Theravada vs Mahayana

[zan]

This also seems very relevant. Here, the Buddha clearly confirms that the elements exist.

“Reverends, do you see this large tree trunk?”

“Yes, reverend.”

“If they wanted to, a mendicant with psychic powers who has mastered their mind could determine this tree trunk to be nothing but earth. Why is that? Because the earth element exists in the tree trunk.
-AN 6.41

[Ceisiwr]

This also seems very relevant. Here, the Buddha clearly confirms that the elements exist.

“Reverends, do you see this large tree trunk?”

“Yes, reverend.”

“If they wanted to, a mendicant with psychic powers who has mastered their mind could determine this tree trunk to be nothing but earth. Why is that? Because the earth element exists in the tree trunk.
-AN 6.41

That’s referring to having mastery over one’s perception. It’s related to practices like the liberations, Brahmaviharas, bases of mastery, kasinas or this

“Mendicants, a mendicant would do well to meditate from time to time perceiving the following: the repulsive in the unrepulsive,
the unrepulsive in the repulsive,
the repulsive in both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, and
the unrepulsive in both the repulsive and the unrepulsive.
A mendicant would do well to meditate from time to time staying equanimous, mindful and aware, rejecting both the repulsive and the unrepulsive.”

[zan]

This also seems very relevant. Here, the Buddha clearly confirms that the elements exist.

“Reverends, do you see this large tree trunk?”

“Yes, reverend.”

“If they wanted to, a mendicant with psychic powers who has mastered their mind could determine this tree trunk to be nothing but earth. Why is that? Because the earth element exists in the tree trunk.
-AN 6.41

That’s referring to having mastery over one’s perception. It’s related to practices like the liberations, Brahmaviharas, bases of mastery, kasinas or this

“Mendicants, a mendicant would do well to meditate from time to time perceiving the following: the repulsive in the unrepulsive,
the unrepulsive in the repulsive,
the repulsive in both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, and
the unrepulsive in both the repulsive and the unrepulsive.
A mendicant would do well to meditate from time to time staying equanimous, mindful and aware, rejecting both the repulsive and the unrepulsive.”

Ah. Okay, thanks. Where in the suttas does the Buddha clearly state, outside of the context of the twelve links, that the four great primaries (mahabhutas) are dependently originated? I can't find any suttas that give much detail on the source of the mahabhutas, nor even really what they are. The only thing I can find is where they are referenced within talk of the twelve links.

[Ceisiwr]

Ah. Okay, thanks. Where in the suttas does the Buddha clearly state, outside of the context of the twelve links, that the four great primaries (mahabhutas) are dependently originated? I can't find any suttas that give much detail on the source of the mahabhutas, nor even really what they are. The only thing I can find is where they are referenced within talk of the twelve links.

SN 14.31 comes to mind.

[zan]

Ah. Okay, thanks. Where in the suttas does the Buddha clearly state, outside of the context of the twelve links, that the four great primaries (mahabhutas) are dependently originated? I can't find any suttas that give much detail on the source of the mahabhutas, nor even really what they are. The only thing I can find is where they are referenced within talk of the twelve links.

SN 14.31 comes to mind.

I'm not seeing any mention of dependent origination. Am I missing it? I have a tendency to read too fast sometimes lol! Edit: I read it again, slowly, and it doesn't seem to mention it at all. It delineates the elements as temporary, suffering, and so on, but makes no mention of dependent origination at all. Pleasure depends on (or arises from? is that how Venerable Sujato translated "paticca" here?) the elements, but that seems to be the only mention of anything like that. This doesn't declare the elements themselves as being dependent on anything, only that they are temporary.

‘The pleasure and happiness that arise from the earth element: this is its gratification.
‘yaṁ kho pathavīdhātuṁ paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ, ayaṁ pathavīdhātuyā assādo;

That the earth element is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback.
yaṁ pathavīdhātu aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā, ayaṁ pathavīdhātuyā ādīnavo;

No mention of the full compound, nor the context to declare the elements dependently originated/paticcasamuppada. I'm not seeing it in the pali, nor in Venerable Sujato's translation.

