Is Mahayana perspective useful for Theravada practitioners?

[mikenz66]

On the other hand, my teacher once said that Ajahn Brahm is probably the greatest Bodhisattva monastic in the country. So it's not about Theravada vs Mahayana at all.

Unless, of course, you hold the view that someone who feels that the Bodhissattva idea is unnecessary to the development of compassion is stuck in "hinayana" practise.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#iti-084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Bhikkhus, these three persons appearing in the world appear for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans. What three?

"Here, bhikkhus, a Tathagata appears in the world, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One, possessing perfect knowledge and conduct, a sublime one, a world-knower, an unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, a teacher of devas and humans, an enlightened one, a Lord. He teaches Dhamma that is good at the outset, good in the middle, and good at the end, with its correct meaning and wording, and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the first person appearing in the world who appears for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.

"Next, bhikkhus, there is a disciple of that teacher, an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely released through final knowledge. He teaches Dhamma... and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the second person appearing in the world... for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.

"And next, bhikkhus, there is a disciple of that teacher, a learner who is following the path, who has learned much and is of virtuous conduct. He teaches Dhamma... and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the third person appearing in the world... for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.
...

Metta
Mike

[Dan74]

On the other hand, my teacher once said that Ajahn Brahm is probably the greatest Bodhisattva monastic in the country. So it's not about Theravada vs Mahayana at all.

Unless, of course, you hold the view that someone who feels that the Bodhissattva idea is unnecessary to the development of compassion is stuck in "hinayana" practise.

No, I don't feel that at all, Mike. I suspect one can develop compassion in many different ways.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#iti-084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Bhikkhus, these three persons appearing in the world appear for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans. What three?

"Here, bhikkhus, a Tathagata appears in the world, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One, possessing perfect knowledge and conduct, a sublime one, a world-knower, an unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, a teacher of devas and humans, an enlightened one, a Lord. He teaches Dhamma that is good at the outset, good in the middle, and good at the end, with its correct meaning and wording, and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the first person appearing in the world who appears for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.

"Next, bhikkhus, there is a disciple of that teacher, an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely released through final knowledge. He teaches Dhamma... and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the second person appearing in the world... for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.

"And next, bhikkhus, there is a disciple of that teacher, a learner who is following the path, who has learned much and is of virtuous conduct. He teaches Dhamma... and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the third person appearing in the world... for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.
...

Metta
Mike

And to you...

_/|\_

[mikenz66]

No, I don't feel that at all, Mike. I suspect one can develop compassion in many different ways.

Good answer...


Karuna
Mike

[Sanghamitta]

I think of Hinayana as a stage in practice.

Most of us start on this path seeking to better our lives. But eventually it shifts to something deeper and more worthwhile, hopefully. If not, then it is a Hinayana attitude. Not bad at all, just still anchored in concern for oneself.

This is where I still am, mostly.

On the other hand, my teacher once said that Ajahn Brahm is probably the greatest Bodhisattva monastic in the country. So it's not about Theravada vs Mahayana at all.

It seems that we fall into this us versus them mentality very easily. Perhaps it is because on the web it can be tricky to judge one another's motives. I try to approach these exchanges as a privilege to hear from fellow practitioners and share some thoughts. I've said it before and I will say it again - I have no interest in beating the mahayana drum or promote some sense of superiority (which I don't even believe in). I am hear to learn and to share what may be useful to others.

_/|\_

Can I suggest that you communicate to Ajahn Brahm the fact that you or your teacher see him as a " Bodhisattava monastic " ? Seriously. But dont be surprised if his reply is short and terse and funny.... A little like congratulating the Archbishop of Canterbury for being a good Catholic..
In all honesty Dan 74, I have nothing but good will to you, but I dont understand this apparant need to see us all as a melange, instead of valueing our differences. Lets all just get on with our own practice, instead of creating a world in our own image.

[Dan74]

Since they know each other very well, I suspect he already knows!

And I also strongly suspect that he has far less problem with all these supposed differences than any one of us here. Using your example, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury would take it as a compliment, just as Ajahn Brahm would.

As for any perceived "need to see the world as a melange" that's an interesting metaphor, but that I harbour no such need. I was simply responding to Mike's inquiry whether I see Mahayana as offering something exclusive. I don't. Maybe others do. Others may know more - I am just a beginner.

