Theravada vs Mahayana

[Coëmgenu]

The six perfections are derived directly from the eightfold path. Fake news from a fake sage who doesn't remember half of the Prajñāpāramitā that he skimmed through.

[zan]

Theravada is where we practice the eightfold path to reach enlightenment, and follow the Buddha's rules and teachings.

Mahayana, and especially Zen, is where everything is an illusion, and you're already enlightened.

The historical Buddha, in the Pali suttas, taught that beings dependently originate via rebirth.

...

This essay has for its purpose the simple but fundamental task of establishing what the 12-links formula is about (i.e., the subject matter broached in the canonical primary source texts). I would now contrast a few of the popular opinions on this matter, taking my motto from Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man: “False facts are highly injurious … for they often endure long; but false views… do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness…”.

Many of the leading interpretations are pointedly vague. The influential translator Bhikkhu Bodhi remarks: “In its abstract form the principle of dependent arising is equivalent to the law of the conditioned genesis of phenomena.” (Bodhi, 1980, q.v. exposition, 2nd paragraph) As anodyne as this may sound, I must repudiate it as a “false fact”: the subject of the doctrine is simply incarnation (inclusive of conception, the development of the embryo, and birth). While this may extend to include the hatching of snakes and the births of gods and demi-gods (as shown above, 1), the primary concern of the text is human life in its tangible form. The text is not about the origin of “phenomena” (neither in its dictionary denotation, nor in any other sense of the term I can construe here); I would reject any attempt to broaden the meaning of this particular set of source texts into an abstract statement on epistemology or metaphysics. The Pali canon contains many discourses concerning the function of the mind and perception, but this isn’t one of them. A huge bulk of pseudo-philosophical hyperbole written by modern authors must collapse on this simple point: the original text does not broach the subject of the “structural relatedness of phenomena” (as Bodhi puts it, idem. 7th paragraph).

...

My conclusion is, simply, that the 12-links formula is unambiguously an ancient tract that was originally written on the subject of the conception and development of the embryo, as a sequence of stages prior to birth; in examining the primary source text, this is as blatant today as it was over two thousand years ago, despite some very interesting misinterpretations that have arisen in the centuries in-between.

-Unpopular facts about one of Buddhist philosophy’s most popular doctrines, Eisel Mazard

Mahayana teaches that all things are dependently originated, and extrapolated this to an extreme degree, and thus, nothing exists/we're already enlightened, Samsara and Nirvana are the same thing, and other paradoxes.

there is nothing that arises
-Nagarjuna, Sixty Stanzas, verse 21

Both samsara and nirvana,
Neither of these two exists;
The thorough understanding of cyclic existence
This is referred to as "nirvana"
-Nagarjuna, ibid, verse 6

Zen runs with this, to it's full logical conclusion, and declares that revering the Buddha, practicing, etc. are absurd, and, if it were true that nothing exists or whatever, then rightfully so! If that were true, then there is no reason to follow a bunch of ancient texts rules that don't exist in the first place.

Here, there is neither Buddha, nor Patriarchs. . . . The bodhisattvas are only dung-heap coolies. Nirvana and bodhi are dead stumps to tie your donkeys to. The twelve divisions of the Sacred Teaching are only lists of ghosts, sheets of paper fit only for wiping the pus from your boils. And all the ‘four fruitions’ and ‘ten stages’ are mere ghosts lingering in their decayed graves. Have these anything to do with your salvation?
The wise seek not the Buddha. The Buddha is the great murderer who has seduced so many people into the pitfalls of the prostituting Devil.
That old barbarian rascal [Buddha] claimed that he had survived the destruction of three worlds. Where is he now? Did he not die after eighty years of life? Was he in any way different from you?" "O ye wise men, disengage your bodies and your minds! Free yourselves from all bondages.
-Hsuan-chien

The mission of Bodhidharma’s coming to the East was to find a man who would not be deceived by men.
Here in my place, I have not a single truth to give you. My work is only to free men from their bondage, to heal their illness, and to beat the ghosts out of them.
Inwardly and outwardly, do try to kill everything that comes in your way. If the Buddha be in your way, kill the Buddha. If the Patriarchs be in your way, kill the Patriarchs. If the Arahats be in your way, kill them. If your father and mother be in your way, kill them too. . . . That is the only path to your liberation, your freedom.
Be independent, and cling to nothing. . . . Even though Heaven and Earth are turned upside down, I doubt not. Even though all the Buddhas appear before my eyes, I have not the slightest gladness at heart. Even though the hell-fire of all the three underworlds burst open before me, I have not the slightest fear.
Recognize yourself! Wherefore do you seek here and seek there for your Buddhas and your bodhisattvas! Wherefore do you seek to get out of the three worlds? O ye fools, where do you want to go?
-Linji

My advice to you, is, take a rest and have nothing to do. Even if that little blue-eyed barbarian, Bodhidharma, should come back here and now, he could only teach you to do nothing. Put on your clothes, eat your food, and move your bowels. That's all. No life-and-death [cycle] to fear. No transmigration to dread. No nirvana to achieve, and no bodhi to acquire. Just try to be an ordinary human being, having nothing to do."
-Linji

from the Record of Mazu (Baso):

The Master (Baso) asked, "Why are you polishing that brick?"

