Emptiness - mahayana and theravada

[Prasadachitta]

I only brought up the turning of the wheel as a matter of convention. Of course the wheel has not stopped.

[stuka]

I only brought up the turning of the wheel as a matter of convention. Of course the wheel has not stopped.

Whether you were aware of it or not, the notion of a "second and third turning of the wheel" is part of an attempt to portray Maha- and Vajra- doctrines as if they were actual teachings of the Buddha. It is merely an attempt to co-opt the Buddha's famous metaphor of "Turning the Wheel of Dhamma", part of a broad propaganda campaign aimed at legitimizing their own, very different, teachings.

[Karunika]

Stuka, you can lump everyone together if you want, but I have never disparaged the Theravada, and I do not refer to it as Hinayana. As to "mahayana," I don't know what other word to use in order to describe it. I'm sure that Theravadan's use the same word to describe that vehicle because that is the term generally used by everyone.

Stuka, you are disparaging other traditions by saying they are speculations or are not true. If you said that according to Theravada, such and such in Mahayana is this or that, it would be different, but you are just dismissing it as wrong. There can be no helpful dialogue if you are going to play word games and not recognize your own prejudiced feelings.

I have deep respect for the Theravada, and I started out as a Theravadin. We each follow the path that is best for us at the time. The best path is the one that helps you progress towards enlightenment. Debate about which school is better and what is wrong with such and such school is chatter that is not conducive to enlightenment, harmony, and the spreading of the Dharma.

You did the same thing at E-sangha, and now you are doing it here. It seems that non-Theravadins are welcome here only if they accept that they are wrong and inferior to Theravada. Well, just because Theravadins may not have always been treated fairly elsewhere is no reason to disparage non-Theravadins here. You can call what you are doing anything you like, but it is clearly disparagement, and I'm not going to stick around while you continue with your pompous remarks disguised as pointing out the errors of others.

K

[bodom]

It seems that non-Theravadins are welcome here only if they accept that they are wrong and inferior to Theravada.
K

Its funny you bring this up because thats exactly how i was made to feel at e-sangha, inferior to the Mahayana.

[Dhammanando]

[bodom]

Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

http://www.amazon.com/Heartwood-Bodhi-T ... 0861710355

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Is there a doctrinal difference between mahayana and theravada on emptiness? Is emptiness tied in with buddha nature or not?

Theravada: "Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya": Nothing whatever should be grasped at and clung to as "me" or "mine". The world is real, but we "see it" (experience it) through the distorted lens of our "own eyes".

Mahayana: "Everything is not inherently real". The world is a figment of your imagination.

Theravada does not postulate a "buddha nature".

Hi Stuka,

As I understand it, Mahayana posits that the world is as inherently "real" as "you" or "I" are. However, there are Mind-Only schools within Zen and Tibetan Buddhism (and possibly others that I don't know of).

But in short, I'm a vajrayana and I don't ascribe to mind-only teachings and I know others that don't as well. The way that the Dalai Lama and my teacher teach is more in tune with your description of the Theravadan approach. I don't mean to single you out, I'm just using your post as a springboard to explain more.

Kindly,
Drolma

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Is there a doctrinal difference between mahayana and theravada on emptiness? Is emptiness tied in with buddha nature or not?

The impression I gain of Mahayana emptiness is it tends towards nothingness.

This would be a gigantic mistake. I remember a teaching in which it was explained that people who fall into this thinking, mistaking voidness or nothingness for emptiness are "beyond help" meaning much more difficult to help than those with ordinary dukkha. This is the worst paraphrasing ever, please excuse that! And I can't remember the sutra.

But the message is clear. It is more dangerous to fall into the mistake of thinking one has realized emptiness when they're actually stuck in a bliss of voidness/nothingness than it is to be an ordinary person with dukkha.

