Mahayana vs Theravada

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Giovanni »

tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:12 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:40 am
tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:50 am
I celebrate this, and I agree that there are some big similarities even in method.
There are no similarities at all, not in view, meditation, conduct, not to mention result.
"No similarities at all" is more than a bit extreme. Giovanni is saying they are commensurable and you are saying 0%. A bit of middle way is warranted.
To be clear, I claim no authority. I am just reporting as accurately as I can what is actually happening in the field.
The old (and apparently inaccurate) analogy of the Bumblebee perhaps applies. In engineering terms they should not be able to fly…but they do. :smile:
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Kim O'Hara »

:smile:
And a mouse doesn't look like it's related to a giraffe, but it is.

:coffee:
Kim
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:12 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:40 am
tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:50 am
I celebrate this, and I agree that there are some big similarities even in method.
There are no similarities at all, not in view, meditation, conduct, not to mention result.
"No similarities at all" is more than a bit extreme. Giovanni is saying they are commensurable and you are saying 0%. A bit of middle way is warranted.
The basis is different, the path is different, the result is different.

There is no similarity between Dzogchen and Theravada at all.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Astus »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:06 amThe basis is different, the path is different, the result is different.
Is dzogchen outside the framework of the four noble truths? If so, then how is it not just perpetuating samsara?
There is no similarity between Dzogchen and Theravada at all.
Maybe you know this one: Small Boat, Great Mountain by Ajahn Amaro.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by narhwal90 »

Given the illustrations, I think the artist has Zen chops too :twothumbsup:
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Kai lord »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:17 pm We don't know. We know for sure he was a contemporary of Trisrong Detsen. We know for sure that some of his associates are associated also with Padmasambhava. One can guess that those two ran in the same circles. We can be fairly confident that Vimalamitra was also his student, who arrived in Tibet around 800.

For example, there are three completely different accounts of the origin of Garab Dorje, with the sems sde and klong sde accounts being the closest, but also distinct.
So by historical estimation, Sri Sangha probably lived between the late 7th century to late 8th century?

Since its well known that Mañjuśrīmitra wrote commentaries on Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti , I went back to dig out my old and dusted copy of Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti to check out the scholarly estimation for its dating. Its presumed that since the two first volumes of the Kriya tantra, manjushri-mula-kalpa along with some of the early Tathāgatagarbha sūtras must predate Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti, so its very likely to have been in circulation during the late sixth to seventh century. this matches Mañjuśrīmitra timeline very well with Sri Sangha. And Mañjuśrīmitra might even be a contemporary of Dharmakirti at Nalanda.

So lets say if Mahayoga was in oral circulation (Not written down) during the sixth century and Garab dorje was to have a normal human lifespan and meet his Mahayoga guru, Kukuraja. Is it reasonable to estimate Garab Dorje's timeline to sixth century and perhaps mid seventh century where he would have met Mañjuśrīmitra ?
Kim O'Hara wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:11 am
Kai lord wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:47 pm ...So Dharmaguptaka, Sarvastivada and Vātsīputrīya were at least as old as them if not older. All Buddhist sects claim to uphold the most orthodox or original teachings and demonstrate the true "middle path". :rolling:
All Taoist sects claim to uphold the most orthodox or original teachings and demonstrate the True Way, too.
All Christian sects claim to uphold the most orthodox original teachings and uphold True Christianity, too.

But that's not a reason to :rolleye: or :rolling: but a perfectly reasonable way of looking at their chosen traditions.
The whole point is that since all Buddhist sects, maybe with the exception of Vātsīputrīya (Which Is hard to find historical evidences of their individual spiritual accomplishments) , have demonstrated to have a complete path to Arhathood, certain polemics involving "most original or orthodoxy " should be treated casually whereas detailed information or knowledge involving life transforming or life saving deeds must be treated seriously.