Huairang (Nangaku) replied, "Because I want to make a mirror."

The Master asked, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a brick?"

Huairang said, "If I cannot make a mirror by polishing a brick, how can you become a Buddha by sitting in meditation?"

So, Mahayana and Theravada are diametrically opposed in almost every way.

Unless by "Theravada" you mean a hip, modern reimagining of this ancient school which is totally compatible with Mahayana, because you've thrown out all the commentaries, abhidhamma, etc. In that case, of course, it's all the same.

If not, the commentary tradition clearly delineates Theravada as a realist system, which makes it incompatible with the Mahayana illusion position, as does any straightforward, unbiased reading of the Pali Canon. We're not already enlightened, because reality is what it is, and so we must practice hard to reach nibbana, because nibbana and samsara are completely different.

Compare Madhyamaka and Yogacara, the two most influential Mahayana schools which underpin all Mahayana, with Theravada.

Madhyamaka:

Madhyamaka ("middle way" or "centrism"; Chinese: 中觀見; pinyin: Zhōngguān Jìan; Tibetan: དབུ་མ་པ ; dbu ma pa) also known as śūnyavāda (the emptiness doctrine) and niḥsvabhāvavāda (the no svabhāva doctrine)
-Wikipedia on Madhyamaka

Both samsara and nirvana,
Neither of these two exists
-Nagarjuna, ibid

Since samsara and nirvana are literally all that exists, if neither of them exist, then nothing exists.

Hence reality is but an illusion created by the mind:

17
Those who sees with their mind
That existence is like a mirage and an illusion,
They will not be corrupted
By views [grasping at] beginning and end.
-Nagarjuna, ibid, verse 17

And, the mind doesn't exist either:

8. From the nonexistence of seeing and the seen it follows that
The other four faculties of knowledge do not exist.
And all the aggregates, etc.,
Are the same way.
9. Like the seen, the heard, the smelled,
The tasted, and the touched,
The hearer, sound, etc.,
And consciousness should be understood.
-Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika chapter 3

Yogacara:

Vijñaptimātram evaitad asad arthāvabhāsanāt yathā taimirikasyāsat keśa candrādi darśanam. "This [world] is vijñaptimātra, since it manifests itself as an unreal object (artha), just like the case of those with cataracts seeing unreal hairs in the moon and the like."

According to Mark Siderits, what Vasubandhu means here is that we are only ever aware of mental images or impressions which manifest themselves as external objects, but "there is actually no such thing outside the mind."[16]

The term also appears in Asaṅga's classic Yogācāra work, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (no Sanskrit original, trans. from Tibetan):

These representations (vijñapti) are mere representations (vijñapti-mātra), because there is no [corresponding] thing/object (artha)...Just as in a dream there appear, even without a thing/object (artha), just in the mind alone, forms/images of all kinds of things/objects like visibles, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, houses, forests, land, and mountains, and yet there are no [such] things/objects at all in that [place]. MSg II.6[17]
-Wikipedia page on Yogacara

Theravada:

It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…
…
Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…

...

...the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).
…
...concretely produced matter...possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.
…
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260


Nibbana is an existing reality, an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane experience, a reality transcendent to all the realms of phenomenal existence.

The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.

However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a, 'Dhatu' an element, the 'deathless element'. He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.

He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body."

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' ('pada') as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or accutapada, the imperishable state.

Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'Sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience.

So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.

-Bhikkhu Bodhi


Nibbāna is Real
Since nibbāna means the cessation of mind, matter, and mental formations, suggestions have often been put forward that it signifies nothing and is thus useless. However, nibbāna is absolute reality, the reality of the nullification of the activities of mind, matter, and mental formations to which the knowledge of the Path, Fruition, and reviewing (paccavekkhaṇa) is inclined. It is the mind-object to which this knowledge is directed. Buddhas, Arahants, and Noble Ones vouch for the truth of its reality. For the sake of argument, let us say that there is no nibbāna where all the cycles of defilement, actions, and results cease. Then no one in this Universe can find peace. In the absence of nibbāna, defilement will play havoc with our lives to produce action, which will bring about results, which will create conditions for the arising of a new group of aggregates attended by suffering. It is only the Path and its Fruition that can exterminate defilements, and this extermination will bring the cycle of suffering to an end. This cessation of suffering is real. Buddhas and Arahants actually reach this stage, and after their parinibbāna all sufferings come to an end.
-Mahasi Sayadaw, On the Nature of Nibbana

What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas
is a critical realism, one which (unlike idealism) recognises
the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject
yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that
truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that
owe their being to the act of cognition itself.
-Y. Karunadasa, The Dhamma Theory, page 38

dhamma theory is best described as dhamma realism
-The Theravada Abhidhamma: Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality
By Y. Karunadasa, chapter 2

This theory ensures that the object of direct and immediate
perception is not an object of mental interpretation but something that is
ultimately real.
-Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, pp. 149.

