I knew this headline would grab your attention.
We’ve been discussing if and how divergent the Buddhist traditions are. I just came across this today in an article entitled “Dhamma and Nonduality.” Here’s a quote from the writer Bhikku Bodhi, the esteemed Theravadin monk and scholar:
“The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous.”
Read the rest here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
Okay, you can meet and talk a theravadin monk named Bhikku Revata. He might have written several books on this subject. Anyhow it’s interesting to see your critiques on the Mahayanan.
Hi Ami. Thanks for stopping by!
Mahayana Buddhism IS outrageous. That’s why I practice it.
B., Zen student
Well, if you’re looking for outrageous, and you get bored of Mahayana, there’s always Islam!
Indeed it is from certain perspectives. Remember that many arahants walked out when the Mahayana teachings were propounded. However, leaving aside mythic language .. what in our experience does this teaching point to?????
However, returning to the article mentioned above, Bhikku Bodhi, understandably, misunderstands the central thrust of Mahayana view. The use of the term ‘Nirvana’ in the context of ‘Samsara and Nirvana are inseparable’ has very different connotations to the term as used in Theravadan teachings. By this stage in Tibet a thousand years later, that phrase means something like ‘if you look throughout the range of your experience, you will not find any which are ultimately satisfactory, whether from those filled with pleasure or those filled with pain. It’s broadly pointing to experience within the 6 realms.
It’s an easy mistake to make if you are not completely grounded in another tradition, and one reason to be very careful when criticising other approaches (and more or less setting up straw men to be knocked down) ….
best wishes in the Dharma …
Well, the term (and Buddhism) didn’t reach Tibet until at least 1400 yrs after the demise of the Buddha. But quibbling aside, Bodhi’s point is that the original teaching of the Buddha was quite different than what was later elaborated, as you mention.
From the Theravada perspective, the criticism is based on the fact that the Pali Canon is the earliest, and according to most scholars, what the Buddha actually taught, as opposed to various, multitudes of doctrines which later arose.
Best wishes to you as well.
All very interesting, but over my head since I do not have the scholarship under my belt.
In the end, all that is important is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths and the Buddha’s message that he teaches only “Suffering and the end of suffering.”
Mahayana, Theravada, or whatever: they are just traditions and constructs by people. To hold to those philosophies can be as destructive as clinging to any other fetter.
As a Theravadan, I do feel that this tradition is more pragmatic and less involved in ritual and cultural fetters. However, as we focus on the core of Buddhism, the path to the top of the mountain is ultimately unimportant. What is important is getting there.
I also do not believe that you can generalize something as vast as Mahayana to specific conceptual beliefs and practice. The explanations of “no self” and “non existence” change from sect to sect and indeed sangha to sangha.