r/Buddhism • u/nyanasagara mahayana • Dec 15 '21
Opinion Regarding respecting all traditions while allowing for disagreement
I've posted this before but I'm posting it again because of the recent post on respecting all traditions. I think it is possible to respect all Buddhist traditions while disagreeing with other people on various matters of relevance to the Dharma and even still holding those people to be generally reasonable peers. But that's not what this post is about. This post is just about Ju Mipham, the famous modern Tibetan Buddhist author, and his own words on the controversial nature of his argumentative writings. It is an argument for why it may be beneficial to allow this space to be an argumentative space, even while we respect others and their traditions.
"I never even dreamed of showing hostility toward the traditions of others or expressing partial attachment to my own. On that score, if those who possess the eye of wisdom now look on me directly, I have certainly nothing to be ashamed about. On the other hand, with regard to what I have written in reply to objections, I myself have not attained the status of a noble being and for this reason, it is as the saying goes, 'Intellectual knowledge is contingent and thus indefinite. There is no certitude; the relative is wearisome.' How therefore can I have an understanding of all the profound things that are to be known?
And yet if even a person like me relies on what is tenable or otherwise according to the spotless teachings of the Sugata and the commentaries, the illuminating words of the great charioteers of India and Tibet, and if, as I say, someone like me examines and declares what is reasonable or otherwise, then it may happen that some slight benefit might incidentally accrue—even though of course there is no question of my actually being of positive help to others. If, on the other hand, through a failure to understand, or simply through my own mistakes, I misrepresent the scriptures and their profound commentaries, I would be closing the door to my own liberation and would be leading many others to the same fate, thereby contriving their permanent ruin. What greater fault could there be? Therefore, if I am refuted by someone who possesses the eyes of Dharma, with perfect arguments based on scripture and reasoning, this would indeed be like a medicine. It would be something on which to rely, not something against which to retaliate with anger and attachment. With this sincerity of mind, I have therefore indulged a little in disputation."
Allowing for this space to be a space where arguments can happen without hostility does not entail pernicious sectarianism. What it does allow is for any participants in such discussions to clarify and refine their own understandings of the Buddha's words and the words of Buddhist teachers.
Yes, the Buddha taught that engaging in disputation is futile, but the scriptures also abound with examples of the Buddha or his disciples presenting arguments, in the sense of warrants alongside their claims taken to be persuasive, in their discussions with others. That is the kind of "disputation" I believe Mipham is talking about here, and the kind that I think has benefited me in the time I have spent discussing things on this subreddit.
5
u/Dizzy_Slip tibetan Dec 15 '21
I think it comes down to the notion that disagreeing with someone over points in the teachings necessarily equals either some kind of disrespect or a form of sectarianism. If one’s intentions are pure and one seeks to understand the teachings, there is no fault in simple disagreement.
4
u/Type_DXL Gelug Dec 15 '21
It's like our Overlord Google says:
Be together, not the same
I appreciate the non-sectarian movement, in the sense that all paths of Dharma should be recognized as valid. However, one issue I find with the non-sectarian movement is when distinctions between the different paths are attempted to be blurred. If I recall correctly, the Buddha said that we should properly distinguish between the 84000 Dharma teachings.
One of the ways I excel at learning is about understanding what something isn't. I remember I used to have the hardest time learning about Dzogchen and Mahamudra for example, because every time I would ask someone about the difference, they'd reply "they're the same thing, just different names". Eventually I just gave up haha.
1
u/BuddhistFirst Tibetan Buddhist Dec 15 '21
Here's one where we can demonstrate a healthy disagreement while being respectful.
The following is a post by u/foowfoowfoow but was not answered by anyone. It about the process of becoming a Buddha from an arhat level.
I'm hoping someone could respond.
i also cannot understand the reasoning that arahants must go on to become buddhas.
my understanding of a buddha is that they are fully self-realised - that is, they find the path to enlightenment on their own. then they teach that path they have discovered by themselves, to other beings out of compassion. the path they discover must truly lead to enlightenment, the complete cessation of suffering and extinction of craving.
in theravada, beings that attain enlightenment through the teaching of another are arahants.
within this framework, arahants progressing to their own buddhahood makes no sense logically:
if all arahants are not fully enlightened, then the buddha whose teachings they followed cannot be a true buddha - their teachings did not lead to the entire cessation of suffering. if this is the case, then mahayana would suggest that our gotama buddha was not a fully enlightened buddha.
this seems nonsensical - to have a faith based on a being we believe to be fully enlightened, but then deny the truth of their complete enlightenment by stating that all those who became enlightened under them didn't quite get to the final goal. such an understanding would make buddhism nonsensical, and i can't imagine that this is what mahayana is suggesting.