Thus the Theravādins were able to establish the theory
of direct perception of the external object despite their recognizing the
theory of momentariness.
-Karunadasa, Y. Buddhist Analysis of Matter, page 146

It should be clear how completely different the Mahayana is from Theravada.

If one wants to practice Mahayana, if one truly understands the full extrapolation of its teachings, one has nothing to do whatsoever. If one wants to practice Theravada, they have a great deal to do: Follow the precepts, meditate, be mindful, read the suttas, respect the Buddha, and so on.

It's oil and water, night and day.

[Pondera]

The six perfections are derived directly from the eightfold path. Fake news from a fake sage who doesn't remember half of the Prajñāpāramitā that he skimmed through.

Mahayana doctrine and its followers are delusional. It’s more or less deity worship. “Avalokiteśvara” for example. “Pure Land” for example. Chant the name of “X” Bodhisattva and be saved.

What benefit does that have for anyone? To spend your whole life worshiping so called deities?

To “follow” the “Bodhisattva” path? Believing your self to be on the Bodhisattva path? What hubris! What absolute nonsense! What an absolute waste of a human life!

Believing that the “perfection of wisdom” is your *lofty* denial of a Nibbana you “could” achieve, but - out of “compassion” for all beings - deny your self. What pathetic drivel. To assume you even have what it takes to reach Nibbana! And to assume this not only, but to posit a “better, superior” path!

And Maitreya is waiting in Tusita? An imaginary “ghost” who will lead a larger following to Nibbana?

The Prajnaparamita is a compendium of mental masturbation … the wet dream of those who would replace the jewel in the Buddhas eightfold path with “sunyata”.

The paramita of “patience”? Hmm. This is derived from what part of the eightfold path?

The paramita of generosity? This replaces or is derived from what part of the path?

And, why are you so absolutely butt hurt? You call me a “fake sage”? What about all of the “Bodhisattvas” in training? What are they?

At least I’ve derived something out of life. A path of love. “Oh, love?” you say? Yes! Love. Maybe not for those, like you, who throw spite at me. But for everyone else.

I do not claim to be enlightened. I only claim to know the four material jhanas, the four divine abidings, the nature of infinite space, infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, neither perception nor non perception, and total cessation of perception and feeling … There is not ONE THING of the attainments that I do not know. Not a SINGLE THING.

And yet; When have I ever said that my defilements have come to an end.

No, no, no - Coëmgenu. I’m sort of a jack of all trades. If you think you have nothing to learn from me, then I have nothing to teach you. If you think I have something to learn from you then tell me.

Or insult my intelligence, insult me publicly, insult the trials and tribulations of my life, the extremes to which I have understood this world, and the resolution of a path I follow which leads to the divine abidings. Go on! Insult me further! It is hilarious to see your vitriol. So insecure in your understanding …

Go on! Seeing as you know nothing about me, please tell me and the rest of the forum what I am - a “fake sage”.

“Fake news”? Do people still use that term? The one coined by Trump? Ohhhhh ROFL

[zan]

...

Between our posts I think it's been covered pretty well how self refuting Mahayana is. Yet, I'll add, to balance it out with a positive, Mahayana is a really great way to be a "Buddhist" but still do whatever you want, like Jack Kerouac demonstrated, as have countless others. If all is empty/mind/whatever, there's no reason to criticize anyone, and no rules exist to follow. Get drunk, get laid, it's all an illusion anyway. Anyone who claims otherwise, and faults "Buddhists" like this, doesn't understand the mystic truth of the Mahayana, and how to read the Pali Canon properly to see that it, too, teaches that nothing exists, it's all in your head! So, there's some value in it from that perspective lol! However, I personally think following Theravada, the precepts, eightfold path, and accepting that these things are real, not merely empty illusions, is the way to go.

[Pondera]

...

Between our posts I think it's been covered pretty well how self refuting Mahayana is. Yet, I'll add, to balance it out with a positive, Mahayana is a really great way to be a "Buddhist" but still do whatever you want, like Jack Kerouac demonstrated, as have countless others. If all is empty/mind/whatever, there's no reason to criticize anyone, and no rules exist to follow. Get drunk, get laid, it's all an illusion anyway. Anyone who claims otherwise, and faults "Buddhists" like this, doesn't understand the mystic truth of the Mahayana, and how to read the Pali Canon properly to see that it, too, teaches that nothing exists, it's all in your head! So, there's some value in it from that perspective lol! However, I personally think following Theravada, the precepts, eightfold path, and accepting that these things are real, not merely empty illusions, is the way to go.

I’ll drink to that. I can *however* understand why die hard, indoctrinated Bodhisattva path followers get extremely butt hurt when people point things like this out.

