Luminious mind

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Sanghamitta »

Well new thread or not Lazy Eye..I used the Judaism/Christianity analogy advisedly.
They have certain commonalities God..the soul...eternal life in some form. Resurrection of the dead in some form literal or not. But Christianity went on to develop a whole theology around the Trinity , Redemption etc etc. And at that point it became a new and different religion.
In the same way the Mahayana developed a whole " theology" of Buddha Nature or Buddha Dhatu and a whole pantheon of Buddhas, and a whole set of "sutras" to explain those developments and at that point became a new and different religion.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Lazy_eye »

A fair enough argument, Sanghamitta. However, Christianity entered the picture thousands of years into the history of Judaism and constituted a clear, radical break. By contrast, Mahayana originated only a few hundred years after the Buddha's paranibbana and actually not that long after Theravada itself emerged as a distinctly identifiable school.

At the time when this happened, a variety of schools and practices existed that were all based, or claimed to be based, on the Buddha's teachings. The most credible theory which I've heard concerning the Mahayana is that it developed as a kind of "back to basics" movement among monastics, focused on emulating the Buddha's journey from bodhisatta to buddha, and with a big emphasis on asceticism and seclusion. You can see this, I think, in influential texts such as Zhiyi's "Manual of Samatha, Vipassana and Dhyana Meditation". (http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Buddhi ... 1935413007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

As we were discussing above, "buddha nature" can be connected to "luminous mind" -- though I agree that it did transform into a kind of metaphysical monster. Stephen Batchelor has an interesting talk on this subject -- he suggests a Chinese translation error was instrumental in this transformation.

Maybe the short answer is: for a Theravadin, there may be two different religions. For a Mahayanist, probably not. From an objective scholarly point of view, up for debate depending on how we interpret early developments.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Sanghamitta »

So from a Mahayana point of view the Theravada is subsumed like it or not ?

Which is of course exactly what the Hindus say about Buddhism. They accept that Buddhism is part of Hinduism because they are tolerant but unfortunately the Buddhists stubbornly insist that they are not..the schismatics.. :smile:
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Luminious mind

Post by tiltbillings »

Lazy_eye wrote:
Maybe the short answer is: for a Theravadin, there may be two different religions. For a Mahayanist, probably not. From an objective scholarly point of view, up for debate depending on how we interpret early developments.
The "early development" is not where the various schools of the Mahayana stopped. Being in its eariest years, particularly since the introduction of the us vs them concept of hinayana, the Mahayana was an oppositional movement which redefined, re-framed Buddhism in opposition to the Mainstream schools giving us, among other things, a deified, docetic Buddha and a pantheon of gods, and also keep in mind that the Mahayana as an institution was essentially non-existent during the early years:
"... even after its initial appearance in the public domain in the 2nd century
[Mahayana] appears to have remained an extremely limited minority movement - if
it remained at all - that attracted absolutely no documented public or popular
support for at least two more centuries. It is again a demonstrable fact that
anything even approaching popular support for the Mahayana cannot be documented
until 4th/5th century AD, and even then the support is overwhelmingly monastic,
not lay, donors ... although there was - as we know from Chinese translations - a large
and early Mahayana literature there was no early, organized, independent,
publicly supported movement that it could have belonged to."

-- G. Schopen "The Inscription on the Ku.san image of Amitabha and the
character of the early Mahayana in India." JIABS 10, 2 pgs 124-5
>> 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
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Lazy_eye »

Would you say oppositionality vs orthodoxy is enough to define separate religions? Also, is oppositionality a feature exclusive to Mahayana? My understanding is that there were several schools/movements around, all of which conflicted on various points and engaged in polemics. Theravada and Mahayana agreed on some points, disagreed on others.

"Hinayana" is just an (ugly) negative way of affirming the validity of Mahayana, since it basically means "those (whoever they are) who do not accept the Mahayana sutras". Mahayana opposes those who deny Mahayana, thus Mahayana=Mahayana, it's a tautology which resolves nothing and has no use except as a rhetorical weapon. It's in no way essential to Mahayana doctrine per se.

Personally, I feel some of the later shifts within Mahayana are more radical than the Theravada/Mahayana divide. After all, in early Mahayana up through Chan we still have the basic program of sila, samadhi and panna. But by the time we get to the later Pure Land schools, self-effort is abandoned in favor of trusting the deified Amida, samadhi is reduced to a secondary practice, sila becomes an optional set of guidelines, the monastic sangha gives way to a secularized priesthood, and so on.

