Vajradhara
One of Many
Re: Similarities between the philosophical concepts of Vedantic Atman and Buddhist Em
Namaste Nick,
thank you for the post.
using an unusual keyboard so please bear with any typos.
i use the term Mahabrahma simply as a term of respect for the Sanatanadharma though their texts only speak of Brahman and Brahma. "maha" is an honorific in Sanskrit which i accord due to the commonality betwixt our traditions.
there are, of course, schools of thought within the Sanatanadharma which differ from each other in pretty significant ways all of them, however, insist on an intrinsic unity amongst all phenomena and they place a heavy emphasis on the interrelatedness of Brahman and Brahma. it may be helpful to consider Brahma as simply the active, creative aspect of Brahman.
as the Theravedan school was only one of the 18 original schools it would be a mistake to refer to all of the others under the same rubric of Theraveda, in my estimation, for we risk losing the unique contributions to the historical development of the tradition.
metta,
~v
Namaste Nick,
thank you for the post.
using an unusual keyboard so please bear with any typos.
Nick the Pilot said:I think we are having a little confusion with terms. I see three concepts:
Mahabrahma = Parabrahman = Parabrahm
Brahman = Brahma
Brahmá
With each of the three concepts being unique and separate. (I also see a third concept between Brahma and Brahmá, which I think is called Pradhana in Hinduism.
i use the term Mahabrahma simply as a term of respect for the Sanatanadharma though their texts only speak of Brahman and Brahma. "maha" is an honorific in Sanskrit which i accord due to the commonality betwixt our traditions.
there are, of course, schools of thought within the Sanatanadharma which differ from each other in pretty significant ways all of them, however, insist on an intrinsic unity amongst all phenomena and they place a heavy emphasis on the interrelatedness of Brahman and Brahma. it may be helpful to consider Brahma as simply the active, creative aspect of Brahman.
none of them; though it's hard to compare cosmological hierarchies from different systems! nevertheless Bodhisattvas, of which Avelokiteshavara is one, are not beings that create worlds or have such capabilities ascribed to them. they are a different class of being altogether.Which of these concepts do you see as being equal to Avalokiteshvara?
technically speaking the term Hinyana means "smaller vehicle" and Mahayana means "greater vehicle" and it generally refers to the amount of beings that are included within the auspices of the teachings. within the original 18 schools the prevalent view was that only monastics were able to practice the Dharma whereas schools of the Second Turning emphasized that both monastics and non-monastics were able to practice the Dharma. thus the terms were not meant in a pejorative manner but rather as expressions of the expansiveness of their teachings.Regarding the term Hinayana, I understand that some Theravadins consider it to be an insulting term. If I remember correctly, Hinayana means the Small Vehicle as opposed to Mahayana meaning the Great Vehicle, which some people say shows a condescending bias on the part of Mahayana Buddhists that their Buddhism is better (‘greater’ than the ‘smaller’ Thevadin Buddhism.), and that it was Mahayana Buddhists who started using the term Hinayana originally as an insult. As such, I have adopted the usage that some Theravadist Buddhists use, which is to call it Theravada Buddhism and not Hinayana Buddhism. (Do you agree with this theory of the term Hinayana?)
as the Theravedan school was only one of the 18 original schools it would be a mistake to refer to all of the others under the same rubric of Theraveda, in my estimation, for we risk losing the unique contributions to the historical development of the tradition.
metta,
~v
Last edited: