Theravada Buddhism

[samabudhi]

In Vajrayana (diamond vehicle) school, whose name would obviously implided the further superiority over the other two vehicle

Vajra means 'hard'. Tibetans think that a lightening bolt is a solid object, so it can be seen as the diamond vehicle or the lightening vehicle, lightening implying that it is a very fast path to follow.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

Vajra means 'hard'. Tibetans think that a lightening bolt or is a solid object, so it can be seen as the diamond vehicle or the lightening vehicle, lightening implying that it is a very fast path to follow.

Slightly off topic, but I read that the Vajra (lightening bolt or thunderbolt) was the weapon used by Lord Shiva (also known as Vajradhara = "the wielder of the thunderbolt"). I'm wondering how exactly it entered into Vajrayana Buddhism?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


actually.. Vajra means "indestructable" which i, suppose, can be hard.. but indestructable is.. well... more hard

samabudhi, Tibetans do not think that lightening bolts are solid

the use of the Vajra, in Buddhist Tantric symbolism, represents the Industrucable Truth of Buddhadharma and, often, it is wielded by the wrathful aspects of the deities to destroy obstructions to awakening.

i'm not clear when the first actual representation of this was made in an icongraphic fashion.. though i may be able to find that out.. with some searching...

[Avinash]

Namaskar,

Vajradhara = "the wielder of the thunderbolt"

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually.. Vajra means "indestructable"

By chance "avinash" also has the meaning of indestructable (vinash means total destruction or annihilation).

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Avinash,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,
By chance "avinash" also has the meaning of indestructable (vinash means total destruction or annihilation).

well.. that is interesting!

i tend to translate Vajradhara as The Diamond Thunderbolt of Industructable Wisdom ....

as for Vajrayana... it's not so much that it means "lightning fast" or something.. though that is often how it's portrayed.. as it does contain those teachings. however, the thrust of this is the union of the awakened aspects of Wisdom and Method and it is this which defines the Vajradhara as a tantric Vehicle, in my opinion.

[Vapour]

o.k., better not degenerating into sectarian warfare here. I'm not even a Theravadan Buddhist. I did live in Sri Lanka for a while though. (^_^) As of my understanding of Diamond vehicle come from Japanese Shingon sect, the second major tantric/esotric tradition in buddhism.

I'm not saying that bohdisatva is a concept absent in Theravadan buddhism. However, Boddhisatva, by definition, has not attained enlightment. If I quote from the link you have provided,

"There are three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple. The attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two."

As of one's possibility of enlightment in Theravada, because anyone has already been through his or her previous life, whethe particular person can attain enlightment or not is totally up to this person.

From Theravadan perspective, those who have attained enlightenment ought to be the one who should be leading others in the path of enlightment. If you looks from Theravadan perspective, Mahayanan emphasis on Boddhisatva makes no sence for this reason. It can only make sence if you accept Mahayanan definition of enlightment and boddhisatva which differe significantly from Theravadan. Consequently, from Mahayanan perspective Theravadan will appear to be of *lesser* vehicle. That is why it doesn't help to describe Theravadan buddhism from Mahayanan definition because one cannot avoid making implication that theravada=Hinayana.

As of issue of textual authenticity, thought I personally am not academic of Pali or Sanskrit language, I am aware of certain basic opinon in pali/sanskrit study. And indeed Pali cannons are more reliable than mahayanan scriptures. It is not a Theravadan opinion, it is shared by many Mahayanan scholars at least from Japanese tradition. That is why most Mahayanan schools consider Pali cannons to be part of Mahayanan traditions. (exception is Nichiren but they are nuts so they doesn't count. ) This is not same as implying that Pali cannons is like Koran. For people who only use sutras as a reference rather than cannonical scripture, *degree* of reliability make no difference. Both are mere texts to be studied.

As of the historical reason for the split, it did start with a minor disputes about the monastic rules. Basically, Mahayanan side said something like what you said, "the Dharma is the teacher, not the words." and "historical basis is hardly relevant". That really didn't go down well with the other side.

Oh, lastly, I should comment on the original thread. It is my impression that core difference of Theravada and Mahayana is in the nature of Buddah. For Theravada, buddah means historical buddah, Prince Siddhartha, who became Gautama Buddha. For Mahayana, Buddah is trancendent in nature, in which Gautama Buddah is merely one of its manifestation.

