Thats a new one.Huifeng wrote: And Madhyamaka does not equal Prajnaparamita.
Madhyamaka is the summary of the Prajnaparamita Sutras.
Thats a new one.Huifeng wrote: And Madhyamaka does not equal Prajnaparamita.
But Astus! This is internet Boodhism!Astus wrote:I think one should see the difference between essential books and auxiliary ones. There are also introductory books and in depth works. Just before this becomes a list of all the books people like.
That sense keeps the wheel turning ... always seeking something "better" ... be assured that you did not miss anything but you do not have understood what you have came across so farJaidyn wrote:I have a sense that Mahayana has much to offer that I have missed.
The core Madhyamaka text, the Mulamadhyamakakarika, does not mention the Prajnaparamita even once, and draws it's sources from the Agamas.alwayson wrote:Thats a new one.Huifeng wrote: And Madhyamaka does not equal Prajnaparamita.
Madhyamaka is the summary of the Prajnaparamita Sutras.
I wouldn't say something is better, but just a different aid. But I agree there can be craving for always getting something new because previous teachings (and maybe even teachers) have been "consumed".TMingyur wrote:That sense keeps the wheel turning ... always seeking something "better" ... be assured that you did not miss anything but you do not have understood what you have came across so farJaidyn wrote:I have a sense that Mahayana has much to offer that I have missed.
But maybe Mahayana can help you to understand what you have come across so far. This then would not be the most efficient, direct way but if it is necessary ...
Kind regards
The Pāli Abhidhammapiṭaka is simpler, more straight forward, and complete. There's nothing necessarily wrong with knowing both systems, but for anyone who already knows the Theravāda (as the OP indicated), there is no pressing need to study the Abhidharmakośa in any great detail. One can enter the Mahāyāna directly through the Mahāyāna sūtras & śāstras.maybay wrote:You might also appreciate Vasubandhu's distillation of the Abhidharma, his Abhidharmakosa with bhasya. Its a mammoth work, comes in four expensive volumes. You really feel you've developed an arsenal of understanding after reading it.
Vasubandhu did something very special with the Kosa. He took a valley of 10,000 dry bones and integrated them into a dialectical masterpiece that attended to the most difficult points raised over the centuries. Why slog through pre-christian era writing? You could have the whole subject wrapped up in 2 works.Jnana wrote:The Pāli Abhidhammapiṭaka is simpler, more straight forward, and complete. There's nothing necessarily wrong with knowing both systems, but for anyone who already knows the Theravāda (as the OP indicated), there is no pressing need to study the Abhidharmakośa in any great detail. One can enter the Mahāyāna directly through the Mahāyāna sūtras & śāstras.maybay wrote:You might also appreciate Vasubandhu's distillation of the Abhidharma, his Abhidharmakosa with bhasya. Its a mammoth work, comes in four expensive volumes. You really feel you've developed an arsenal of understanding after reading it.
All the best,
Geoff
The point is this: There's no need for anyone aspiring to enter the Mahāyāna to learn two different Sthaviravāda abhidharma systems. If one has already learned the Theravāda system there is no need whatsoever for learning the Sarvāstivāda system.maybay wrote:Why slog through pre-christian era writing? You could have the whole subject wrapped up in 2 works.
first thing you learn in Mahayana - its not about what you don't needJnana wrote:The point is this: There's no need for anyone aspiring to enter the Mahāyāna to learn two different Sthaviravāda abhidharma systems. If one has already learned the Theravāda system there is no need whatsoever for learning the Sarvāstivāda system.maybay wrote:Why slog through pre-christian era writing? You could have the whole subject wrapped up in 2 works.
All the best,
Geoff
Contrarian nonsense.maybay wrote:first thing you learn in Mahayana - its not about what you don't need
Hi, Geoff:Jnana wrote: The point is this: There's no need for anyone aspiring to enter the Mahāyāna to learn two different Sthaviravāda abhidharma systems. If one has already learned the Theravāda system there is no need whatsoever for learning the Sarvāstivāda system.
All the best,
Geoff
The only Sarvāstivāda ideas that a bodhisattva aspirant would need to understand on any level is the Sarvāstivāda version of causes and conditions and the Sarvāstivāda version of the intermediate state. And in each case, one doesn't have to be a Sarvāstivāda scholar. Other areas such as the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths and the defilements eliminated at each of the four arya stages aren't really relevant to the Mahāyāna.Namdrol wrote:This is not really the case. There is a continuity of ideas that run through Sarvastivada right up through both wings of Mahāyāna and on into Vajrayāna.
Thervāda and Sarvastivāda tenets are very different in a number of important ways.
Hi Geoff. May I ask what you mean when you say the "signlessness" of dharmas?Jnana wrote: In fact, there are a number of areas where the Theravāda accords well with Mādhyamaka, such as attaining the path of seeing in a single moment, and the gnosis of the signlessness of dharmas realized at that time, and so on.
For example, the Paṭisambhidāmagga VimokkhakathāVirgo wrote:May I ask what you mean when you say the "signlessness" of dharmas?
I just don't get it. Are you talking about nibbana as the signless? Or are you talking about emptiness?Jnana wrote: For example, the Paṭisambhidāmagga Vimokkhakathā
...
- Gnosis of contemplation of the signlessness of form... feeling... recognition... fabrications... consciousness is signless deliverance because it liberates from all signs. (Rūpe ... pe ... vedanāya ... pe ... saññāya ... pe ... saṅkhāresu ... pe ... viññāṇe animittānupassanāñāṇaṃ sabbanimittehi muccatīti animitto vimokkho.)
Both. But this isn't the place to discuss the subtleties of the Paṭisambhidāmagga. I would suggest studying the text.Virgo wrote:I just don't get it. Are you talking about nibbana as the signless? Or are you talking about emptiness?
Hi Geoff.Jnana wrote:Both. But this isn't the place to discuss the subtleties of the Paṭisambhidāmagga. I would suggest studying the text.Virgo wrote:I just don't get it. Are you talking about nibbana as the signless? Or are you talking about emptiness?