I’d get butt hurt too if someone pointed out my insecurities. For example, if someone were to say to me,

“You spent four years in Uni studying Maths! What a joke!”

… I’d be butt hurt. I’d defend the “superiority” of Pure Maths and the extreme benefit of devoting one’s life, for example, to proving that x^a + y^a ≠ z^a (except in cases where a = 2). And pepper would still consider me a fool.

So, I am still looking forward to Cöme’s irritation and fury. If you insult me personally, Cöme - don’t be surprised if I rip your precious “paramitas” asunder!

In that sense I’d like to point out how *lofty* Prajnaparamita really is. Because, after all - it replaces right view and thought. (As clearly, the paramitas are derived from the eight fold path).

“Sunyata” becomes “right view”. And not, of course, a gradual understanding of the 4NT.

With that in mind, observe the glory of the Bodhisattva!!!

S ubhuti, it is just the same when Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas speak of delivering numberless sentient beings. If they have in mind any arbitrary conception of sentient being or of definite numbers, they are unworthy to be called Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas. And why, Subhuti? Because the very reason why they are called Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas is because they have abandoned all such arbitrary conceptions. And what is true of one arbitrary conception is true of all conceptions. The Tathagata's teachings are entirely free from all such arbitrary conceptions as one's own self, other selves, living beings or a universal self.


Buddhism / Mahayana The Maha Prajna Paramita quote, Buddhism, Mahayana
Diamond Sutra, 17, in Dwight Goddard, A Buddhist bible

So of course, when your “wisdom” is “perfected” you can save countless beings as long as you don’t save countless beings. Ie. you can save a being as long as he or she or it isn’t really a being. Any conception whatsoever of “a thing that suffers” makes you unworthy of the Bodhisattva title.

And while we’re at it, if there is no “thing that suffers” (which is how perfect wisdom sees it), there’s really no *reason* to liberate it - even though nothing becomes liberated anyway.

And that, of course, is not only true because there is no actual being to be liberated … no. No. Of course, that is also true because that being (which does not exist) is already liberated. To think otherwise is mere grasping at “conceptions”.

A very “unique” and “deep” way of looking at things. ROFL not at all worthless in practical use.

[Dan74]

The six perfections are derived directly from the eightfold path. Fake news from a fake sage who doesn't remember half of the Prajñāpāramitā that he skimmed through.

When words fall on deaf ears, it's best to keep quiet, I find.

[DNS]

If one wants to practice Mahayana, if one truly understands the full extrapolation of its teachings, one has nothing to do whatsoever.

Not really. There is a lot of work to do in Mahayana. The quotes you have from Zen masters are meant metaphorically. In the same way Ajahn Chah said something like "look at the chickens, they sit all day. I don't see them getting enlightened" but of course he was not opposed to sitting meditation and retreats, just as the Zen masters are not saying don't sit.

Try doing a Zen retreat, especially a Rinzai Zen retreat, you'll see it's no cake-walk. There is basic goodness and buddha-nature, according to Zen, but there is still ignorance of that until one attains realizations of the ignorance and breaks through to awakening experiences.

[Dan74]

If one wants to practice Mahayana, if one truly understands the full extrapolation of its teachings, one has nothing to do whatsoever.

Not really. There is a lot of work to do in Mahayana. The quotes you have from Zen masters are meant metaphorically. In the same way Ajahn Chah said something like "look at the chickens, they sit all day. I don't see them getting enlightened" but of course he was not opposed to sitting meditation and retreats, just as the Zen masters are not saying don't sit.

Try doing a Zen retreat, especially a Rinzai Zen retreat, you'll see it's no cake-walk. There is basic goodness and buddha-nature, according to Zen, but there is still ignorance of that until one attains realizations of the ignorance and breaks through to awakening experiences.

If they did a Zen retreat or even just asked reputable Mahayana teachers some questions, they might learn a thing or two of how people actually practice, beyond showing the typical "I read a few quotes on the internet" misunderstanding. But that requires an interest. As Wally said well:

[Nicholas Weeks]

Mahayana is lacking the eight fold path. Mahayana is lacking the Jhanas - right concentration, right Liberation, right knowledge.

It has “sunyata” - and it disregards the eightfold path as a lesser path.

IMO - a bunch of monks who weren’t finding any success along the eightfold path decided to *convert* the original teachings to a more simplified, *loftier* *concept* of emptiness.

And moreover, make the claim that, instead of following 8FP, one should “postpone” it until *emptiness* has been developed.

This is sad, IMO.

Your opinion is wrong & all wet - thus

There are many Mahayana & Vajrayana teachings that teach 8-fold path - with reverence, not contempt. For example:

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?tit ... tfold_path

[zan]

If one wants to practice Mahayana, if one truly understands the full extrapolation of its teachings, one has nothing to do whatsoever.

