban copy.gif

What a great idea!

[whynotme]

Hell, some people are like this:

When the teacher said: let do this, it will bring you succeed. I tried many thing and only this leads to succeed
Students: no, sir, what you said isn't true, we love to follow all the things you did before, we love have our hand broken our body and our mind broken like you did experiments before. That is the true noble way
Teacher: you know what should and what shoudn't be. Oh, in that case you should be the teacher and I will be your student

By that logic, you all shouldn't using PC or internet, you should build your IC yourselves, build the car yourselves, maybe you should even wait for another apple falling on your head, maybe by that you can re invent all the wheels you need in life

Regards

[Dan74]

It's something like trying to find the commonalities between science and astrology.

I find this a very ill-informed analogy.

For starters life is not science. Practice is not science. If one approaches life and practice in the same way one approaches science, one would end up an emasculated rump of a being, inauthentic and grotesque.

Mahayana practice that I have known is not like astrology. That is offensive and untrue. Rather it has been a wise and patient guide illuminating aspects of my life that had remained obscured, until the entire view is changed. It has been an inspiration to press on and revive practice even as old habits seem to gain an upper hand. It has been a relationship with reality that has become more and more intimate, just as one falls out of love with oneself and discovers the world. It has filled my heart with gratitude at the best of times and with shame that I fail to do justice to this path, at the worst. It has been neither about reifying self, nor reaching out for bliss or brahman, as you described, but about discovering what this is. And shedding all it is not.

And as for whynotme is describing, I can only shrug and say this has nothing to do with the Mahayana practice that have been taught.

[santa100]

Whynotme wrote:
"Mahayana and vajrayana are some other monks' teaching, no more, no less"

Then basically you are saying that Mahayana and Vajrayana do not practice the 3 characteristics, 4 NT, 8 NP, and 12 DO. I simply disagree..

[cooran]

Hello all,

This might be of interest:

Theravada - Mahayana Buddhism by Ven. Dr. W. Rahula

EXCERPT:
Mahayana and Theravada
Now, what is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada?

I have studied Mahayana for many years and the more I study it, the more I find there is hardly any difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regard to the fundamental teachings.

- Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.
- The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.
- The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.
- The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.
- Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.
- Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question.

There are also some points where they differ. An obvious one is the Bodhisattva ideal. Many people say that Mahayana is for the Bodhisattvahood which leads to Buddhahood while Theravada is for Arahantship. I must point out that the Buddha was also an Arahant. Pacceka Buddha is also an Arahant. A disciple can also be an Arahant. The Mahayana texts never use the term Arahant-yana, Arahant Vehicle. They used three terms: Bodhisattvayana, Prateka-Buddhayana, and Sravakayana. In the Theravada tradition these three are called Bodhis.
Some people imagine that Theravada is selfish because it teaches that people should seek their own salvation. But how can a selfish person gain Enlightenment? Both schools accept the three Yanas or Bodhis but consider the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest. The Mahayana has created many mystical Bodhisattvas while the Theravada considers a Bodhisattva as a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, ultimately becoming a fully Enlightened Buddha for the welfare of the world, for the happiness of the world.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha125.htm

with metta
Chris