Linked Discourses 14.31
4. Chapter Four
Before Awakening
At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘What’s the gratification, the drawback, and the escape when it comes to the earth element … the water element … the fire element … and the air element?’

Then it occurred to me: ‘The pleasure and happiness that arise from the earth element: this is its gratification. That the earth element is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback. Removing and giving up desire and greed for the earth element: this is its escape. The pleasure and happiness that arise from the water element … The pleasure and happiness that arise from the fire element … The pleasure and happiness that arise from the air element: this is its gratification. That the air element is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback. Removing and giving up desire and greed for the air element: this is its escape.’

As long as I didn’t truly understand these four elements’ gratification, drawback, and escape in this way for what they are, I didn’t announce my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.

But when I did truly understand these four elements’ gratification, drawback, and escape in this way for what they are, I announced my supreme perfect awakening in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans.

Knowledge and vision arose in me: ‘My freedom is unshakable; this is my last rebirth; now there’ll be no more future lives.’”

[Ceisiwr]

I'm not seeing any mention of dependent origination. Am I missing it? I have a tendency to read too fast sometimes lol! Edit: I read it again, slowly, and it doesn't seem to mention it at all. It delineates the elements as temporary, suffering, and so on, but makes no mention of dependent origination at all.

How does suffering arise?

This doesn't declare the elements themselves as being dependent on anything, only that they are temporary.

They are temporary, yes. Temporary things are dependent, not independent.

[zan]

I'm not seeing any mention of dependent origination. Am I missing it? I have a tendency to read too fast sometimes lol! Edit: I read it again, slowly, and it doesn't seem to mention it at all. It delineates the elements as temporary, suffering, and so on, but makes no mention of dependent origination at all.

How does suffering arise?

This doesn't declare the elements themselves as being dependent on anything, only that they are temporary.

They are temporary, yes. Temporary things are dependent, not independent.

Thanks. What I was wondering is where the Buddha ever clearly stated, outside of the context of the twelve links, that the four great primaries (mahabhutas) are dependently originated. This is not clearly stated at all in this sutta.

As to temporary things being dependent, there's no rule that says there can be no such thing as random chance, or that the universal cycles are themselves dependent on something else, rather than just being cyclical things that happen on their own. The mahabhutas may just exist for no reason, popping in and out of existence, in long universal cycles, forever. That is, unless you know of some sutta where the Buddha said clearly, and precisely, that all temporary things are dependently originated, and as before, that, clearly and specifically the mahabhutas are dependently originated?

As far as I'm aware, the only rules are: All conditioned things are not self, temporary, and suffering. Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta.


Dependent origination is not clearly and unambiguously necessitated there. The only way to rope it in would be to make sankhara the same sankhara of the twelve links, but then the scope of the declaration shrinks from declaring ALL things but nibbana as anicca dukkha anatta, to just being about a being's body, speech and mind formations. Thus, either way, the universal mahabhutas are not made dependently originated by these rules.

Edit:

Further, all the suttas I've seen on the universal cycles of contraction and expansion make zero mention of dependent origination.

For example:

“There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

“But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā.
-DN 1

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Vesālī, in Ambapālī’s Mango Grove. There the Buddha addressed the mendicants, “Mendicants!”

“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:

“Mendicants, conditions are impermanent. Conditions are unstable. Conditions are unreliable. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.

Sineru, the king of mountains, is 84,000 leagues long and 84,000 leagues wide. It sinks 84,000 leagues below the ocean and rises 84,000 leagues above it. There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, the rain doesn’t fall. For many years, many hundreds, many thousands, many hundreds of thousands of years no rain falls. When this happens, the plants and seeds, the herbs, grass, and big trees wither away and dry up, and are no more. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable, so unreliable. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.