Not really. There is a lot of work to do in Mahayana. The quotes you have from Zen masters are meant metaphorically. In the same way Ajahn Chah said something like "look at the chickens, they sit all day. I don't see them getting enlightened" but of course he was not opposed to sitting meditation and retreats, just as the Zen masters are not saying don't sit.

Try doing a Zen retreat, especially a Rinzai Zen retreat, you'll see it's no cake-walk. There is basic goodness and buddha-nature, according to Zen, but there is still ignorance of that until one attains realizations of the ignorance and breaks through to awakening experiences.

I respectfully disagree. This is counter to Zen history. Further, I've done two Rinzai retreats. They were grueling. Twelve hours a day sitting with my koan, with a fifteen minute break every four hours, for three days. But, when we read the Zen texts, enlightenment is instantaneous, and transmitted immediately from master to student. Meditation leading to enlightenment isn't found in many Zen texts. This would mean that these retreats aren't really the true Zen experience, and are the result of something being lost over time.

Granted, there is a lot of debate, especially when we look at the Platform Sutra and see that the sixth patriarch, Huineng himself talked about meditation. But, the whole thing where Shen Hui made Huineng famous is based on subitism, which is Zens claim to fame, and there is no logical reason one should meditate for 12 hours if enlightenment is instantaneous. I recommend "Seeing Through Zen" by John Mcrae for more on this issue. Another good read is "The Problem of Practice in Shen-hui’s Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment" by Hoyu Ishida. This paper addresses this issue specifically, and tries to come up with a solution, yet while clearly delineating that there is a conflict between practice and instant enlightenment.

Chan
The distinction between sudden and gradual awakening has its roots in Indian Buddhism.[11] It was first introduced in China in the beginning of the 5th century CE by Tao Sheng.[12] The term became of central importance in Chan Buddhism, where it is used to denote the doctrinal position that awakening, the comprehension or realization of the Buddhist teachings, happens simultaneously, and is not the fruit of a gradual accretion or realisation.

Shenhui
In the 8th century the distinction became part of a struggle for influence at the Chinese court by Shenhui, a student of Huineng. Hereafter "sudden enlightenment" became one of the hallmarks of Chan Buddhism, though the sharp distinction was softened by subsequent generations of practitioners.[13]

This softening is reflected in the Platform Sutra of Huineng.

While the Patriarch was living in Bao Lin Monastery, the Grand Master Shen Xiu was preaching in Yu Quan Monastery of Jing Nan. At that time the two Schools, that of Hui Neng of the South and Shen Xiu of the North, flourished side by side. As the two Schools were distinguished from each other by the names "Sudden" (the South) and "Gradual" (the North), the question which sect they should follow baffled certain Buddhist scholars (of that time). (Seeing this), the Patriarch addressed the assembly as follows:
So far as the Dharma is concerned, there can be only one School. (If a distinction exists) it exists in the fact that the founder of one school is a northern man, while the other is a southerner. While there is only one dharma, some disciples realize it more quickly than others. The reason why the names 'Sudden' and 'Gradual' are given is that some disciples are superior to others in mental dispositions.
-Wikipedia on subitism

As to the teachings being mere metaphors, it might be even more complicated than that. Please see "Fathering Your Father," and "Patriarchs on Paper," by Alan Cole for more on the history of these kinds of Zen texts.

[DNS]

Further, I've done two Rinzai retreats. They were grueling. Twelve hours a day sitting with my koan, with a fifteen minute break every four hours, for three days. But, when we read the Zen texts, enlightenment is instantaneous, and transmitted immediately from master to student. Meditation leading to enlightenment isn't found in many Zen texts. This would mean that these retreats aren't really the true Zen experience, and are the result of something being lost over time.

Then you should know that the paradoxes found in some of the Zen teachings and koans are part of the practice; to get the practitioner beyond dualism and to free them of attachments.

Yes, there are debates even within Zen on the instant enlightenment issue and even with instant enlightenment, the awakening is instant, but the practice leading up to that experience is gradual.

But I'm not here to try and convert you to Zen. I'm just saying Zen is good too.

[zan]

Further, I've done two Rinzai retreats. They were grueling. Twelve hours a day sitting with my koan, with a fifteen minute break every four hours, for three days. But, when we read the Zen texts, enlightenment is instantaneous, and transmitted immediately from master to student. Meditation leading to enlightenment isn't found in many Zen texts. This would mean that these retreats aren't really the true Zen experience, and are the result of something being lost over time.

Then you should know that the paradoxes found in some of the Zen teachings and koans are part of the practice; to get the practitioner beyond dualism and to free them of attachments.

Yes, there are debates even within Zen on the instant enlightenment issue and even with instant enlightenment, the awakening is instant, but the practice leading up to that experience is gradual.

But I'm not here to try and convert you to Zen. I'm just saying Zen is good too.