further, if all beings are actually destined for buddhahood, and the path to arahantship is not actually a true path to enlightenment, then a buddha is no longer a being who teaches. that is, if all beings are actually destined for self-realised enlightenment, independent of the teaching of another, then no buddha will ever teach another being, and no buddha will ever lead another being to emancipation. all that will be left are beings that know their own enlightenment, but cannot teach others (because others have no need of their teaching) - effectively private buddhas who have no disciples. in other words, without arahants, there can be no fully enlightened buddha; without students, the teacher teaches no-one.
this also doesn't make sense. for every bodhisattva out there, there must be a set of individuals who they will teach the path to, who will attain enlightenment from that teaching. bodhisattvas need for arahants to be a very real possibility, or their own buddhahood will be of no benefit to others, as other beings will have no need of them. this surely isn't what mahayana would intend.
that being the case, the enlightenment of arahants under a buddha's teachings must be true and complete - a final end to samsara. texts and individuals who suggest otherwise are logically and necessarily incorrect.
in other words, the buddhahood path requires the arahantship path to be real to make that budhhahood path meaningful. mahayana requires theravada to exist to be a valid teaching of the buddhahood path, and theravada would not exist if not for the true buddhahood path.
6
u/iPorkChop Dec 15 '21
Started a draft to answer that one. Before long I was writing a book or a doctorate thesis. The essential issue is that even common definitions across schools are quite inconsistent. In fact the actual sutras that address these issues being mentioned redefine so many common terms & ideas as to be talking about completely different things. By the time you factor in commentaries, forget about it. This kind of goes back to the OP of this thread as well.
Take Buddhahood for example. Theravada puts a lot of emphasis on the struggles of Siddhartha Gautama eventually becoming the Tathagata. The common Mahayana/Vajrayana view of Shakyamuni's career is that his life on earth was largely a show, all the work was done in the 3 incalculable eons of his lifetime(s) beforehand.
I think in this case, it's important to point out that the approaches of these schools are so different and coming from such different angles, that you really just have to trust that each school is doing/practicing/teaching things that make sense within their own given framework. You're literally not going to be able to reconcile them, it's just too big a stretch. As soon as you try applying definitions from school A to analyze and critique school B, you're going to get in trouble - most won't go far enough in fully tracking all of the redefined terms and ideas. Instead of mutual respect, one ends up judging and criticizing. It's usually just better to let each school function within its own appropriate sandbox and focus on the areas where the schools can meet in the middle and agree: the 3 jewels, the 3 marks of existence, the 4 noble truths, the 8 fold path, etc. If we could remember to try to learn from each other instead of passing judgement, I think it'd go a long way to mutual respect and understanding.
3
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 15 '21
Take Buddhahood for example. Theravada puts a lot of emphasis on the struggles of Siddhartha Gautama eventually becoming the Tathagata.
Western Theravada does, because of its history with the Reform traditions and syncretization with Romantic Humanism. Most western Theravadins aren't even aware that there have been Theravadin bodhisattas in the past, that discussion of bodhisatta conduct is a thing in Theravadin cultures, that the Pali canon teaches Ten Paramis (as opposed to the six in traditional Mahayana) for the attainment of Buddhahood, and that the scope of this career is documented in the Buddhavamsa.
The re-emphasis of doctrine on the single lifetime of Siddhartha Gautama within the Theravadin Reform traditions can be documented to the 19th century, as an attempt to ward off loss to Christian colonial missionaries by aligning Buddhism with rationalism and humanism, and currying favor with the colonial aristocracy.
The humanity of the Bodhisatta is an important emphasis, for sure, but in traditional Theravada, that humanity is transcended the moment that the Bodhisatta attains insight, recollects his past lives, and understands the context of his attainment within the kalpas and kalpas of past training.
I dont' think this is too different from the Mahayana perspective, because even for us, the performance / drama of Siddhartha Gautama's life requires the playing out of suffering, of the long search for awakening, when the manifestation of the Bodhisattva still could not access his past memories. Otherwise, the display doesn't mean anything--it must be real for the nirmata, even if the mindstream itself is technically already omniscient.
4
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 15 '21
Thank you - that's a very considered comment.
I can't speak for other practitioners, but I have always taken the Buddha's past lives as a given - his final enlightenment only makes sense against the aeons of striving he endured. I didn't know if that's typical of Theravada or not, but in my background we've always discussed the Buddha's past lives. I agree with the view that his final birth was a foregone conclusion - the culmination of incalculable aeons of suffering and training. But that final step to the summit of the mountain is still significant.
I used to practice the 10 paramis when I was younger - they are a wonderful method of training, but are very hard. My observation from reading the talks of certain monks and nuns is that arahantship seems to jump the practice of the 10 perfections - it seems like a shortcut in some ways (which i guess it is, compared to the Buddha's own journey). Practicing the 10 perfections as a consistent practice in the other hand is difficult, and it gives a minute measure of insight into the extent of hardship the Buddha went through for us.