_/|\_

[Sanghamitta]

There's been a diversity of views here (as usual!). Some have said that Mahayana is irrelevant or superfluous at best. Some have posted various Mahayana materials as having been useful or inspirational.

So I am wondering if people tend to feel that posts from Mahayana practitioners are unwelcome intrusions (as was recently expressed) or simply irrelevant at best. I knows the admins intentions are to have an inclusive forum particularly in this subforum but I am asking how others feel.

I don't want to detract people from their practice by posting confusing information or even what is perceived as adhamma. So if sharing my perspective as a Mahayana practitioner does that, I'd rather cease and desist.



This was your original Dan74. My own posts have been in response to it. I am a Theravada practitioner who joined a Theravada forum to further explore my own Theravada practice. I have indeed become sidetracked. But that is my responsibility not yours. However to echo earlier points made, there really are not enough hours in the day. If dropping into a Theravada forum is beneficial to a Mahayana student , then good. If looking at certain Mahayana theories is beneficial to a Theravada student then good again. It does not benefit me. But thats me. So I will stay out of the discussion having made my point,and wish you well.

with metta.
Valerie.


_/|\_

[PeterB]

A personal take. My own introduction to Buddhism was via the Theravada. To be precise the old Wat Buddhapadipa in Sheen before it moved to Wimbledon. I then spent many years in the Vajrayana. Following a major illness I found that, with no intellectual struggle or intent, that the Vajrayana had no more meaning for me, that it did not " speak to my condition " any more . I stress that this was personal, and is not a reflection on the beliefs and practice of anyone who finds the Mahayana suited to their needs. But for me it felt like a return to clearer streams to immerse myself again in the Theravada.

[Aloka]

A personal take. My own introduction to Buddhism was via the Theravada. To be precise the old Wat Buddhapadipa in Sheen before it moved to Wimbledon. I then spent many years in the Vajrayana. Following a major illness I found that, with no intellectual struggle or intent, that the Vajrayana had no more meaning for me, that it did not " speak to my condition " any more . I stress that this was personal, and is not a reflection on the beliefs and practice of anyone who finds the Mahayana suited to their needs. But for me it felt like a return to clearer streams to immerse myself again in the Theravada.

Hi Peter,

I recall going to the opening of the Thai temple in Wimbledon many years ago !

My introduction to Buddhism was straight into Vajrayana when I was very young and I have stayed with it for many years. However, in the last 2 years I have been increasingly interested in the Theravada Thai Forest tradition and feel quite comfortable with both traditions. I really don't see this as being much of a problem at the moment.

[Vardali]

I have thought about this question - and the discussion within this thread - for a couple of days now. And while it is beyond me to respond to it in learned or philosophical manner, I have decided to add my view in a simple manner of how I have experienced either perspective.

The first time I got introduced to Buddhism was in my teens (quite a while ago ). In my area, the Tibetan/Mahayana school has been most prevalent so this was my first connection. The philosophy appealed to me, the related practice and especially the prominent and very emphatic focus on a guru-/veneration-based approach was not at all attractive to me (I guess I have some issues with "authority figures"). I wasn't aware of any "other" Buddhist approach by then and frankly, I was totally put off.

20 years later, I found back to engaging the "Buddhist attraction" when my ex-boyfriend unexpectedly died and I got into dealing with his death by reading Sogyal Rinpoche's Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. Again, there was a lot of stuff which I simply cannot accept; but also there was a lot of stuff which I felt was worth exploring in more detail.

This was in 2006 and my journey of understanding more about Buddhism has actually brought me here. Because in starting with the Tibetan style and Mahayana approach (without realizing then or even now the whole scale of Mahayana approaches) , I found the Thai forest tradition. And while my reaction the Tibetan teachings remained ambivalent, the teachings of Ajahn Chah and his disciples spoke to me in a way I could unhesitantly relate to: the teaching elements are there, also the compassion and wisdom, but without the rituals and heavy reliance of guru-/lineage transmission which I personally found so off-putting in the Tibetan texts I read.

I guess you could argue that by following the teachings of Ajahn Chah's disciples "lineage", I am not acting overly differently to the Tibetan lineage selection. But to me, this choice is based on what I am able to understand and work with.

So, to summarise from my perspective of a beginner of Theravada practice, a Mahayana perspective brought me here, in the end. So, either perspective can be useful to guide you to "your" practice, in one way or the other. That's sufficiently useful in my books