I agree. Zen is good. I was Zen for over ten years. I had a good time! It only turned sour when I tried to do the Rinzai thing of hardcore practice. The proof is in the pudding, then, that trying to do what is contradictory to the Zen spirit of innate, instant enlightenment didn't work out very well. In Zen, hardcore practice to reach enlightenment is like polishing a roof tile to make a mirror. I also looked into the Taoist roots of many Zen teachings, and find that Taoism is much more reasonable, since they don't try to teach that one need to just go with the flow and be instantly enlightened, like in Zen, but also, paradoxically, teach that one must do grueling meditation practices. That is, assuming we're only speaking of the earliest Taoist texts, Chuang Tzu, and Tao Te Ching.

I recommend reading chapter 22 of the Palmer translation of the Chuang Tzu, "The Shores of the Dark Waters." You'll really see the very roots of Zen. Neat stuff.

Nonetheless, there's not much common ground in the fundamentals of Zen and Theravada. They are very different. That was my main point.

That, and, if one has a true Zen teacher, they should be able to get them to enlightenment without grueling meditation practice. If they recommend so called "hinayana" practices, that's not really Zen, is it?

Finally, please look into the Alan Cole books I mentioned above, and the Mcrae one. Might change your views on Zen a bit, the history is not as cut and dry as we like to think.

[Coëmgenu]

Go on! Seeing as you know nothing about me, please tell me and the rest of the forum what I am - a “fake sage”.

Have you recanted of your previous claims that you've attained Nirodha?

“Fake news”? Do people still use that term? The one coined by Trump? Ohhhhh ROFL

It's a rather versatile term used by both sides of the political spectrum in the West. Trump wasn't alive in 1890 when the term was first coined. Many false claims from you and your commiserator Zan here in this thread.

[zan]

If one wants to practice Mahayana, if one truly understands the full extrapolation of its teachings, one has nothing to do whatsoever.

If they did a Zen retreat or even just asked reputable Mahayana teachers some questions, they might learn a thing or two of how people actually practice, beyond showing the typical "I read a few quotes on the internet" misunderstanding. But that requires an interest. As Wally said well:

Ah yes, the old: "You don't agree with me, so you must be utterly uneducated on the topic." Argument. Well, if it helps clarify things, I was formally trained by the abbot of a Zen temple, and other teachers for years. I attended classes, retreats, meditation sessions, etc. I've also read many books on Mahayana, and specifically Zen. I was a Mahayanist for over a decade. Eventually, though, I really looked at all the teachings together, and realized, they don't make any sense: If all is merely conceptual illusion (or whatever Mahayana reality undercutting statement you prefer), so are the teachings, and the whole thing collapses. In more articulate words:

You cannot prove something to be erroneous with an erroneous proof.
-Nagarjuna's Masterpiece: Logical, Mystical, Both, or Neither? By Stafford L Betty

All of Mahayana is based on, or at least influenced by Nagarjuna's teachings, and they are incoherent, as demonstrated by several authors.

See:

Nagarjuna’s Masterpiece: Logical, Mystical, Both or Neither? by Stafford L. Betty.

Is Nagarjuna a Philosopher? by Stafford L. Betty

Nagarjuna: Master of Paradox, Mystic or Perpetrator of Fallacies? by Richard Hayes

Did Nagarjuna Really Refute All Philosophical Views? by Richard Robinson

Buddhist Illogic by Avi Sion

Much of Mahayana is also based on Yogacara. This tradition was shown to be incoherent by Kumarila Bhatta, Ramanuja, Sanghabhadra, and one of Mahayana's very own, Chandrakirti. And, of course, the idealism and solipsism of Yogacara has been refuted countless times in history, and demonstrated as incoherent, in the myriad refutations of these ideas, broadly speaking, independent of Yogacara specifically.

See:

Kumārila’s Refutation of Idealism by Nilanjan Das

Madhyamakavatara by Chandrakirti

Ramanuja's commentary on the Brahma sutra

Stephen P. Thornton on the incoherence of solipsism

In Defence of Common Sense by G. E. Moore

And, yes, Yogacara is idealism, and in some forms, solipsism. Further, the full extrapolation of idealism, where everything is imaginary, is solipsism, as, if everything you think is outside your head is actually imaginary, then there's no logical reason to believe that other minds exist, either.

Nonetheless, because the Mahayana apologist technique is to always claim that Yogacara isn't idealism, nor solipsism, despite its founders making statements that are overtly, unavoidably idealist/solipsist, to all but the apologist, I'll provide some scholarly support for this position, after some of the blatantly idealist statements made by the founders:

Vijñaptimātram evaitad asad arthāvabhāsanāt yathā taimirikasyāsat keśa candrādi darśanam. "This [world] is vijñaptimātra, since it manifests itself as an unreal object (artha), just like the case of those with cataracts seeing unreal hairs in the moon and the like."