It is like approaching Christianity in two different way. For some, Jesus is the Christ the God incarnate. For other, jesus is a guy from Nazzare, much in line of how he was described in the film, "The last temptation of Christ". Both could be the source of inspiration. In case of Christianity, the later option is pretty much lost. Fortunately, in case of Buddhism, you get to pick the one you like. That is not bad, is it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vapour,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Vapour

o.k., better not degenerating into sectarian warfare here.

vigorous discussion is not sectarian warfare.. besides which... it would be Dharma combat

I'm not even a Theravadan Buddhist. I did live in Sri Lanka for a while though.

ah.. i see. were you a Buddhist at one point?

(^_^) As of my understanding of Diamond vehicle come from Japanese Shingon sect, the second major tantric/esotric tradition in buddhism.

yes, i'm familiar with their lineage... which is not the same as the Tibetan Vajrayana, though it's quite close in most respects.

I'm not saying that bohdisatva is a concept absent in Theravadan buddhism.

good i thought that you were asserting that earlier.

However, Boddhisatva, by definition, has not attained enlightment.

that is correct, the Bodhisattva has post-poned Anutara Samyak Sambodhi to continually return to where sentient beings dwell to proclaim the Dharma and to help beings liberate themselves.

you are familiar with the Bodhisattva Vow as described in the Mahanyana schools?

As of one's possibility of enlightment in Theravada, because anyone has already been through his or her previous life, whethe particular person can attain enlightment or not is totally up to this person.

this is the same teaching in Mahayana and Vajrayana. it is taught that one cannot practice the Mahayana until one has completed the Hinyana and one cannot practice the Vajrayana until one has completed the Mahayana. each of the Yanas Inter-are with each other.

From Theravadan perspective, those who have attained enlightenment ought to be the one who should be leading others in the path of enlightment.
If you looks from Theravadan perspective, Mahayanan emphasis on Boddhisatva makes no sence for this reason.

i would suggest that you read the Suttas that i've referenced in this discussion thus far as i believe that they may be of interest.

It can only make sence if you accept Mahayanan definition of enlightment and boddhisatva which differe significantly from Theravadan.

oh? i would be happy to read some information that supports this.

Consequently, from Mahayanan perspective Theravadan will appear to be of *lesser* vehicle. That is why it doesn't help to describe Theravadan buddhism from Mahayanan definition because one cannot avoid making implication that theravada=Hinayana.

what does the term, "lesser" mean? does it mean "worse"? no. it is meant to indicate that the Hinyana Vehicle is only applicable for a smaller group of beings, specifically, monastics. the Mahayana does not mean "better", it means "larger" and references the fact that lay people are allowed to practice as well.

As of issue of textual authenticity, thought I personally am not academic of Pali or Sanskrit language, I am aware of certain basic opinon in pali/sanskrit study. And indeed Pali cannons are more reliable than mahayanan scriptures.

perhaps, you'll find this website of some benefit in the discussion of Buddhist texts:

http://www.akshin.net/literature/budlitintroduction.htm

Oh, lastly, I should comment on the original thread. It is my impression that core difference of Theravada and Mahayana is in the nature of Buddah. For Theravada, buddah means historical buddah, Prince Siddhartha, who became Gautama Buddha. For Mahayana, Buddah is trancendent in nature, in which Gautama Buddah is merely one of its manifestation.

the Mahayana teaching on this is called the Three Kayas, which are basically:

1. Nirmanakaya: his "Transformation (or Appearance) body." This is the body in which he appears in the world for the benefit of suffering beings. It is not a real, physical body but more a phantom-like appearance assumed by

2. Dharmakaya: his "dharma body," wherein he is one with the eternal dharma that lies beyond all dualities and conceptions. There is also

3. Sambhogakaya: his "Enjoyment (or Bliss) body." This is body that appears to bodhisattvas in the celestial realm where they commune with the truth of the Mahayana.

It is like approaching Christianity in two different way.......... In case of Christianity, the later option is pretty much lost. Fortunately, in case of Buddhism, you get to pick the one you like. That is not bad, is it.

indeed... beings respond to the Dharma rain as they are capable and beings are of varying capacities.

[samabudhi]

For me, the difference between Hinayana and Mahayana lies in the understanding of self, and the methods used to meditate. Hinayana do not, in general, use skillful means. Their methods are inline with the idea of non-self, whereas the Mahayana's methods are inline with the idea of dependently originated self. Hinayana's approach aims to root out the negativities whereas Mahayana is to cultivate positivities, such as Pure Land, and in some cases to do both, as in Zen or Tibetan Buddhism.