There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, a second sun appears. When this happens, the streams and pools wither away and dry up, and are no more. So impermanent are conditions …

There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, a third sun appears. When this happens, the great rivers—the Ganges, Yamunā, Aciravatī, Sarabhū, and Mahī—wither away and dry up, and are no more. So impermanent are conditions …

There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, a fourth sun appears. When this happens, the great lakes from which the rivers originate—the Anotattā, Sīhapapātā, Rathakārā, Kaṇṇamuṇḍā, Kuṇālā, Chaddantā, and Mandākinī—wither away and dry up, and are no more. So impermanent are conditions …

There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, a fifth sun appears. When this happens, the water in the ocean sinks by a hundred leagues. It sinks by two, three, four, five, six, or even seven hundred leagues. The water that remains in the ocean is only seven palm trees deep. It’s six, five, four, three, two, or even one palm tree deep. The water that remains in the ocean is only seven fathoms deep. It’s six, five, four, three, two, one or even half a fathom deep. It’s waist high, knee high, or even ankle high. It’s like the time after the rainy season, when the rain falls heavily and water remains here and there in the cows’ hoofprints. In the same way, water in the ocean remains here and there in puddles like cows’ hoofprints. When the fifth sun appears there’s not even enough water in the great ocean to wet a toe-joint. So impermanent are conditions …

There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, a sixth sun appears. When this happens, this great earth and Sineru the king of mountains smoke and smolder and give off fumes. It’s like when a potter’s kiln is first kindled, and it smokes and smolders and gives off fumes. In the same way, this great earth and Sineru the king of mountains smoke and smolder and give off fumes. So impermanent are conditions …

There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, a seventh sun appears. When this happens, this great earth and Sineru the king of mountains erupt in one burning mass of fire. And as they blaze and burn the flames are swept by the wind as far as the Brahmā realm. Sineru the king of mountains blazes and burns, crumbling as it’s overcome by the great fire. And meanwhile, mountain peaks a hundred leagues high, or two, three, four, or five hundred leagues high disintegrate as they burn. And when the great earth and Sineru the king of mountains blaze and burn, no soot or ash is found. It’s like when ghee or oil blaze and burn, and neither ashes nor soot are found. In the same way, when the great earth and Sineru the king of mountains blaze and burn, no soot or ash is found. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
-AN 7.66

Seems like if dependent origination was behind these events, he would have mentioned it. Instead, it is conspicuously absent. Unless, again, we make connections until all that is ever discussed is the twelve links, but then he wasn't teaching about the cosmos in the first place, and all of these teachings become metaphors for an individual. Either way, the cycles of the cosmos don't end up being dependently originated.

Edit again:

Fortuitous origination is declared a wrong view in DN 1, but that is wrapped up in a self view, so I don't know that that rules out the being dependently originating, while the cosmos cyclically originates for no reason.

“There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins, who are fortuitous originationists, and who on two grounds proclaim the self and the world to originate fortuitously. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honourable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

“There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called ‘non-percipient beings.’ When perception arises in them, those gods pass away from that plane. Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects the arising of perception, but nothing previous to that. He speaks thus: ‘The self and the world originate fortuitously. What is the reason? Because previously I did not exist, but now I am. Not having been, I sprang into being.’

“This, bhikkhus, is the first case.

“In the second case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honourable recluses and brahmins fortuitous originationists, proclaiming the self and the world to originate fortuitously?

“Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view—hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought—thus: ‘The self and the world originate fortuitously.’

“This, bhikkhus, is the second case.

“It is on these two grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are fortuitous originationists proclaim the self and the world to originate fortuitously. Whatever recluses or brahmins there may be who proclaim the self and the world to originate fortuitously, all of them do so on these two grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
-DN 1

Since my view would be that people originate dependently, and the cosmos originates for no reason, and my view is not one of those listed above, and there are no fortuitous origination views outside those listed, then my view necessarily isn't ruled out by this sutta, because it's not included under that refutation.