Ironically most of the time, what we see instead, is the opposite taking place.
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Giovanni »

Astus wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:01 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:06 amThe basis is different, the path is different, the result is different.
Is dzogchen outside the framework of the four noble truths? If so, then how is it not just perpetuating samsara?
There is no similarity between Dzogchen and Theravada at all.
Maybe you know this one: Small Boat, Great Mountain by Ajahn Amaro.
Ajahn Amaros interest is not merely academic. He receives instruction from Tsoknyi Rinpoche according to that Rinpoche’s students.
He remains the Abbott of Amaravati Monastery.
User avatar
Konchog Thogme Jampa
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:48 am
Location: Saha World/Hard to Take

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Konchog Thogme Jampa »

tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:17 am
Konchog Thogme Jampa wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:52 am
tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:50 am

the Thai Forest refrain for meditative practice is a massive "Relaaaaaaax!"

Hardly

In Thai Forest you need to create the energy to burn away the afflictions which is intensive so you got that wrong
Well, those were the meditation instructions I heard. So maybe Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Brahm got that wrong??? :rolleye:
Can you provide the citation where Ajahn Chah said “ the Thai Forest refrain for meditative practice is a massive "Relaaaaaaax!" ”
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Queequeg »

is an instruction to relax really proprietary? smh
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Konchog Thogme Jampa
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:48 am
Location: Saha World/Hard to Take

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Konchog Thogme Jampa »

The Thai Forest Tradition is the path of personal liberation to get somewhere with it it’s recommended to do full time practice. To remove all the kleshas from the mind is the goal. This requires intensive effort as you’re on your own.

I’m sure Ajahn Brahm teaching to relax is to help uptight westerners and he is well known to have skill with Jhanas which would help a lot.
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by nyonchung »

Kai lord wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:04 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:17 pm We don't know. We know for sure he was a contemporary of Trisrong Detsen. We know for sure that some of his associates are associated also with Padmasambhava. One can guess that those two ran in the same circles. We can be fairly confident that Vimalamitra was also his student, who arrived in Tibet around 800.

For example, there are three completely different accounts of the origin of Garab Dorje, with the sems sde and klong sde accounts being the closest, but also distinct.
So by historical estimation, Sri Sangha probably lived between the late 7th century to late 8th century?

Since its well known that Mañjuśrīmitra wrote commentaries on Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti , I went back to dig out my old and dusted copy of Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti to check out the scholarly estimation for its dating. Its presumed that since the two first volumes of the Kriya tantra, manjushri-mula-kalpa along with some of the early Tathāgatagarbha sūtras must predate Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti, so its very likely to have been in circulation during the late sixth to seventh century. this matches Mañjuśrīmitra timeline very well with Sri Sangha. And Mañjuśrīmitra might even be a contemporary of Dharmakirti at Nalanda.

So lets say if Mahayoga was in oral circulation (Not written down) during the sixth century and Garab dorje was to have a normal human lifespan and meet his Mahayoga guru, Kukuraja. Is it reasonable to estimate Garab Dorje's timeline to sixth century and perhaps mid seventh century where he would have met Mañjuśrīmitra ?
as Malcolm pointed out, the original form is a Tibetan one = dpal gyi seng ge - reconstructed as śrīsiṁha
the datation of earlier Tantric masters is a risky business, be they of nyingma or sarma translation periods
Trisong De'utsen dates are possibly (742-797?)
As Malcolm also pointed out also, lineages stories may vary, often written much later, and we should never forget this: in the origin not with an historiographical goal, and at times with a complete disregard for such an historicist approach - but reworked as such much later
As for the diffusion of (tantric) teachings, one should always remember (the diffusion of termas in Tibet is a good model) that novelty was quite welcomed, so disciples may have had the same age as the master (and not from the next generation) and the master was at time younger that the students (Maitripa is a good example, or, much latter, Namchö Mingyur Dorjé)
Otherwise, using one human generation of about 25 years between master and disciples works well.