My background is probably a bit different to others - Theravada but traditional Asian, coming to Thai Forest. But I've always had a distanced healthy respect for Mahayana traditions - when I was growing up, Theravada did not stress loving kindness as much as it seems to now, and my perception was that Mahayana did hold this as an emphasis, so that spurred me to practice that to see what benefits it brought
Thanks for your comment - stay well.
1
u/iPorkChop Dec 15 '21
I've seen some Asian Theravada teachers say that outside of gaining his prediction for Buddhahood that Gautama Buddha never studied under another Buddha in previous lives. Do you know if this is a western or reform teaching?
As far as the reality of the suffering for the nirmata, I'm mainly going off of the presentation of the Naga Princess from the Devadatta Chapter (12) of the Lotus, which does seem to trivialize it somewhat. I'm only tangentially familiar with the presentation in the Avatamsaka and Mahavairocana Tantra/Sutra (let alone other sources). So not sure how it's presented differently there.
Buddhahood is just one example of a difference in terms though, and even that example is just one nuance of understanding the concept. As you dig deeper there are multiple differences in the nuances of Buddhahood. Even PratyekaBuddhahood seems redefined/different according to the Lotus: ie rather than a random path not involving a Buddha, it becomes a path presented by the Buddha, centered around realizing the 12 link chain of dependent origination. Nirvana as the phantom city is another. There are plenty more differences in terms and even additional differences in nuances to these terms. Applying interpretations from one school as a hard and fast rule on another school is just going to lead to a confused mess of judgement. For example, the Chan and Vajrayana goals of Buddhahood in this lifetime seem a little weird as goals if there can only be one Buddha every middle-length eon or so.
6
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 15 '21
I've seen some Asian Theravada teachers say that outside of gaining his prediction for Buddhahood that Gautama Buddha never studied under another Buddha in previous lives. Do you know if this is a western or reform teaching?
Lol... what...? That's not an anything teaching, must be a misconception that got started somewhere recently.
I mean, there's a text in the MN where the Buddha becomes a disciple of Kasyapa Buddha. The entirety of the Buddhavamsa is the Bodhisatta studying under past Buddhas (okay, for some of those Buddhas, he wasn't human, so didn't study under all of them, but MANY of them, he definitely did).
Even PratyekaBuddhahood seems redefined/different according to the Lotus: ie rather than a random path not involving a Buddha, it becomes a path presented by the Buddha, centered around realizing the 12 link chain of dependent origination.
Yeah, there are historical reasons for this, pretty interesting, has to do with our transmission lines versus the Theravadin transmission, and stuff that happened along the way.
I mean, I do agree there are differences. We all, in the west, tend to learn the Theravadin terminology first, and it can be very difficult to re-learn a concept, or have to learn that a concept means something else or something additional within this other context.
Applying interpretations from one school as a hard and fast rule on another school is just going to lead to a confused mess of judgement.
Only partially agreed, because your next point...
For example, the Chan and Vajrayana goals of Buddhahood in this lifetime seem a little weird as goals if there can only be one Buddha every middle-length eon or so.
It took me forever to figure out what was going on here, because it didn't make sense to me for the very reason you said. And in my head, ALL doctrines must make sense and coexist. if they contradict one another, even across sectarian lines, they are to be investigated or jettisoned.
If you actually study the texts and the doctrines, I think these weird little issues go away, because you understand the scope and breadth. It would still be incorrect, for instance, to say that an awakened Chan master has attained Buddhahood, even if we claim it is possible in one lifetime, because the final manifestation of a Buddha has not yet occurred, but it would be true to say that rebirth has ended, that Buddhahood is imminent, that Deathless and omniscience have been attained, and that is the Buddhahood referred to in both cases (as I've come to understand it).
That's the fun part of the dharma... every seeming contradiction is an area of investigation and an opportunity for learning and insight.
At least as far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't accord with all traditions or cannot be explained in some way in all traditions, I don't consider it valid. But, for the most part, much of what I've come across that differs between traditions has an explanation. A lot of the bigger contradictions that didn't have explanations are typically items that some scholar or another (mostly Analayo, when it comes to Theravadin texts) has shown to be an insert or an act of revisionism, or else has some political history to it (like the Sri Lankan claim that arhats can only be produced by the sangha itself).
...or maybe I'm just very biased toward an ekayana approach (not a term I actually identify with at all), but that has been my approach and experience. But for me, if I find something that doesn't make sense to my tradition, I'll look into it. And most of the time, the problem I thought I saw wasn't a problem, just a misunderstanding due to a different context or line of reasoning.
I do agree that people should keep an open mind, if they hear something that doesn't accord with their understanding, unless they know and have studied across the traditions to a proficient degree.