Edit yet again:

Per the Kathavatthu, land is not generated by kamma. Thus, it, land, made of mahabhutas during the cycles of expansion and contraction of the cosmos, clearly is outside of the twelve links of dependent origination. The twelve links are clearly bound up with kamma, land is not. How then is it dependently originated?

7.7 Of the Earth and Karma
Controverted Point: That land is a result of action.

Theravādin: As well say that the earth belongs to feeling pleasant, painful, or neutral, or is conjoined as mental with feeling or with perception, or volition, or cognition, that the earth has a mental object, that she can advert to, reflect upon, consider, attend, intend, anticipate, aim. Is not just the opposite true of her? Hence your proposition is wrong.

Again, compare her with something mental—with contact. Of contact you could say that it is both (i.) a result of action and also that it (ii.) belongs to feeling, and so on (as in PTS CS 7.7.1). But you cannot say both these things of earth. Or if you affirm the former (i.) and deny the latter predicate (ii.) of earth, you must be prepared to do no less in the case of contact.

Again, the earth undergoes expansion and contraction, cutting and breaking up. Can you say as much of the mental result of action?

Again, the earth may be bought and sold, located, collected, explored. Can you say as much of the result of action?

Again, the earth is common to everyone else. But is the result of my action common to everyone else? “Yes”, you say. But was it not said by the Exalted One:

“This treasure to none else belongs,
No bandit hence may bear it.
The mortal who would fare aright
Let him work acts of merit”

Hence it is wrong to say that a result of action is experienced by everyone else.

Again, you would admit that first the earth is established and afterwards beings are reborn on it. But does result first come to pass and afterwards people act to insure result? If you deny, you cannot maintain that earth is a result of action.

Again, is the earth a common result of collective action? Yes, you say? Do you mean that all beings enjoy the use of the earth? If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposition. If you assent, I ask whether there are any who pass utterly away without enjoying the use of it? You assent, of course. But are there any who pass utterly away without exhausting the experienced result of their actions? Of course you deny … .

Once more, is the earth a result of the action of a being who is a world-monarch? and do other beings share in the use of the earth? Yes, you reply. Then do other beings make use of the result of his actions? You deny … I ask again, and you assent. But then, do other beings share also in his contact, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness, faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, understanding? Of course you deny … .

Andhaka: But if I am wrong, surely there is action to gain dominion over the earth, action to gain sovereignty on the earth? If so, surely the earth is a result of action.

[SilenceMonkey]

Emptiness is to let go of our ignorance, ie. our views of reality.

གང་གི་ཐུགས་བརྩེ་ཉེར་བཟུང་ནས། །
ལྟ་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་སྤང་བའི་ཕྱིར། །
དམ་པའི་ཆོས་ནི་སྟོན་མཛད་པ། །
གཽ་ཏ་མ་དེ་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །

I bow to Gautama,
Who out of Compassion
Taught the sacred Dharma
That leads to release of all views.

Nāgārjuna, Root Verses of the Middle Way

[SilenceMonkey]

However, sometimes I struggle in bridging the goal and the respective path of these two traditions. In the Theravada tradition the goal (enlightenment), and the path to reach it, is to me fairly clear. In a nutshell: there are wholesome qualities (Enlightenment factors) that need to be cultivated and unwholesome qualities (Nivarana) that need to be removed and this will lead, along with the right ethics, meditation and wisdom, to different stages of realization ultimately leading to the state of Arahant.
My problems arise when I try to fit in all this the concept of Emptiness (Sunyata). I concur with the interpretation that emptiness is an elaboration of the dependent origination, so from a conceptual level, I see a common ground between the doctrine in the Pali Canon and the later Mahayana literature. However, it seems to me that often, especially in some of the literature on Prajnaparamita and Mahayana sutra (eg Lankavatara, Vimalakirtinirdesa), this leads to a different approach to the actual practice, path and ultimately enlightenment. What I often get from these sutras is a disregard for a gradual path of progression based on the cultivation of wholesome states and the elimination of unwholesome ones and, on the other hand, that the insight into emptiness is a sufficient condition for awakening. This seems to me that, at least theoretically, an insight into emptiness doesn't necessarily need the practice of virtues, right ethics and even meditation, leading to a completely different direction compared to the Theravada Buddhism.

…

I would appreciate any thought on the matter or suggestions to sources that tackle the issues.

Thanks

It seems to me this question can be answered with a more thorough understanding of the two truths, relative truth and ultimate truth. (Good to look into)

All of the practices on the path are considered relative truth. They are absolutely necessary for the attainment of enlightenment, because they generate merit and wisdom. Withou merit, realization of Shunyata is impossible. From a mahayana perspective, this is why we do virtuous practices and cultivate merit. Once we have enough merit to see that the path itself is illusory, we don’t abandon the path itself but continue doing virtuous practices such as making offerings, reciting prayers, practicing the six Pāramitās, the Noble Eightfold Path, etc… with the understanding that it’s a dreamlike experience.

Zen is difficult to understand for a lot of people. Many zen practitioners who misunderstand zen think “kill the Buddha” means destroy all vestiges of religion and tradition. They might act like Jack Kerouac and do whatever they feel like, thinking “it’s all emptiness.” True zen practice involves veneration of the Buddha and lineage masters, morning and evening prayer sessions 早課 and 晚課, making offerings to the shrine, practicing the six Pāramitās, studying and reciting sutras from zen tradition, etc… And of course meditation. People with wrong understanding of emptiness might reject all of this as relative practices which are a waste of time. But will they truly awaken?

Proper study of zen will alleviate these misunderstandings. A lot of the traditional aspects of zen are disregarded in the west as being merely “cultural practices” and “superstitious,” etc… such as reciting prayers, sutras and mantras, doing prostrations and making offerings. And many zen teachers in the west don’t teach these things because westerners would run away.

Regardless of whether one recites sutras and prayers or not, proper zen practice must include śīla pāramitā (purely upholding the precepts and bodhisattva vows).

སྟོང་པ་ཉིད་ལ་བལྟ་ཉེས་ན། །
ཤེས་རབ་ཆུང་རྣམས་ཕུང་བར་འགྱུར། །
ཇི་ལྟར་སྦྲུལ་ལ་གཟུང་ཉེས་དང༌། །
རིག་སྔགས་ཉེས་པར་བསྒྲུབས་པ་བཞིན། །

If they view emptiness in the wrong way,
The less intelligent will be ruined,
Like someone mishandling a poisonous snake,
Or chanting a powerful spell incorrectly.
Nāgārjuna, Root Verses of the Middle Way, XXIV, 11

If zen practitioners are not of a high capacity that would allow them to realize emptiness merely by hearing the teachings (such as the sixth patriarch Huineng), they should study to gain a good understanding that will guide their practice.

For those who are interested in the Mahayana path in general, I recommend reading “Shantideva's A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life” by Thrangu Rinpoche. He gives wonderful explanation on the practices of Mahayana (relative truth). The 9th chapter explains how it all comes together with teachings on Emptiness.

When I was learning zen, we would regularly study Shantideva. He gives such a beautiful view of how to practice as a bodhisattva.

[Coëmgenu]

For those who are interested in the Mahayana path in general, I recommend reading “Shantideva's A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life” by Thrangu Rinpoche. He gives wonderful explanation on the practices of Mahayana (relative truth). The 9th chapter explains how it all comes together with teachings on Emptiness.

To this I would add The Nectar of Mañjuśrī's Speech by Venerable Kunzang Pelden. It is a commentary on the verses by Master Śāntideva.