According to Mark Siderits, what Vasubandhu means here is that we are only ever aware of mental images or impressions which manifest themselves as external objects, but "there is actually no such thing outside the mind."[16]

The term also appears in Asaṅga's classic Yogācāra work, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (no Sanskrit original, trans. from Tibetan):

These representations (vijñapti) are mere representations (vijñapti-mātra), because there is no [corresponding] thing/object (artha)...Just as in a dream there appear, even without a thing/object (artha), just in the mind alone, forms/images of all kinds of things/objects like visibles, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, houses, forests, land, and mountains, and yet there are no [such] things/objects at all in that [place]. MSg II.6[17]
-Wikipedia page on Yogacara

The Yogacara (sometimes translated as “Mind only”) school of Buddhist philosophy contends that all human experience is constructed by mind. Some later representatives of one Yogacara subschool (Prajnakaragupta, Ratnakīrti) propounded a form of idealism that has been interpreted as solipsism. A view of this sort is contained in the 11th-century treatise of Ratnakirti, “Refutation of the existence of other minds” (Santanantara dusana), which provides a philosophical refutation of external mind-streams from the Buddhist standpoint of ultimate truth (as distinct from the perspective of everyday reality).
-Wikipedia on solipsism
reference: A. C. Senape McDermott (2013). An Eleventh-Century Buddhist Logic of ‘Exists’: Ratnakīrti’s Kṣaṇabhaṅgasiddhiḥ Vyatirekātmikā. Foundations of language. Vol. 2. Springer-Science Business Media. p. 1. ISBN 978-94-017-6322-6.

Regarding existing Sanskrit sources, the term appears in the first verse of Vasubandhu’s Vimśatikā, which is a locus classicus of the idea, it states:[16]

Vijñaptimātram evaitad asad arthāvabhāsanāt yathā taimirikasyāsat keśa candrādi darśanam. “This [world] is vijñaptimātra, since it manifests itself as an unreal object (artha), just like the case of those with cataracts seeing unreal hairs in the moon and the like.”

According to Mark Siderits, what Vasubandhu means here is that we are only ever aware of mental images or impressions which manifest themselves as external objects, but “there is actually no such thing outside the mind.”[16]

The term also appears in Asaṅga’s classic Yogācāra work, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (no Sanskrit original, trans. from Tibetan):

These representations (vijñapti) are mere representations (vijñapti-mātra), because there is no [corresponding] thing/object (artha)…Just as in a dream there appear, even without a thing/object (artha), just in the mind alone, forms/images of all kinds of things/objects like visibles, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, houses, forests, land, and mountains, and yet there are no [such] things/objects at all in that [place]. MSg II.6[17]

The term is sometimes used as a synonym with citta-mātra (mere citta), which is also used as a name for the school that suggests Idealism.[4][18] Schmithausen writes that the first appearance of this term is in the Pratyupanna samadhi sutra, which states:

This (or: whatever belongs to this) triple world (*traidhātuka) is nothing but mind (or thought: *cittamatra). Why? Because however I imagine things, that is how they appear.[19]
-Wikipedia on Yogacara

Scholars such as Saam Trivedi argue that Yogācāra is similar to Idealism (closer to a Kantian epistemic idealism), though they note that it is its own unique form and that it might be confusing to categorize it as such.[21] Paul Williams, citing Griffiths, writes that it could be termed “dynamic idealism”.[22] Sean Butler argues for the idealistic nature of Yogācāra, noting that there are numerous similarities between Yogācāra and the systems of Kant and Berkeley.[23] Jay Garfield also argues that Yogācāra is “akin to the idealisms defended by such Western philosophers as Berkeley, Kant and Schopenhauer.”[24]

Jonathan Gold writes that the Yogācāra thinker Vasubandhu can be said to be an idealist (similar to Kant), in the sense that for him, everything in experience as well as its causal support is mental, and thus he gives causal priority to the mental.
-Wikipedia on Yogacara

The Vaibhāṣika’s realistic theory of the two truths and the Sautrāntika’s representationalist theory of the two truths both affirm the ultimate reality of physical objects constituted by atoms. The Yogācāra rejects physical realism of both the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrāntika, although it agrees with the Sautrāntika’s representationalist theory as far as they both affirm representation as the intentional objects in perception and deny in perception a direct access to any external object. Where they part their company is in their response to the questions: what causes representations? Is the contact of senses with physical objects necessary to give rise to representations in perception? The Sautrāntika’s reply is that external objects cause representations, given that these representations are intentional objects there is indeed a contact between senses and external objects. This affirmative response allows the Sautrāntika to affirm reality of external objects. The Yogācārin however replies that “subliminal impressions” (vāsanās) from foundational consciousness (ālayavijñāna) are the causes of the mental representations, and given that these impressions are only internal phenomena acting as intentional objects, the contact between senses and external objects is therefore rejected even conventionally. This allows the Yogācārin to deny even conventional reality of all physical objects, and argue that all conventional realities are our mental representations, mental creations, cognitions etc.

The central thesis in the Yogācāra philosophy, the theory of the two truths echoes is the assertion that all that is conventionally real is only ideas, representations, images, creations of the mind, and that there is no conventionally real object that exists outside the mind to which it corresponds. These ideas are only objects of any cognition. The whole universe is a mental universe. All physical objects are only fiction, they are unreal even by the conventional standard, similar to a dream, a mirage, a magical illusion, where what we perceive are only products of our mind, without a real external existence.