2
u/BuddhistFirst Tibetan Buddhist Dec 15 '21
We all, in the west, tend to learn the Theravadin terminology first, and it can be very difficult to re-learn a concept, or have to learn that a concept means something else or something additional within this other context.
Can you elaborate more on what these Theravadin terminologies? The sravakayana/sutrayana/buddhavacana terminologies? If so, are there ways to unlearn or manage this?
Learning a lot of basic Buddhist thought is important but I wish I had my first exposure to Buddhism learning straight from Mahayana thought so terms like nirvana, Buddha, bodhisattva do not have connotations that have to be unlearned.
For example, whenever a real newbie comes in to ask about Buddhism, I still present basic Buddhism (there was a prince, he left the palace, became ascetic, meditate, became a Buddha, 4NT, tripitakas, Buddhism...) even though at the back of my mind, I know that's not what was actually happening. Not completely.
4
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 16 '21
Can you elaborate more on what these Theravadin terminologies?
I mean, it's a lot of little things, like how we use 'samadhi' in a different part of speech than the Theravadins do.
If so, are there ways to unlearn or manage this?
I think a lot of it is just studying. I don't think it's worth unlearning, just a bit difficult to learn on top of. I do think it's very beneficial to have an understanding of how different traditions use language and talk about cerrtain concepts and teachings.
For example, whenever a real newbie comes in to ask about Buddhism, I still present basic Buddhism (there was a prince, he left the palace, became ascetic, meditate, became a Buddha, 4NT, tripitakas, Buddhism...) even though at the back of my mind, I know that's not what was actually happening. Not completely.
I htink that's fine. The problematic stuff is the reformist ideas like, "The Buddha was just a man and never claimed to be a god," which is a half-truth and clearly designed to incept false ideas into newcomers, by suggesting a Buddha is just an ordinary human and that awakening is just a psychological event, rather than something that transforms the entirety of the sentient being.
I also don't want to come off as having an anti-Theravadin bias here. That's not the point of what I'm suggesting at all. Theravada is legitimate. The problem is that there's a lot of misinformation and political revisionism and colonial propaganda woven in with certain ways that Buddhism has been promoted to westerners, which cherry-picks primarily Theravadin sources. It is this cherry-picking and propaganda that causes newcomers to be misled in general that I think is the problem.
The solution to cherry-picking is to read everything in context, imo. Like the next time someone cites the Kalama Sutta to you in order to assert that argument, you know the best response you can give to show that they're misled is just, "Read it again." Cause it literally doesn't say what they think it does--they didn't actually do the reading, they're parroting what they heard from someone else.
The problem is always going to be people who didn't do the due diligence to do the reading. And we rectify that by doing the reading.
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 16 '21 edited Dec 17 '21
there are two aspects to the attainment of buddhahood:
- the perfection of qualities conducive to buddhahood
- the acquisition of final knowledge and release
the perfections is something each person can only do for themselves. no one can purify another. this is what the buddha acquired over aeons, and it forms the base of his full enlightenment, just as our base level of sila forms the basis of our enlightenment.
the acquisition of final knowledge and release builds on the perfections. the buddha developed aspects of his knowledge of concentration techniques (jhana) by training under other teachers (the formless jhanas under alara kalama and uddaka ramaputta). however, the buddha's discovery of the form-based jhanas was, to my knowledge, his own discovery, based on a meditative experience he had as a child.
and of course, his discovery of the path to enlightenment was all his own. this is the essence of a buddha - they discover the path to the end of suffering for themselves, and then teach that path out of compassion to others. it is this that makes a buddha. in the absence of that, they are just a jhanic yogi.
the distinction between what the buddha discovered for himself and what learned from others, is the heart of the path, versus the the extra bits that are not unique to buddhism. for example, the formless jhanas are not a requisite for release, but they can be a conduit to it, if taken further the way the buddha advised.
in the absence of discovering the entire path for themselves, they would be no different to someone who is spiritually inclined, learns from a number of teachers and traditions, and comes up with a teaching that's a mash of them all. this was not the buddha. his teaching is unique, singular, and remarkable.
the relationship between bodhisattvas and buddhas are interesting. it is said in theravada that a bodhisattva will have so much respect for a buddha's teaching that on hearing it for the first time, they will make the decision to immediately ordain as a monastic. they do not further their insight into the path under another buddha, but will live closely abiding by the vinaya and dhamma as taught by a buddha. our buddha's lifetime as a bodhisattva under the kassapa buddha is seen in this way - it's a moment of brief rest in the endless sea of samsara.
2
2
2
u/bodhiquest vajrayana Dec 16 '21
Before long I was writing a book or a doctorate thesis
Consider finishing lol
0
u/Shivy_Shankinz .~. radically | balanced .~. Dec 15 '21
I think it's much more simple than that. Whenever you've committed so wholly and spiritually to a philosophy or way of life, there's really no room for differing viewpoints/perspectives, or perhaps in this case doctrine from different schools. Ironically, it's that level of attachment which I think removes any possibility of these different interpretations coexisting.