This seems, to me, a far more dramatic split than arguing about buddha nature, bodhicitta or sunyata, all of which have antecedents in the nikayas.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:24 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Luminious mind

Post by tiltbillings »

Lazy_eye wrote:Interesting stuff, Tilt... but would you say "oppositionality" vs "orthodoxy" is enough to define separate religions?
I'd say both considering were the Mahayana doctrines ended up.

Also, is "oppositionality" a feature exclusive to Mahayana?
The Mahayana put its opposition into the mouth of the Buddha.
"Hinayana" is just an (ugly) negative way of affirming the validity of Mahayana, since it basically means "those (whoever they are) who do not accept the Mahayana sutras". Mahayana opposes those who deny Mahayana, thus Mahayana=Mahayana, it's a tautology which resolves nothing and has no use except as a rhetorical weapon. It's in no way essential to Mahayana doctrine per se.
Can't say Mahayana without implying hinayana.
This seems, to me, a far more dramatic split than arguing about buddha nature, bodhicitta or sunyata, all of which have antecedents in the nikayas.
Maybe, but that does not negate the vast divide between such doctrines as a docetic buddha and a abiding vs non-abiding nirvana which renders the arhat as a deluded being.
>> 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
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Luminious mind

Post by cooran »

Hello tilt
tilt said: Can't say Mahayana without implying hinayana.
Good One, Tilt! But what terms should be used for clear communication?

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Luminious mind

Post by tiltbillings »

cooran wrote:Hello tilt
tilt said: Can't say Mahayana without implying hinayana.
Good One, Tilt! But what terms should be used for clear communication?

with metta
Chris
There is not an easy answer to that. We just need to understand that Theravada is not the stereotyped hinayana of Mahayana construction. Getting Mahayanists to buy that is mixed. Some clearly understand that, but others, no so much. It is almost always going to be a education issue.
>> 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
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Lazy_eye »

tiltbillings wrote:Can't say Mahayana without implying hinayana.
Yes, that's true. Great (no pun intended) point!

And yes, Mahayana and Theravada have conflicting premises -- e.g, Mahayana's claim to represent "later, superior teachings of the Buddha" versus Theravada's rejection/non-acknowledgment of same. But perhaps if we remove some of the loaded adjectival stuff the distinction can be made in a way that is less adversarial. That is, we can define Mahayana teachings as extrapolations, and the Mahayana conception of Buddha as a general principle derived from an historical instantiation.

Given that scholarship stands in the way of taking the Mahayana foundational myth literally, I wonder if this is the only viable choice anyway, for the Mahayana side at least.

(Warning: yet another Zen/Theravada sob story to follow...) My encounter with Mahayana has been through teachers who place strong emphasis on the Pali suttas, and my encounter with Theravada has been, in some cases, through teachers who accept/incorporate aspects of Mahayana! All of which makes me think there is some room for accord.
Maybe, but that does not negate the vast divide between such doctrines as a docetic buddha and a abiding vs non-abiding nirvana which renders the arhat as a deluded being.
But nibbana can be a contentious topic within Theravada too, no? I'll have to dig it up, but I remember Joseph Goldstein saying in a talk that he went through a profound crisis occasioned by the disparity between Burmese and Thai Forest traditions on this question.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Goedert
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Goedert »

Friends,

Actually theravada is the doctrine of analyses, it is more complex to understand abstract feelings, it is similar to Socratic method of understand reality, but theravada has the plus calm abiding for true understanding.

Mahayana and Vajrayana, is a more easier to practice, even people with no instructions in reading or writing, like in Tibet and low class born, can do the sadhana rituals if they can memorize them, and theyre concentration comes with the visualization of the deity and the 8 Noble Path comes with the lipe mantra repetition and sadhana liturgy with visualisations, like a vedanta yoga. It is so, that one day the ignorant person will understand that the deity is not real and with many mantra repetions and clear visualization he can develop one pointed concentration and develop a true understanding of reality.

Both practices are good and work, with the same final goal.

The only problem is the radicalism and translating errors.

What radicalism?