Through the centuries, names may have dropped from the original (often quite dry) list, mis-spelled (quite common), conflated, or assimiliated to comparable names (by contamination with a comparable list)
As well, masters with similar names but distant are often mistaken ... we'll be always left with approximations.
But this is a good (intellectual) and it helps, at least to eliminate too obvious mistakes
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Malcolm »

Astus wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:01 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:06 amThe basis is different, the path is different, the result is different.
Is dzogchen outside the framework of the four noble truths?
The four truths are diagnostic, not ontological. There is a problem. There is a cause of that problem. When the cause of a problem is known, it can be remedied. There is a method to remedy the cause of the problem. Thus, the four truths apply to everything from car repair to samsara.

There is no similarity between Dzogchen and Theravada at all.
Maybe you know this one: Small Boat, Great Mountain by Ajahn Amaro.
I appreciate his book. But there are some pretty large errors of misunderstanding of Dzogchen terminology, at minimum. Compare this:
Rigpa, nondual awareness, is the direct knowing of this. It’s the quality of mind that knows, while abiding nowhere.
With Jigme Lingpa:
There are three kinds of vidyā in the sutras of Mahāyāna: the knowledge (rig pa, vidyā) of the divine eye, knowledge of past lives, and immaculate knowledge, that is, knowledge is a so-called cognition. Apart from this explanation in three categories, the dharmatā of vidyā—transcending the eight consciousnesses that include thoughts, reflections, causes, and results of a final goal—exists as the gnosis (ye shes) of the natural great perfection...The essence of that view is the truth of āryas, the personally-intuited gnosis (so so rang rig pa'i ye shes, pratyatmyavedanajñāna) that is free from subject and object.
So here, Amaro, draws an understandable, but erroneous conclusion, assuming that rigpa/vidyā referred to in Dzogchen is the mental factor of cognizance. Elsewhere, he refers to rig pa as intrinsic awareness (rang rig), understandably ignorant of the fact that rig pa, rang rig, and so on, in Dzogchen are contractions of so so rang rig pa'i ye shes, which is a very common term in Buddhist literature. If one claims that svasamvedana is what "rang rig" refers to, one's view does not transcend Yogacāra. This is an extremely common error, with consequences for one's practice.

The difference between the nine yānas and the great perfection is that the former take mind as the basis; where as the great perfection takes gnosis as the basis. This has consequences for the path: the nine yānas are paths based on causes and results; path of Dzogchen is not based on causes and results. This also has consequences for the result. In the the nine yānas the three kāyas are a result that arise from the two accumulations; in Dzogchen, the three kāyas are path experiences and do not exist in the result.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Malcolm »

Giovanni wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:08 pm
Astus wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:01 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:06 amThe basis is different, the path is different, the result is different.
Is dzogchen outside the framework of the four noble truths? If so, then how is it not just perpetuating samsara?
There is no similarity between Dzogchen and Theravada at all.
Maybe you know this one: Small Boat, Great Mountain by Ajahn Amaro.
Ajahn Amaros interest is not merely academic. He receives instruction from Tsoknyi Rinpoche according to that Rinpoche’s students.
He remains the Abbott of Amaravati Monastery.
Yes, and this is a good thing. Nevertheless, there are some errors in this person's understanding, at least at the time of publication.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14456
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:19 pm The difference between the nine yānas and the great perfection is that the former take mind as the basis; where as the great perfection takes gnosis as the basis. This has consequences for the path: the nine yānas are paths based on causes and results; path of Dzogchen is not based on causes and results. This also has consequences for the result. In the the nine yānas the three kāyas are a result that arise from the two accumulations; in Dzogchen, the three kāyas are path experiences and do not exist in the result.
Can you explain this difference a little more?

I can understand in preliminary stages where we train the mind that the mind is the basis, but what I don't grok is the distinction between mind and gnosis at subtler levels. As far as the theory goes, I think there are non Dzogchen paths that are based on something "beyond" subject/object constructs. I'll refer to some zen teachings here for the sake of convenience and general familiarity. Sudden, as I understand, is something wholly unrelated to subject/object ideation and is passed down through vital lineage.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:35 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:19 pm The difference between the nine yānas and the great perfection is that the former take mind as the basis; where as the great perfection takes gnosis as the basis. This has consequences for the path: the nine yānas are paths based on causes and results; path of Dzogchen is not based on causes and results. This also has consequences for the result. In the the nine yānas the three kāyas are a result that arise from the two accumulations; in Dzogchen, the three kāyas are path experiences and do not exist in the result.
Can you explain this difference a little more?