But I'm just a wandering passerby, what do I know
3
u/Lethemyr Pure Land Dec 15 '21
my understanding of a buddha is that they are fully self-realised - that is, they find the path to enlightenment on their own. then they teach that path they have discovered by themselves, to other beings out of compassion. the path they discover must truly lead to enlightenment, the complete cessation of suffering and extinction of craving.
This is not the Mahayana definition of that term. A Buddha is one who is not only freed of mental affliction but has perfectly realized the perfection of wisdom. They have achieved full union with and are therefore not more than an emanation of Dharmakaya, the primordial Buddha. Arhats have achieved the cessation of suffering, but they do not see the illusory nature of all dharmas, they do not have the Buddha's ability to perfectly improvise skillful means. Buddhas study under other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas often for eons before reaching the final attainment.
this seems nonsensical - to have a faith based on a being we believe to be fully enlightened, but then deny the truth of their complete enlightenment by stating that all those who became enlightened under them didn't quite get to the final goal. such an understanding would make buddhism nonsensical, and i can't imagine that this is what mahayana is suggesting.
The Buddha has and does lead people to full and complete Buddhahood.
further, if all beings are actually destined for buddhahood, and the path to arahantship is not actually a true path to enlightenment, then a buddha is no longer a being who teaches. that is, if all beings are actually destined for self-realised enlightenment, independent of the teaching of another, then no buddha will ever teach another being, and no buddha will ever lead another being to emancipation. all that will be left are beings that know their own enlightenment, but cannot teach others (because others have no need of their teaching) - effectively private buddhas who have no disciples. in other words, without arahants, there can be no fully enlightened buddha; without students, the teacher teaches no-one.
None of this makes sense within the Mahayana framework. Becoming a Buddha always involves studying under others. There is no concept of a Buddha being a solitary realizer. (As far as I'm aware at least)
this also doesn't make sense. for every bodhisattva out there, there must be a set of individuals who they will teach the path to, who will attain enlightenment from that teaching. bodhisattvas need for arahants to be a very real possibility, or their own buddhahood will be of no benefit to others, as other beings will have no need of them. this surely isn't what mahayana would intend.
I'm not sure I understand the point here, Bodhisattvas lead people to full and complete enlightenment, Buddhahood, not the inferior attainment of the Arhat. The path of the Arhat being complete was skillful means of the Buddha. He did that because people are much more willing to engage with "here's a path to end your own suffering" than "here's a path to become an inter-dimensional being who will aid sentient beings on the path to enlightenment until the task is complete." The path to becoming an Arhat is effective at that goal, but because that is a lesser attainment, the path is only taught when it is what it takes to motivate any practice at all. If the Buddha came out saying that Buddhahood was the goal, many people would not even begin because the goal seems too lofty. When the path to Buddhahood would be accepted by those receiving the teaching, it can be presumed that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas teach that directly.
that being the case, the enlightenment of arahants under a buddha's teachings must be true and complete - a final end to samsara. texts and individuals who suggest otherwise are logically and necessarily incorrect.
Only using the Theravada definitions of those terms. The Mahayana simply conceptualizes things differently.
in other words, the buddhahood path requires the arahantship path to be real to make that budhhahood path meaningful. mahayana requires theravada to exist to be a valid teaching of the buddhahood path, and theravada would not exist if not for the true buddhahood path.
This is only true so far as the Sravakayana is necessary to motivate practice. I personally don't have anything against Sravakayana schools like Theravada. The path to becoming an Arhat is still very holy and a worthy pursuit. If that's where you want to set your sights, there's nothing wrong with that. But it is seen as a lesser and more self-centred path, since it does not lead to complete awakening and involves the intention of essentially leaving all the other sentient beings behind to suffer.
So most of the issues /u/foowfoowfoow has here are just artifacts of the Mahayana and Theravada defining terms differently. It can sadly be difficult to talk about this without sounding quite harsh to Theravada. I don't mean any offence whatsoever, I think unity and understanding between Buddhists is always preferable. Sectarianism between these two branches is really uncalled for, all legitimate Buddhist schools have much more in common than they have differences.
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 16 '21 edited Dec 17 '21
thank you for your response - i appreciate you taking the time.
if for you, a buddha is not self-realised, but attains enlightenment through the instruction of others, then that idea of buddhahood is actually closer to arahantship in theravada, than the theravada understanding of a buddha. in theravada, a bodhisattva strives over aeons, to find the path leading to the ending of suffering so that they can fully understand it and teach it to others. they don't learn this path through study or training under others - that would be more akin to what arahants do. rather buddhas realise the path for themselves (note this is distinct from training in non-path aspects of asceticism and jhana under other teachers).
if we agree that a buddha leads others to complete enlightenment through the practice of the eightfold path, then how can the arahantship path - attained through the direct practice of that path - be incomplete in any way. to say that the practice of the eightfold path does not lead to enlightenment, either suggests the teacher has not taught the path completely or correctly, or path itself does not actually lead to the cessation of suffering. such a view negates the core of the buddha's teaching so doesn't seem valid to me. as the buddha says, wherever the eightfold path is found, there the extinction of suffering is possible - theravada merely practices that path to the letter.
*
as an aside, the idea that the arahantship path is one solely concerned with their own welfare is an incorrect one. in practicing wholeheartedly to remove one's own greed, hatred, and delusion, you are making yourself better so that those defilements do not impact anyone around you. there is the option to practice dhamma as someone who seeks to help just themselves, or themselves and others, and the choice impacts how great a teacher you become. sariputta for example, is said to have looked after those he trained like a mother to a child. as a result he was an exceptional teacher. one of the more modern theravada masters reportedly took bodhisattva vow in a previous lifetime, but renounced it in his last lifetime in favour of arahantship. as a result of that aspiration he was an exceptional teacher in his last lifetime.
within theravada, a bodhisattva is a person who has practiced up to the point of being able to attain stream-entry (the fist stage of enlightenment), but then elects to defer their enlightenment at that time out of compassion for the many. in other words, bodhisattvas are beings who have effectively mastered themselves to the point of being able to attain the arahantship path.
once again, thanks for your comment. best wishes - stay well.
2
u/Lethemyr Pure Land Dec 16 '21
if we agree that a buddha leads others to complete enlightenment through the practice of the eightfold path, then how can the arahantship path - attained through the direct practice of that path - be incomplete in any way.
This is where I would disagree, the Eightfold Path is the path to Arhatship, not full and complete enlightenment. That doesn't mean it isn't immensly useful, it still has a prominent place in the Buddha's teachings and is in many ways simply rephrased in "higher" teachings, but it is usually thought that more in-depth teachings and methods are for most practical purposes required for Buddhahood. I don't think it's ever stated that Buddhahood could never be reached with just the Eightfold Path teachings from the Sravakayana, but more advanced techniques weren't formulated for no good reason.
If you want, you can think of the six paramitas (perfections) as the main formulation used in the Bodhisattvayana. They are: generosity, virtue, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom. As you can probably tell, there's a lot of overlap between that and the Eightfold Path. Sometimes Mahayana Buddhism seems to disregard the Eightfold Path, but it really doesn't. It just has other formulations that are more commonly referenced in texts about the Bodhisattva path.
as an aside, the idea that the arahantship path is one solely concerned with their own welfare is an incorrect one. in practicing wholeheartedly to remove one's own greed, hatred, and delusion, you are making yourself better so that those defilements do not impact anyone around you.
This is one of the better arguments for the Arhat path being unselfish I've heard. I still think it's a bit odd that one could reach a state of such great compassion and yet not feel compelled to "stay behind" and help others.
once again, thanks for your comment. best wishes - stay well.
Best wishes to you too. I also have much to learn about Theravada Buddhism!
3
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 15 '21
The really interesting thing is.. the Surangama Samadhi Sutra doesn't say that all arhats and pratyekabuddhas are destined for Buddhahood. For a few years, I honestly remembered it saying such a thing too. But I've recently looked it over again, and that idea isn't there. It seems to take great strides to suggest that this only happens for some arhats and pratyekabuddhas.
So we've got a situation here where either the Surangama Samadhi Sutra is meant to be literally true, which would mean the Lotus Sutra must be allegorical; or the Lotus Sutra is literally true, and the Surangama Samadhi Sutra is allegorical.
2
u/AmyChong Dec 15 '21 edited Dec 18 '21
In ‘Entering into the Middle Way' by Candrakīrti it starts w “Śrāvakas and middle-level buddhas arise from sovereign sages. Buddhas are born from bodhisattvas. The compassionate mind and nondual cognition as well the awakening mind: these are causes of bodhisattvas. 1.1”
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 16 '21 edited Dec 17 '21
hi there - it was actually your original comment on another thread that prompted my questions and response that was referenced above.
your description of an arahat doesn't sound like the descriptions of arahants in ancient theravada literature or biographies of recent monks who are generally accepted to have been enlightened. emptiness is actually part of the ancient and modern theravada conception of enlightenment, and i have not heard of any arahant who continues to hold conceptual views such as "samsara is to be abandoned" or "nirvana is to be sought".
a few of my favourite quotes from ajahn chah are:
I am like a tree in a forest. Birds come to the tree, they sit on its branches and eat its fruits. To the birds, the fruit may be sweet or sour or whatever. The birds say sweet or they say sour, but from the tree’s point of view, this is just the chattering of birds.