Kind regards,
Drolma

[stuka]

Stuka, you can lump everyone together if you want, but I have never disparaged the Theravada, and I do not refer to it as Hinayana. As to "mahayana," I don't know what other word to use in order to describe it. I'm sure that Theravadan's use the same word to describe that vehicle because that is the term generally used by everyone.

Which does not change its perjorative origin at all.

Stuka, you are disparaging other traditions by saying they are speculations or are not true.

Be mindful that personal views on the efficacy of Mahayanist or Vajrayanist doctrine do not breach the Terms of Service with regards to right speech.

If you said that according to Theravada, such and such in Mahayana is this or that, it would be different, but you are just dismissing it as wrong. There can be no helpful dialogue if you are going to play word games and not recognize your own prejudiced feelings.

If you disagree with what I have pointed out, then do present your case.

I have deep respect for the Theravada, and I started out as a Theravadin. We each follow the path that is best for us at the time. The best path is the one that helps you progress towards enlightenment. Debate about which school is better and what is wrong with such and such school is chatter that is not conducive to enlightenment, harmony, and the spreading of the Dharma.

You are distorting what is going on here. See moderator's note above.

You did the same thing at E-sangha, and now you are doing it here.

I spoke the truth there, and I speak it here. Note that there was a mass exodus there because of the suppression of the truth that was going on.

It seems that non-Theravadins are welcome here only if they accept that they are wrong and inferior to Theravada. Well, just because Theravadins may not have always been treated fairly elsewhere is no reason to disparage non-Theravadins here. You can call what you are doing anything you like, but it is clearly disparagement, and I'm not going to stick around while you continue with your pompous remarks disguised as pointing out the errors of others.

K

You got the Buddha's memo that said that you are responsible for your own perceptions and the distortions you inflict on them through papanca, right?

What he said.

[stuka]

Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

http://www.amazon.com/Heartwood-Bodhi-T ... 0861710355

GREAT book.

The hard-copy version is not the same as the electronic, BTW, it covers a lot more territory.

[stuka]

Hi Stuka,

As I understand it, Mahayana posits that the world is as inherently "real" as "you" or "I" are. However, there are Mind-Only schools within Zen and Tibetan Buddhism (and possibly others that I don't know of).

But in short, I'm a vajrayana and I don't ascribe to mind-only teachings and I know others that don't as well. The way that the Dalai Lama and my teacher teach is more in tune with your description of the Theravadan approach. I don't mean to single you out, I'm just using your post as a springboard to explain more.

Kindly,
Drolma

Heya Drolma,

I agree, the OP question is a bit over-broad.

[stuka]

Is there a doctrinal difference between mahayana and theravada on emptiness? Is emptiness tied in with buddha nature or not?

The impression I gain of Mahayana emptiness is it tends towards nothingness.

This would be a gigantic mistake. I remember a teaching in which it was explained that people who fall into this thinking, mistaking voidness or nothingness for emptiness are "beyond help" meaning much more difficult to help than those with ordinary dukkha. This is the worst paraphrasing ever, please excuse that! And I can't remember the sutra.

But the message is clear. It is more dangerous to fall into the mistake of thinking one has realized emptiness when they're actually stuck in a bliss of voidness/nothingness than it is to be an ordinary person with dukkha.

Kind regards,
Drolma

Element reminds us that the malady you speak of is "white-darkness".

[Ravana]

Hi Stuka,

As I understand it, Mahayana posits that the world is as inherently "real" as "you" or "I" are. However, there are Mind-Only schools within Zen and Tibetan Buddhism (and possibly others that I don't know of).

But in short, I'm a vajrayana and I don't ascribe to mind-only teachings and I know others that don't as well. The way that the Dalai Lama and my teacher teach is more in tune with your description of the Theravadan approach. I don't mean to single you out, I'm just using your post as a springboard to explain more.

Kindly,
Drolma

Hi,

Could you perhaps also explain

1) Which Mahayana schools accept that Samsara=Nibbana?

2) Which Mahayana schools accept that Arahats needed to be 'woken up' from nibbana and that then they must continue on the Bodhisattva path?