[Vapour]

Do I know Bodisattvas bow? No because it is too long. Oh, my family tradition is Pure Land by the way but I can hardly say I follow it. The last time I came anything near PureLand practice is my granddad's funeral.

Anyway, again the difference between Theravada and Mahayana is very pronounced here. For Theravada, Bodhisattva usually refer to historical Buddah before he attained enlightment. For this reason, Bodisattva is a symbol of aspiration to become enlightened. While for Mahayana, Bohdisattva refers to transcendent nature of historical buddah which manifest in many forms and is the symbol of those who delay his own enlightenment to bring salvation to all humanity, which is the essence of bodhisattva's vow.

In Mahayanan Buddhism, skillful means are more about skillful means of bodhisattva, something Theravada buddhism doesn't care much about. According to how theravadan sees it, any action which produce good karma are skillful and any action which produce bad karma are unskillful. By saying that "Hinayana do not, in general, use skillful means", you are saying Theravadan buddhism hasn't got a clue, an another example that describing Theravadan buddhism by Mahayanan perspective lead to defacto slander.

Basically, the less Mahayanan side says what they think about "Hinayanan" (Theravadan) side, the better. Here is a more of a candid example of what Mahanayan Nichiren school say about Hinayanan.

http://www.nst.org/articles/lbshm.txt

Well, at least this article doesn't bother to imply.

[Vajradhara]

Namatse Vapour,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Vapour

Do I know Bodisattvas bow? ............While for Mahayana, Bohdisattva refers to transcendent nature of historical buddah which manifest in many forms and is the symbol of those who delay his own enlightenment to bring salvation to all humanity, which is the essence of bodhisattva's vow.

hmm.. if you don't know the Vow, how can you comment upon it?

it does not refer to what you think that it does.. i would ask that you investigate this further.

According to how theravadan sees it, any action which produce good karma are skillful and any action which produce bad karma are unskillful.

this is the same understanding of skillful and unskillful actions.. the fruit of karma that they produce. this is standard through all forms of Buddhism.

Basically, the less Mahayanan side says what they think about "Hinayanan" (Theravadan) side, the better.

well.. i'm glad that is your opinion.... and you are certainly free to share it, however, i think that you have misunderstood the Mahayana. you are painting with such a broad brush that you are missing a lot of detail.

Here is a more of a candid example of what Mahanayan Nichiren school say about Hinayanan.

http://www.nst.org/articles/lbshm.txt

Well, at least this article doesn't bother to imply.

we aren't discussing Nichiren Buddhism, we are discussing Mahayana and Theraveda..

do you feel that Nichrien Buddhism speaks for the entire range of Mahayana schools? i would ask you to seriously reconsider this view. given the nature of some of the Nichiren praxis, you are still going to have to convince me that they are a legitimate Buddhist school... which, i can make a very strong case that they are not.

[Vapour]

Well, I actually know the shorter one. (I had to google to refresh my memory though) It is "I will save everyone, end all suffering, know the law (dharma) and become buddah", general thrust being that one will enlighten entire humanity along with yourselves. However, I know longer version exist for othe buddist school (tibettan?), which I obviously don't know but can probably google to find out.

Buy anyway, my observation is that difference between Mahayanan and Theravadan in regard to boddhisatva originate from different approach, Theravadan one about historical buddah and Mahayanan one about transcendent nature of historical buddah. That in my view, partially explain the different interpretation of the nature of enlightement along with Mahayanan emphasis on the concept of emptiness.

As of the term "skillfullness", I was merely pointing out something obvious. "Theravadan buddhism doesn't use skillfull means" is not being polite and probably comes from the view that Theravadan lack of the concept of boddhisatva's skillfullness.

As of Nichiren, they tend to be bit off because they put absolute faith in Lotus Sutra which contain polemics against formalism and disputed doctrines of Hinayana school. So in a way, you can't blame them can you. They are indicative of prevaling Mahayanan attitude of about 50 years ago. It is minority now at least in public though.

As of my *opinion*, well, i do think one should extend the curtesy of describing Theravadan school in their own term. Therefore, use of three wheel concepts is inheritantly unfair. Obviously, you can use three wheel concept to describe tibettan buddhism. But that is not what this thread is about.

