Mahayana Buddhism is true? What do you think, what are some arguments from your side?

Mahayana Buddhism is true? What do you think, what are some arguments from your side? I for one clearly see that consciousness is not self. I have experienced what the Buddha talked about, the signs of the early stages on the Bodhisattva path, nightmares from eating meat, that sexual intercourse is a sin, and that the best life is the solitary life. However I've had a strange dream where I saw a statue and when I looked at it I felt immense bliss inside of me, and that felt like looking at god. Now let's hear what you think about Mahayana Buddhism and about what I said.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "True" in the Buddhist context means producing the cessation of Dukkha op.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Okay. Can I hear what you think about Mahayana Buddhism?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think it will work for certain people with certain karma and conditions. I think many types of Mahayana are more fit for laypeople and allow for them progress without giving up there. I think in a larger sense, it is necessary for them to study Theravada and vice versa. For the most part unless a person is really advanced in practice everyday practice looks pretty similar.This weirds a lot of people out in the west who go study or to monasteries where the two mix. Below is an example of one such monk going to study at a Mahayana university and with their monks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I see. Thanks for your time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They speak different language and don’t welcome foreigners so IDGAF. AFAICT they’re just Christians. They spend so much of their time thinking about magic sky people that they don’t focus on the dharma. They claim they have special powers but always have the most ghetto, concreted places of worship.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is just flat out stupidity
    >consciousness is not self.
    Like many other concepts of buddhism it may sound great for a brief moment

    • 4 weeks ago
      Krishna

      >Sounds great
      >For a brief moment
      Then your will dissolves into it

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >sex bad
    lol. i guess extinction is the highest form of "enlightenment?" yeah right, why would God program you for sexual reproduction but then punish you for following the program? it's gibberish, not saying everything within the realm of "buddhism" is gibberish, but sex bad is obviously moron talk

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek. i guess "enlightenment" does not include caring how other people might feel when you are getting action and their not. even better wouldnt it be cooler if your actually fricking someones crush. and they cant do shit about it. but sex good obviously based chad talk

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >when a 13 year old enters the buddhism discussion

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >when you cant refute something so you try to get the user b&

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >extinction
      Imlying people have sex in order to procreate and not just because they are slaves to their biology and want to feel good. If everyone had sex (if it arises from love first) only a few times to procreate it wouldn't be a problem.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The answer to the question is not so clear cut, personally, I do believe in Mahayana Buddhism because it expands the Buddhist thought originally put forward in a way that enriches it.
    mahayana can not be explained historically, it is based on the belief that buddha preached sermons that were hidden at first and revealed later when the time was ready by spiritual beings. And the thing is, if you a theravada buddhist you can not deny in the face of it the possibility of that happening, since there is a bunch of supernatural occurences in the pali cannon involving spiritual beings (devas, nagas, yakshas, etc... even brahma and vishnu show up at some points), and we see the buddha travelling throught multiple dimensions, to top it of archeology shows that most of the sanskrit sutras were written first or at least at the same time as the pali ones, it is complicated because we now only have two buddhist cannons: the mahayana (originally written in sanskrit but now survives only in fragments, thankfully we have it translated to chinese and tibetan) and the pali one was written in sri lanka by a group of monks that would have selected suttas with the agenda of coroborating to their view, since at that point buddhism was already divided into many schools that were fighting among each other.

    Ultimately, I do not belive ALL mahayana sutras are authoritative; however, I take the The Lotus Sutra, Diamond Sutra, and Heart Sutra to all have been really teached by the Buddha. But some other ones like the Vimalakirti Sutra and the Pure Land Ones are clearly fanfic (which doesn't mean they are bad btw)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      to summarize:
      1. The "spiritual explanation" for mahayana can not be denied by theravadins simply because it is spiritual, since that would go against their own beliefs. You also can't disprove the Mahayana sutras because "crazy shit happens in it" since the pali cannon is also filled with it.
      2: Archeology cannot prove that the pali suttas is more authoritive than the sanskrit sutras, since neither were the first ones, and the Pali cannon was formulated by a group of monks that had a clear agenda when forming it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The answer to the question is not so clear cut, personally, I do believe in Mahayana Buddhism because it expands the Buddhist thought originally put forward in a way that enriches it.
      the buddha's teaching doesn't need expansion, let alone an expansion by non-enlightened people

      -The budha's teaching is complete and self-sufficient to get enlightened
      -removing stuff from the buddha's teaching is no longer the buddha's teaching, and since the buddha's teaching is complete it makes the new teaching incomplete and leads to failures
      -adding stuff to the buddha's teaching's is no longer the buddha's teaching and makes the extra stuff useless, and the new teaching confusing and since it's only non-enlightened people who adds stuff, they corrupt the teaching towards what they like so it's either towards eternalism or an nihilism

