in wich ways does Mahayana contradict the suttas?

[Tutareture]

I heard that the Buddha said that he did not teach a esoteric doctrine so that would eliminate Vajrayana.in what ways does mahayana contradict the suttas?and if it does contradict the suttas what is the mahayana reply to all of this?

[SarathW]

This is a good question.
With the very little knowledge I have they do not accept Arahant ideal as Nibbana.
Mahayana followers do not want to attain Nibbana in this life and they expect all beings to be liberated before they do.
So they follow the Bodhisatva ideal.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tutareture,

Simply put, the Buddha did not teach the Mahayana Sutras.

As such, I regard them as I would virtually any other Buddhist works not written by the Buddha:

- Not essential
- (Most likely) Sectarian
- As a "commentary", which may or may not be useful to some
- Outright slander, if they're being falsely attributed to the Buddha or one of his noble disciples

As such, I wouldn't waste much time focusing on such things, when the Buddha's teachings are available to us today if only we care to look in the right direction. The only "commentaries" (regardless of sect) that are potentially worth your time are those that at least make an effort to shed light upon, rather than displace or subvert the Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Paul.

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

Greetings Tutareture,

Simply put, the Buddha did not teach the Mahayana Sutras.

As such, I regard them as I would virtually any other Buddhist works not written by the Buddha:

- Not essential
- (Most likely) Sectarian
- As a "commentary", which may or may not be useful to some
- Outright slander, if they're being falsely attributed to the Buddha or one of his noble disciples

As such, I wouldn't waste much time focusing on such things, when the Buddha's teachings are available to us today if only we care to look in the right direction. The only "commentaries" (regardless of sect) that are potentially worth your time are those that at least make an effort to shed light upon, rather than displace or subvert the Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Paul.

And for this reason, I, mindful of a PhD thesis by Alexander von Rospatt entitled "The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness", which claims that "There can be no doubt that the theory of momentariness cannot be traced back to the beginnings of Buddhism or even the Buddha himself. It does not fit the practically orientated teachings of early Buddhism and clearly bears the mark of later doctrinal elaboration. Thus in the Nikayas/Agamas there are many passages which attribute duration to material and even mental entities, whereas there is, at least to my knowledge, no passage which testifies to the stance that all conditioned entities are momentary. (page 15)" and " ...there is very little evidence for the doctrine of momentariness before it emerged in the post-canonical Abhidharma literature of the Sarvistividins (page 67)", am agnostic about kshanabhangavada.

[auto]

I heard that the Buddha said that he did not teach a esoteric doctrine so that would eliminate Vajrayana.in what ways does mahayana contradict the suttas?and if it does contradict the suttas what is the mahayana reply to all of this?

How the term 'yoga'/affliction in Sutta are used can give the idea of contradiction. You can't complete into next method without "sexual union" - Sexuality is the nature of this phenomena between mind and the body. The substances or materials in ones body which are flowing are the result of completion of past union what doesn't afflict on personal level what would warrant taking an action. These substances circulate into a state where they can be led by using your mind, to where will be another union growing this way further away from afflictions by then having more and more substances, materials.
Aren't it exiting to have a prospect.

[dharmacorps]

It is also worth noting many Mahayana suttas state verbatim that they reject known Early Buddhist Textx/Theravada suttas (i.e. "I know this sutta says A but the Buddha actually said B"). So they knowingly are trying to change what was already established.

[plabit]

I heard that the Buddha said that he did not teach a esoteric doctrine so that would eliminate Vajrayana.in what ways does mahayana contradict the suttas?and if it does contradict the suttas what is the mahayana reply to all of this?

what even is mahayana? I've never seen a coherent exposition of it. It seems wholly a negative. Especially in Lotus Sutra where its all like "pratyekabuddhas, arhants, and sravakas are all wrong" but never tells what its new doctrine really is other than an amorphous "expedient means" concept that allows them to assert any doctrine they want and claim its true and then contradict it two minutes or 20 years later saying "haha that was only an expedient means! now I will tell you the true truth" and 40 years later "haha! that ALSO was only an expedient means and I now I will tell you the true true truth" and so on to infinity. Unfortunately since Mahayana started this method many centuries ago, many Theravada teachers have taken to copying it and also use this silly method of constantly changing the teachings with "haha! that was only an expedient means but the true true true truth is..." Its pretty tedious.

[4GreatHeavenlyKings]

I heard that the Buddha said that he did not teach a esoteric doctrine so that would eliminate Vajrayana.in what ways does mahayana contradict the suttas?and if it does contradict the suttas what is the mahayana reply to all of this?

what even is mahayana? I've never seen a coherent exposition of it. It seems wholly a negative. Especially in Lotus Sutra where its all like "pratyekabuddhas, arhants, and sravakas are all wrong" but never tells what its new doctrine really is other than an amorphous "expedient means" concept that allows them to assert any doctrine they want and claim its true and then contradict it two minutes or 20 years later saying "haha that was only an expedient means! now I will tell you the true truth" and 40 years later "haha! that ALSO was only an expedient means and I now I will tell you the true true truth" and so on to infinity. Unfortunately since Mahayana started this method many centuries ago, many Theravada teachers have taken to copying it and also use this silly method of constantly changing the teachings with "haha! that was only an expedient means but the true true true truth is..." Its pretty tedious.

Jan Nattier, in her excellent book "A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā)", points out that Mahayana Buddhism as we define it seems to have originated as a few strands of Buddhist teachings that only later were grouped together. Strands include the "Cult of the Book", the "Doctrine of Emptiness", the "Bodhisattva's Path", the "Doctrine ofTathagatagarbha", and the "Cults of Celestial Buddhas" (most famously, Amitabha).