[Vapour]

here is what "hina" mean in sanskrit

a. left, forsaken; excluded or shut out from, fallen short of (abl.); devoid or bereft of, free from, without (instr., abl., loc., --- or ---); inferior, less (opp. {adhika}); low, base, mean; incomplete, deficient, wanting. Abstr. {-tA}Å f., {-tva}Å n.
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ind...wd_search.html

It doesn't help to claim that hina only means small/lesser because it is plainly not the case. It is like saying that by saying "<explitive deleted", you only meant black people. People who invented the term Hinayana knew exactly what the term will indicates.

[samabudhi]

As of the term "skillfullness", I was merely pointing out something obvious. "Theravadan buddhism doesn't use skillfull means" is not being polite and probably comes from the view that Theravadan lack of the concept of boddhisatva's skillfullness.

In the Mahayana tradition, there is something which is known as 'skillful means'. You have obviously never heard of it. Vimalakirti's sutra is the first to expound this, I think.
When I speak of 'skillful means' I am talking about practices such as mandalas, malas, mantras, visualisations. Theravadin makes use of them sparingly, if at all. It's all got to do with their understanding of the dependent origination, which I feel is lacking in the Theravadin tradition. They see skillful means as methods which breed attachment, which is true, and so they don't use them. But the Mahayana cultivates an understanding of emptiness which is crucial when using skillful means, and so they are able to use them without becoming attached. Wisdom and compassion are a type of skillful means and they can cause attachments, but the Theravadin's big drawcard, awareness, is non-dualistic.

Please, I didn't mean to say that Theravadins were not skillful.

[Vapour]

ah, yes I do. It is such a common concept in Mahayanan. And you didn't state that your usage of the term was specifically Tibetan. Having said it, stating that Theravadan buddhism doesn't follow Tibetan practice is hardly insightful comment in my opinion. Moreover, the idea that Theravadan school does not have ability to apply the principle of dharma according to the context of the situation is another silly Mahayanan polemic which they have raised in the past. And given that the dispute is more than 1000 years ago it is just too silly to invoke it.

Practice of denigrating previous orthodoxy is not something unique. Jane are often ridiculed in Pali cannons just as Arahants are ridiculed in Mahayana cannons. Some of the things Buddah's follower did to Jane are darn funny to be honest. I think they once dig a hole at a gate and called/invited a Jane monk to a house test Jane monk's alleged precognition ability. When this particular Jane monk fell into it, they beat him up, apparntly. Me and buddhist friend of mine had a good laugh on that. My friend say it is a good reminder that one shouldn't treat Buddhis sutras as holy books.

As I said, there is no problem for you to proclaim your Tibetan faith elsewhere. Problem is when someone propagate Tibetan/Mahayanan view of Theravadan buddhism in a thread about theravadan buddhism. It might help to realised that Hinayana in context to Three Wheel scheme is merely an element of Tibetan Buddhism rather than what Therevadan buddhism is. In a way, it is very similar to how buddhism is part of Baha'i faith. Most buddhist would not recognise Baha'i version of buddhism as buddhism.

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by Vapour

ah, yes I do. It is such a common concept in Mahayanan. And you didn't state that your usage of the term was specifically Tibetan.

It isn't. Mantras are used in Pure Land, Visualisations in Zen. When I say skillful means, I mean any method that one could become attached to. This is why they are ignored by the Theravadins in general.

Having said it, stating that Theravadan buddhism doesn't follow Tibetan practice is hardly insightful comment in my opinion. Moreover, the idea that Theravadan school does not have ability to apply the principle of dharma according to the context of the situation is another silly Mahayanan polemic which they have raised in the past. And given that the dispute is more than 1000 years ago it is just too silly to invoke it.

I didn't say they were unable to, I said they don't.

Practice of denigrating previous orthodoxy is not something unique. Jane are often ridiculed in Pali cannons just as Arahants are ridiculed in Mahayana cannons. Some of the things Buddah's follower did to Jane are darn funny to be honest. I think they once dig a hole at a gate and called/invited a Jane monk to a house test Jane monk's alleged precognition ability. When this particular Jane monk fell into it, they beat him up, apparntly. Me and buddhist friend of mine had a good laugh on that. My friend say it is a good reminder that one shouldn't treat Buddhis sutras as holy books.

You are quite tiring.
Who ever said I was Tibetan Buddhist, I am not denigrating Theravadin Buddhism, I am pointing out the differences. You are projecting a conflict onto what you think you see. I see nothing wrong with not using skillful means, I don't conform to any particular sect, and it's spelt Jain.