      >mahayana can not be explained historically,
      mahayana is explained by being developed at the outskirt of india/ the geographical heart of the buddha's teaching, by non-enlightened people, mostly brahmins, after centuries of buddhists incapable of understanding the teaching.
      Buddhism is not supposed to be available forever. Buddhism deprecates very quickly once the the buddha disappears. That's because monks are not special people. Mons are just normalgays who just happened to have ordered. That's literally it. Once they are left alone they will frick it up, and it gets even worse even quicker when there's external sabotage with the mahayana gurus.
      A few centuries later the monks already worship the stupas (out of nowhere in the Maha-parinibbana the buddha says it's totally okay to venerate his remains, whereas his spent his time to basically say worship is useless , because getting good karma and getting englithened is purely done by improving one's mind) and by the time of Ashokha they were creating the various abidhammas already. And those texts are just awful.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is why the buddhist brahmins in mahayana started by whining that the buddhist monks worship the stupas and their idea was repeating what they did in hinduism: creating mahayana mantras and suttas and rituals to be venerated exactly like their hindu scriptures in sanskrit are worshiped.
        The brahmins started by challenging the buddha's teaching by saying that arahants are in fact not englithened. Then they replaced it explicitly with their boddhistava. Then they replaced dependent origination with their interdependence and emptiness.
        Brahmins couldnt fork buddhism right at the beginning because the buddha said creating a schism is the worst ever, so instead of losing instantly the support by the population and getting a tons of shit from the monks, they started to challenge the doctrine and only later on they just created the schism.

        https://i.imgur.com/lNrmzrs.jpeg

        to summarize:
        1. The "spiritual explanation" for mahayana can not be denied by theravadins simply because it is spiritual, since that would go against their own beliefs. You also can't disprove the Mahayana sutras because "crazy shit happens in it" since the pali cannon is also filled with it.
        2: Archeology cannot prove that the pali suttas is more authoritive than the sanskrit sutras, since neither were the first ones, and the Pali cannon was formulated by a group of monks that had a clear agenda when forming it.

        >2: Archeology cannot prove that the pali suttas is more authoritive than the sanskrit sutras, since neither were the first ones, and the Pali cannon was formulated by a group of monks that had a clear agenda when forming it.
        the mahayana gurus say themselves that they reject the buddhist suttas because they were a lie by the buddha or somehow incomplete, this means the mahayana gurus themselves acknowledged the buddhist suttas existed beforehand.

        And the oldest texts are not mahayana suttas. the oldest texts are on the pillars of ashokha, then the mayahana suttas AND the buddhist suttas from gandhari. The oldest buddhist texts are a sutta in gandhari equivalent to one in SN, and there's a commentary on the sutanipata and dhammapada, and of course the gandhari sutanipata with the rhino.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is why the buddhist brahmins in mahayana started by whining that the buddhist monks worship the stupas and their idea was repeating what they did in hinduism: creating mahayana mantras and suttas and rituals to be venerated exactly like their hindu scriptures in sanskrit are worshiped.
        The brahmins started by challenging the buddha's teaching by saying that arahants are in fact not englithened. Then they replaced it explicitly with their boddhistava. Then they replaced dependent origination with their interdependence and emptiness.
        Brahmins couldnt fork buddhism right at the beginning because the buddha said creating a schism is the worst ever, so instead of losing instantly the support by the population and getting a tons of shit from the monks, they started to challenge the doctrine and only later on they just created the schism.

        [...]
        >2: Archeology cannot prove that the pali suttas is more authoritive than the sanskrit sutras, since neither were the first ones, and the Pali cannon was formulated by a group of monks that had a clear agenda when forming it.
        the mahayana gurus say themselves that they reject the buddhist suttas because they were a lie by the buddha or somehow incomplete, this means the mahayana gurus themselves acknowledged the buddhist suttas existed beforehand.

        And the oldest texts are not mahayana suttas. the oldest texts are on the pillars of ashokha, then the mayahana suttas AND the buddhist suttas from gandhari. The oldest buddhist texts are a sutta in gandhari equivalent to one in SN, and there's a commentary on the sutanipata and dhammapada, and of course the gandhari sutanipata with the rhino.

        You're not wrong but too much clinging

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think you experienced something or maybe had several experiences and have become way too eager about it way too quickly. I'm not accusing you of being new to this because it takes some people many many years of practice before they finally have a transcendental experience. Some are naturally adept and reach milestones quickly. I'm just saying you need to calm down. I've been doing this for a long time and I remember waking from my high state of mind and pacing back and forth thinking to myself
    "what was that wtf was that?!"
    "how do I explain that"
    that was a long long time ago and since then, after continued practice have made those attainments very mundane, not boring, just casual. you need to shut the frick up and calm down or you'll lose yourself to simple truths. it's a rabbit hole and you're just standing over the edge. Buddhism is a puddle. There is another practice is like an ocean. I'll let you either keep practicing or make a fool of yourself. fools will cheer for you and that will encourage you if you let them. dunbass

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      please describe the other practice, is it like instead identifying your own "self" as extent but just not what you thought it was?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You thought wrong. I'm not at all how you described me and your illusion is why you are not enlightened yet after decades of practice. You don't know yourself or how to perceive yourself much less others.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your stupid hallucinative visions are nothing compared to what could have been seeing god personally. Get real.

  6. 1 month ago
    Based Buddhist

    If it's not Theravada, it's heresy! To gain merit and help others, take this info and spread it online!

    The Four Noble Truths
    1. Suffering is inseparable from existence.
    2. Craving is the root cause of suffering.
    3. Suffering can be ended by ending craving.
    4. There is a path to ending craving and suffering.

    ∞ archive.org/details/WhatTheBuddhaTaught_201606
    ∞ buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm

    • 4 weeks ago
      Krishna

      I just trust the Japanese and Zen is Mahayana. This is my argument

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Mahayana Buddhism is true?
    huh no

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They used to be true. Not because they're lies - but because shit is outdated.

    However you won't find anything modern that is as compiled. Use it as a stepping stone - everyone must evolve.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't mean what they teach is null and void either, but it's like playing games from Ps2 when the Ps5 is out - however if you grew up playing Ps2 and all the other shit, you have an advantage when it comes to learning Ps5 - comprende?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This day and age doesn't consist of trying to make new cultures and traditions - we're all in a melting pot of every tradition that every fricking existed.

        We're also dealing with cultures/traditions that no OTHER cultures were aware off due to geographical circumstance. So we're essentially in a spiritual tug-of-war or HUNGER GAMES if you will about who comes out the strongest, or WHAT comes out the strongest.

        Truth sucks but you'll grit your teeth and ride it out - you'll realize the game we play now is no different to being in school and playing soccer against the other teams.

        It's a fight to the death, but it's a civil fight to the death, and the death is symbolic. I didn't make the rules.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whoever runs the show has no face or name, trying to fight them is dumb because they're powerful as frick and also you couldn't find them if you tried

    When you end up in their dimension its just so peaceful and shit, you forget what you're angry about lel

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Mahayana is such a joke lol

    >Avalokiteśvara addresses Śariputra, who was the promulgator of abhidharma according to the scriptures and texts of the Sarvastivada and other early Buddhist schools, having been singled out by the Buddha to receive those teachings.[4]:11–12,15 Avalokiteśvara famously states, "Form is empty (śūnyatā). Emptiness is form", and declares the other skandhas to be equally empty of the most fundamental Buddhist teachings such as the Four Noble Truths and explains that in emptiness none of these notions apply. This is interpreted according to the two truths doctrine as saying that teachings, while accurate descriptions of conventional truth, are mere statements about reality—they are not reality itself—and that they are therefore not applicable to the ultimate truth that is by definition beyond mental understanding. Thus the bodhisattva, as the archetypal Mahayana Buddhist, relies on the perfection of wisdom, defined in the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra to be the wisdom that perceives reality directly without conceptual attachment thereby achieving nirvana.

    >All Buddhas of the three ages (past, present and future) rely on the Perfection of Wisdom to reach unexcelled complete Enlightenment. The Perfection of Wisdom is the all powerful Mantra, the great enlightening mantra, the unexcelled mantra, the unequalled mantra, able to dispel all suffering. This is true and not false.[51] The Perfection of Wisdom is then condensed in the mantra with which the sutra concludes: "Gate Gate Pāragate Pārasamgate Bodhi Svāhā" (literally "Gone gone, gone beyond, gone utterly beyond, Enlightenment hail!").[52] In the long version, Buddha praises Avalokiteśvara for giving the exposition of the Perfection of Wisdom and all gathered rejoice in its teaching. Many schools traditionally have also praised the sutra by uttering three times the equivalent of "Mahāprajñāpāramitā" after the end of the recitation of the short version.[53]

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Mahayana Buddhism is true? What do you think
    Mahayana was a brahmin reaction against the Dhamma
    Mahayana was popular among Chinese peasants who couldn't comprehend the Dhamma
    Mahayana sutras are nonsense, adhammic, later forgeries
    Mahayana isn't actually Buddhism

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Once I started to grasp Bodhicitta, I realized it was 100% the path for me. I also got sick of the rise of Western "protestant" Buddhists, who think Theravada = older = automatically superior (the oldest Mahayana sutra is VERY close in age to the oldest recorded Sutta), even though the Theravada we know today is a revision of a revision of a revision, and they almost always end up trying to hobble together some misshapen EBT practice with philosophical duct tape and supreme cope.

