Vapour
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
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.![Wink ;) ;)]()
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.![Stick Out Tongue :p :p]()
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.
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.