Inspired by the idealistic tendencies of various sūtras consisting of important elements of the idealistic doctrines, in the third and the fourth centuries many Indian philosophers developed and systematised a coherent Idealist School. In the beginning of the Viṃśatikā Vasubandhu treats citta, manas, vijñāna, vijñāpti as synonymous and uses these terms as the names of the idealistic school. The chief founders were Maitreyanāth (ca. 300) and Asaṅga (315–390), propagated by Vasubandhu (320–380), Dignāga (480–540) Sthiramati (ca. 500), Dharmapāla (530–561), Hiuan-tsang (602–664), Dharmakīrti (600–660), Śāntarakṣita (ca.725–788) and Kamalaśīla (ca.740–795). The last two are Yogācāra-Mādhyamikas in contrast with the earlier figures who are identified as Yogācārins.

-Thakchoe, Sonam, “The Theory of Two Truths in India”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As to Madhyamaka being an illusionist/nothing exists/nothing is real school, try telling any Mahayanists that you agree with Jay Garfield that Nagarjuna was a "robust realist" and you'll be schooled, harshly and immediately, on how this is patently false, and Nagarjuna did not teach that things are real lol! I tend to agree with these refutations of Garfield, because of the many statements where Nagarjuna refutes reality, and declares things illusory, some mentioned in my posts above, where he declares samsara and nirvana as non existent (so, literally all of reality), and declares that the mind, senses and aggregates don't exist, that everything is an illusion, and on and on. He even refutes all of the pramanas of Indian philosophy, meaning no evidence, or proof, is valid whatsoever (see how well this works out when analyzed by Betty, above):

In madhyamaka, reason and debate are understood as a means to an end (liberation), and therefore they must be founded on the wish to help oneself and others end suffering.[66] Reason and logical arguments, however (such as those employed by classical Indian philosophers, i.e., pramana), are also seen as being empty of any true validity or reality. They serve only as conventional remedies for our delusions.[67] Nāgārjuna's Vigrahavyāvartanī famously attacked the notion that one could establish a valid cognition or epistemic proof (pramana):

If your objects are well established through valid cognitions, tell us how you establish these valid cognitions. If you think they are established through other valid cognitions, there is an infinite regress. Then, the first one is not established, nor are the middle ones, nor the last. If these [valid cognitions] are established even without valid cognition, what you say is ruined. In that case, there is an inconsistency, And you ought to provide an argument for this distinction.
-Wikipedia on Madhyamaka

All that said, I sympathize with Garfield. He is a victim of the two truths. One truth is that conventional reality is true. This, he runs with. So, technically he is correct, in a very specific sense. But, he fails to realize that the ultimate truth contradicts the conventional one, and collapses the entire thing.

Is all of this bad? No, not necessarily. It can free one of Mahayana Buddhism itself! That's what it did for me! The very teachings, if taken to their full logical extrapolations, must be thrown out entirely. It is blissful freedom. Letting go of thousands of pages of texts, thousands of teachings, and so much more, all at once, is truly liberating. Mahayana, then, does lead to deep, deep peace.

[zan]

Go on! Seeing as you know nothing about me, please tell me and the rest of the forum what I am - a “fake sage”.

Have you recanted of your previous claims that you've attained Nirodha?

“Fake news”? Do people still use that term? The one coined by Trump? Ohhhhh ROFL

It's a rather versatile term used by both sides of the political spectrum in the West. Trump wasn't alive in 1890 when the term was first coined. Many false claims from you and your commiserator Zan here in this thread.

All my claims are merely paraphrases of scholarly works, all of which I've quoted in this thread. Sourced scholarly works are not "fake news." That, or obvious, common sense statements, like my pointing out that certain mindsets can lead to behavior like that of Jack Kerouac, and so on. But, you're a Mahayana apologist who hangs around a Theravada site, so I don't expect you to be rational. You are deeply confused and have created a Buddhist riddle/trap in which you will probably be stuck your entire life. I wish you good luck getting out of your own trickery and riddling someday! It's tough, though, so long as your entire personality is based on vague teachings, paradoxes, and riddles, which you inexplicably see as being rational. I recommend relearning basic common sense through unlearning the strange thinking patterns you've mistakenly replaced it with. Healthy, balanced mental fasting can help. Stop feeding the absurd personality you've created that is an expert on mistaking the incoherent and illogical as logical and rational, or even valid. Once this is done, you'll find that there is none of this nonsense left, anyway. We aren't born with these bizarre positions. You're nothing but an expert on nonsense and use that expertise as an ostensible authority to criticize anyone who disagrees with you. You're no different than an expert theist who believes they haughtily disprove evolution, round earth, and other logical, reasonable positions, and doesn't even understand that their position is entirely based on faith, not reason. Good luck finding your way out of this!