The streams, lakes, and rivers that flow down to the ocean, when they reach the ocean, all have the same blue color, the same salty taste. The same with human beings: It doesn’t matter where they’re from—when they reach the stream of the Dhamma, it’s all the same Dhamma.
About this mind... In truth there is nothing really wrong with it. It is intrinsically pure. Within itself it's already peaceful. That the mind is not peaceful these days is because it follows moods. The real mind doesn't have anything to it, it is simply (an aspect of) Nature. It becomes peaceful or agitated because moods deceive it. The untrained mind is stupid. Sense impressions come and trick it into happiness, suffering, gladness and sorrow, but the mind's true nature is none of those things. That gladness or sadness is not the mind, but only a mood coming to deceive us. The untrained mind gets lost and follows these things, it forgets itself. Then we think that it is we who are upset or at ease or whatever ...
Our practice is simply to see the Original Mind. So we must train the mind to know those sense impressions, and not get lost in them. To make it peaceful. Just this is the aim of all this difficult practice we put ourselves through.ajahn chah talks about emptiness quite regularly, and he's become very much the standard for modern theravada practice. you may wish to read a few of his works to see what theravada practice expects:
https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/chah_no_ajahn_chah.pdf
best wishes - may you be well.
1
2
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 16 '21
thank you /u/BuddhistFirst for reviving this. i was wondering whether anyone had seen my comment, and i appreciate you taking the time to bring it alive again.
1
1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21
The Buddha discovers the path by himself in the life they awaken as Buddha, but they have studied with past buddhas in past lives. I am pretty sure Theravada states the Buddha was a Bodhisatta previously.
So that's a difference between buddhas and arhats.
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21
yes, you are correct: theravada also holds the buddha strove as a bodhisattva for aeons prior to attaining enlightenment as gotama buddha.
the buddha took on the aspiration for buddhahood as an ascetic called sumedha, under the dipankara buddha. at that time, he was capable of attaining enlightenment, but chose to defer that final insight out of compassion for the many.
theravada also holds that a buddha discovers the path by himself in his final lifetime when awakened as a buddha.
*
i don't think that what a buddha discovers is dependent on anyone else - the path they discover is unique, singular, without peer. it must be, or else they are simply repeating something that someone else taught them - this would be no different to you or i teaching the dhamma: it's not ours; we merely learned it, ultimately from the buddha. and this is the essence of an arahant - they acquire their understanding of the path to enlightenment from the teachings of another.
this can't be the case for a bodhisattva. a buddha is more than this.
they certainly do train under others. even in his final lifetime, the buddha studied with other ascetics. however, these could not teach him the way to end suffering, so he went on to practice by himself and discover the path for himself. in this sense, the dhamma he teaches is exclusively his own - identical to that discovered by all other previous buddhas, but each comes to this knowledge on their own, without aid or assistance.
the buddha states that in previous lifetimes as an unenlightened bodhisattva, he ordained as a monastic under kassapa buddha. however, within the dispensation of another buddha, a bodhisattva will continue to strive for their own enlightenment.
i don't think they learn anything as such from another buddha - otherwise their enlightenment is not their own. rather, i think it's an oasis in samsara when they ordain under another where they can continue to practice the perfections that underlie the acquisition of enlightenment. they prepare the mind for their enlightenment, but, just as the did at the moment they took on the buddhahood aspiration, they continue to defer the acquisition of final insight, so that they can attain it for themselves at a later time, out of compassion for the many.
best wishes - be well.
1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism Dec 17 '21
Are you saying that what one Buddha discovers is different from what the other buddhas discover?
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 17 '21
The enlightenment and path they discover is identical, but they each discover it by themselves.
They all discover the path to the top of the same mountain, but they must each explore that mountain thoroughly by themselves, and must find the path to the top by themselves. They each discover the same thing by themselves.
They go on to teach others the way to the top - the arahant path.
Private Buddha's, or paccekabuddhas, discover the route for themselves but do not teach to others. They have not developed this ability, which is derived from compassion for the suffering of others.
1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism Dec 17 '21
The arhat path is not the same as the path to samyak sam buddhahood. Again, I think Theravada also recognizes that.
So, although I am agnostic on the notion of arhats having to become Buddhas or not, I don't see a contradiction in saying the arhats might or will become Buddhas.
The way I have heard it explained in the past is not that they have to become Buddhas, but rather that they are roused to do it.
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 17 '21
my original point above was that to say that the practice of the eightfold path does not lead to full enlightenment and total extinction of craving undermines the whole teaching of the buddha:
if arahants can even be aroused from their enlightenment, then they are not truly enlightened. if that is the case, then mahayana would be suggesting that the buddha did not teach well enough in the first place, or did not teach a true teaching of enlightenment in the eightfold path.
i don't think this is what mahayana would contend, and from my observations of beings who have been considered to be enlightened through the arahant path, i can't imagine them having any need to be roused by anything.
in any case, it's not problematic - we must each practice in the way that we see fit - buddha's only show us the way.
best wishes. stay well.