The radicalism of the bodhisattva path of Mahayana and Vajrayana, the Buddha stated that every kind of extremism must be avoided and practiced a middle way. There is a lot of contradictions in the bodhisattva path and the teachings of the Buddha.

I can say one exemple in the teaching of Tibetans. Chagdud Rinpoche said in one of his books in Brazil:
"There was a great ship with many treasures going to a city. In that ship there were only Bodhisattvas aspirants but one of tailores were a bandit. This bandit planned to kill all of the bodhisattvas and steal the treasures. The capitan of the ship, a 10th level bodhisattva, knew his intention and stabed a sword in the heart of the thif tailor, for compassion, because if the thief killed the bodhisattvas he will spend eons in purgatory..."

What someone that know the core of the 4 Noble truth and 8 Noble Path would state?
Personally the might question will come up... Kill for compassion?

It is a extremism and must be avoided. It break the first precept of buddhist teaching...

The Mahayana and Vajrayana practioners (principle in Brazil) keeping relating that Hinayana term with Theravada tradition. In the books also.

But why this extreme necessity to auto-afirm that "My doctrine is superior, my path is the best".

Hinayana died out in India. Theravada (Early Svarstivhada before the Third Concil) moved to Sri Lanka (Mahinda brought the most acceptable teaching of the Concil, the doctrine of analyses) before the first registry of Mahayana doctrines. State Hinayana with Theravada is ridicullous, only a ignorant person with his mind trying to be wise for put him self in a pedestal would do it.

Similarites:
Bodhichitta = 4 Brahma Viharas
sunyata = anatta
buddha natutre = luminous mind "?"

The corruptive bhikkus among the ages also make vinaya practice differ in place to place.

In fact doing mantra repetitions and visulizations work.
In fact doing samatha and vipassyna work.

To understand Theravada well one must have in his back a good education system.
To understand Tantra em Mantra one do not need anything, just be alive.

It is scientific that Theravada is the closest of what the buddha taught.

Theravada is not extremist, you can go only one way, the liberation.

It has a bodhisatta path (Ledy Sayadaw - Manual of Excellent Man);
It has the most authentic teaching, scientifically.

If some one wanna be a bodhisatta or an arahat, the suffering will might him. Don't try to be anything, we are just avatar like beings, just a composition of aggregates.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Kenshou »

I feel like you're setting up a bit of a strawman there, Goedert.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Sherab »

luminous mind = elephant
us = blind men
Therefore the different schools/traditions.

Such discussions about the various schools can never be conclusive. I think we should just go with whatever is comfortable and works for each of us and leave it at that.

I started the post to get a Theravadin interpretation, period. I am not comfortable with the direction that this thread is heading.
User avatar
Goedert
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 9:24 pm
Location: SC, Brazil

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Goedert »

Kenshou wrote:I feel like you're setting up a bit of a strawman there, Goedert.
Friend Kenshou,

Pardon me. Think may it happen.

I have to practice more vipassina because ignorance and delusion is thick in the mind.

Can you clarify the points to help?

The argumentum ad hominem dind't bring the relevant points?

Source A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, source A is a member of group B.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Luminious mind

Post by ground »

There seems to be much attachment to what is called "school" or "tradition", which is nothing but attachment to "I" and "mine".
"Maha-" and "Hinayana" are motivations, kinds of "cetasika". So it is the individuals mind that is decisive as to whether "Maha-" or "Hinayana".
And with reference to teachings "Maha-" or "Hinayana" teachings are those that either explicitely advocate "Maha-" or "Hinayana" motivation or implicitely induce or strengthen "Maha-" or "Hinayana" motivation ("cetasika").
It is just that "Hinayana" motivation is more "ordinary" than "Mahayana" motivation since it is more compliant with the ordinary "I" and "mine".

Kind regards
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: Luminious mind

Post by Sanghamitta »

Its fascinating. The prevailing view among many Theravada students is that the Mahayana represents a break from the Dhamma of the Buddha, and the prevailing view of the Mahayana is that it is a matter of semantics and culture. It seems to me that logic and plain commonsense is with the Theravada...This will not of course prevent Mahayana students from insisting on interpreting the Theravada for us... :lol:
Lets face it the reason that these debates have increased in terms of traffic on Dhamma Wheel is because of the demise of E sangha...just like refugees from Vietnam set about recreating Vietnam in their new country.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Post Reply