I can understand in preliminary stages where we train the mind that the mind is the basis, but what I don't grok is the distinction between mind and gnosis at subtler levels. As far as the theory goes, I think there are non Dzogchen paths that are based on something "beyond" subject/object constructs. I'll refer to some zen teachings here for the sake of convenience and general familiarity. Sudden, as I understand, is something wholly unrelated to subject/object ideation and is passed down through vital lineage.
When there is mind, gnosis cannot be observed. When there is gnosis, mind is not evident. Mind is adventitious; gnosis is not adventitious, etc.

If people want to really understand this, they need to seek out a proper teacher. No matter how many words I write online, it will just be an intellectual description of sugar.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Astus »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:19 pmThe four truths are diagnostic, not ontological. There is a problem. There is a cause of that problem. When the cause of a problem is known, it can be remedied. There is a method to remedy the cause of the problem. Thus, the four truths apply to everything from car repair to samsara.
The four noble truths have that structure, but it also has a content, so it outlines the entirety of the Buddha's teaching, and at the same time encompasses the essential liberating insights. Dzogchen, like the other vehicles, fit into it, as they all recognise suffering, its cause, its cause's ending, and the three trainings leading to that end.
The difference between the nine yānas and the great perfection is that the former take mind as the basis; where as the great perfection takes gnosis as the basis. This has consequences for the path: the nine yānas are paths based on causes and results; path of Dzogchen is not based on causes and results. This also has consequences for the result. In the the nine yānas the three kāyas are a result that arise from the two accumulations; in Dzogchen, the three kāyas are path experiences and do not exist in the result.
Dzogchen still has view, meditation, conduct, and result, doesn't it? Its gnosis is not something other than prajnaparamita, is it?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Astus »

Queequeg wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:35 pmI'll refer to some zen teachings here for the sake of convenience and general familiarity.
Maybe something like this: View, Meditation, and Conduct in Dzogchen and Zen by Kokyo Henkel
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by Malcolm »

Astus wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:37 pm
Dzogchen still has view, meditation, conduct, and result, doesn't it?
From the perspective of the vehicles of the cause and result, yes. From its perspective, only nominally.

Its gnosis is not something other than prajnaparamita, is it?
It’s not the perfection of wisdom as imagined by the vehicles of cause and result.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by tobes »

Konchog Thogme Jampa wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:10 pm
tobes wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:17 am
Konchog Thogme Jampa wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:52 am

Hardly

In Thai Forest you need to create the energy to burn away the afflictions which is intensive so you got that wrong
Well, those were the meditation instructions I heard. So maybe Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Brahm got that wrong??? :rolleye:
Can you provide the citation where Ajahn Chah said “ the Thai Forest refrain for meditative practice is a massive "Relaaaaaaax!" ”
No, it was a pith instruction and this is not a journal article. It was explained by Ajahn Brahm as the quintessence of Ajahn Chah's instruction to him.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Mahayana vs Theravada

Post by tobes »

Konchog Thogme Jampa wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:40 pm The Thai Forest Tradition is the path of personal liberation to get somewhere with it it’s recommended to do full time practice. To remove all the kleshas from the mind is the goal. This requires intensive effort as you’re on your own.

I’m sure Ajahn Brahm teaching to relax is to help uptight westerners and he is well known to have skill with Jhanas which would help a lot.
No, it is the quintessence of the technique. The effort one makes is non-effort. Sound familiar?

Yes, he teaches that to westerners and easterners. But you're making the implicit and unjustified inference here is that this is somehow contrary to the tradition itself. Sorry, but it ain't.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”