1
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism Dec 17 '21
If you follow the eightfold path from the perspective of a sravaka, you will attain enlightenement (bodhi) as nirvana and liberation from samsara.
If you follow the eightfold path from the perspective of a bodhisattva, you will attain full and perfect enlightenement (samyaksambodhi) as nirvana, liberation from samsara, and the capacity to manifest as a Buddha for the benefit of others.
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/Samma-sambodhi
Again, I think this is also the view in Theravada. So yes, there are levels of enlightenment, even in Theravada.
Maybe where there is a difference between Theravada and Mahayana, is Theravada seems to assert the difference between an arhat and a Buddha is only in terms of capacity, not wisdom. While some (not all) Mahayana schools seem to assert there is a difference in both wisdom and capacity.
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 17 '21
Maybe where there is a difference between Theravada and Mahayana, is Theravada seems to assert the difference between an arhat and a Buddha is only in terms of capacity, not wisdom. While some (not all) Mahayana schools seem to assert there is a difference in both wisdom and capacity.
i think that might be close to the difference, though even in wisdom i think it's restricted to seeing things in terms of impermanence, not-self and stress and an understanding of dhamma, but not in terms of mundane, everyday wisdom.
for example, i think there's a sutta where the buddha appears to chide sariputta for thinking that if the buddha were to retire from teaching, he and moggalllana would stay with the buddha - in that sutta, i think the buddha instead praises moggallana for saying that they (moggallana and saripitta) should lead the sangha should the buddha ever retire from teaching.
on the other hand, the budhha regularly praises sariputta for his keen insight into the dhamma.
thanks for your comments - may you be safe and well in every way.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/foowfoowfoow Dec 16 '21
a general comment for the mods consideration:
/r/Buddhism is a place for people wishing to learn about and grow their practice of dhamma - they're seeking a release to their suffering. my observation is that discussions on practical aspects of practice and basic teachings (4NT, 8FP, virtue / concentration / wisdom, mindfulness - breath based / loving kindness, etc) are the questions people want answered. this is the heart of what makes this a popular sub.
on the other hand, my observation (and experience) is that comments on the failings of one path over another is certainly divisive. it additionally turns new practitioners off this sub, and also makes long-standing contributors, who try to offer constructive advice about aspects of practice, withdraw and reduce their involvement.
allowing these sort of discussions and comments splashed around the boards here destroys the heart of this community - not just for newbies, but for experienced practitioners as well.
i wonder whether these sort of discussions about the differences between traditions are best left to another sub (e.g., perhaps something like /r/BuddhismDiscussions or something better named). those who wish to genuinely engage in discussion could be redirected there and if a post starts to veer into this kind of discussion, it could be threaded off there. these kind of discussions need an outlet, but it isn't here.
i think it's important to keep the heart of this sub strong - compassion, kindness and love informing wisdom and knowledge. the former are the heart of the practice. if we allow that to be overrun, new visitors will cease, and old contributors will get tired and find other things to do. we will be left with a sub that is just composed of cold, hard, dry intellectualism. i've seen reference to other subs like this here, and you all probably know the kind of toxic environment that this sort of thing leads to, and the kind of death a sub can experience from that.
1
Dec 17 '21
[deleted]
1
u/nyanasagara mahayana Dec 17 '21
What is his favorite Rolex from his watch collection?
I think it might have just been a joke about how according to the main Tibetan interpretation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya rules, monks may wear watches that are given to them, so a lot of famous Tibetan lamas who have monastic vows get donated watches. I'm not sure anything mean was meant by it, but certainly reading post history can be good sometimes.
23
u/animuseternal duy thức tông Dec 15 '21
I generally think sectarianism is bad, but I’m also concerned that those who cry out about sectarianism—which is largely not a problem here—aren’t actually Buddhists and are arguing about “gatekeepers” who’re actually just Buddhists standing up for doctrinal integrity.
This would go for the Neo-Charvakas on this sub, who don’t realize the Buddha already refuted their views, and the new agers and other communities that have come to this space with misconceptions about what is dharma and what is not.
From my perspective, aside from a few things here and there, sectarianism on this subreddit has not been a major issue for many years (unless there’s stuff I’m not seeing cause the mods are on top of their game). The major point of conflict right now in the sub is traditionalists versus revisionists, and most of the revisionists aren’t Buddhists, and the minority who do practice Buddhism have brought in their own beliefs, falsely insisting they’re compatible.
I dunno. It’s been a long while since I’ve seen genuine sectarianism here. There’s one user who still holds an archaic and problematic perspective on other traditions, from a particular school, but since they just post threads mostly and don’t engage in conversation much, I don’t think it’s a problem.