    Don't get me wrong, love Theravada, and think it is vital, but theres this weird ultra conservative element running through it lately in Western circles, backed by utterly incoherent historicity. I started occasionally taking teachings from a Tibetan, and found Tibetan Buddhists in general had an extremely advanced understanding of Mahayana as a whole. Deepened my practice/study in this tradition, constantly reflected on Bodhicitta, then reading the Bodhicaryāvatāra something just clicked into place, been with it since. 3 years deep into Mahayana, practiced Theravada for 7. Both totally viable paths, suitable for different people.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don't even try, they're addicted to the debate.
      There's a lot of transformed tradcaths who went to theravada and remain addicted to the 'protestant vs catholic' debates that rage all over EerieWeb so they brought it with them.
      You can find many admitting this on buddhist discord associated with EerieWeb,

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oh yeah, I'm well aware. A lot of Christians getting into Buddhism and are absolutely still gripped by that debate and carry it over here, not realizing 99% of Buddhists don't give a frick. Theravada practitioners in Theravada countries don't think about Mahayana. And Mahayana in certain traditions, emphasizes respect of Theravada and even states that it is necessary to study and understand.
        In reality, both sides, at worst, don't care about each other. At best, actively learning from each tradition. You really only see this crazed sectarian Theravada shit online, because the people obsessed with this argument aren't actually Buddhists in most cases. Just people trying to drive a wedge between Buddhists, or are e-buddhists at best. Anyone who takes refuge in the buddha, dharma and sangha doesn't actually care about any of this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the oldest Mahayana sutra is VERY close in age to the oldest recorded Sutta
      such a disingenuous argument. what about the actually influential sutras like the Lotus, Prajnaparimita, Tathagatagarbha, Mahaparinirvana sutras? The actual ones you follow? When were they written?

      Don't even try, they're addicted to the debate.
      There's a lot of transformed tradcaths who went to theravada and remain addicted to the 'protestant vs catholic' debates that rage all over EerieWeb so they brought it with them.
      You can find many admitting this on buddhist discord associated with EerieWeb,

      Oh yeah, I'm well aware. A lot of Christians getting into Buddhism and are absolutely still gripped by that debate and carry it over here, not realizing 99% of Buddhists don't give a frick. Theravada practitioners in Theravada countries don't think about Mahayana. And Mahayana in certain traditions, emphasizes respect of Theravada and even states that it is necessary to study and understand.
      In reality, both sides, at worst, don't care about each other. At best, actively learning from each tradition. You really only see this crazed sectarian Theravada shit online, because the people obsessed with this argument aren't actually Buddhists in most cases. Just people trying to drive a wedge between Buddhists, or are e-buddhists at best. Anyone who takes refuge in the buddha, dharma and sangha doesn't actually care about any of this.

      Mahayana superiority complex circlejerk 101

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The oldest Mahayana Sutra is regarding Buddhanusmrti. Thats pretty influential bruh, given thats the underlying practice of pretty much every extant Mahayana tradition, and it was heavily influential on Chinese Mahayana, and thus Japanese/Vietnamese etc.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There are a handful of candidates for "oldest sutra" (its impossible to know for certain) but one of the three-four that could be the oldest is the Salistamba Sutra, which is literally the most quoted Sutra in Mahayana literature.

        It lays the basis for the Mahayana interpretation of dependent origination. Just because you know some popular ones to rattle off, doesn't mean other Sutras aren't "followed" whatever the frick that means lmao.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Just because you know some popular ones to rattle off, doesn't mean other Sutras aren't "followed" whatever the frick that means lmao
          you do realise what actual East Asian Mahayana is like, don't you? or are you an e-buddhist at best?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What form? Are you ranting about pure land or do you have a point?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I must have been imagining East Asians literally worshipping the Lotus Sutra and Heart Sutra when I lived out there, you fricking larper

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nichiren is one school of japanese buddhism, not even the largest. To call this anything close to "East Asian Mahayana" is delusional as you are ignoring the largest countries in the region.
            Your average east asian budddhist practioner is practicing Chan.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Paul Harrison similarly suggests that the bodhisattva ideal was “a kind of power fantasy, in which the Buddhist practitioner aspires not simply to . . . arhatship, but to the cosmic sover-eignty and power represented by complete Buddhahood—not the destruc-tion of ego, but its apotheosis.”24 While Mahāyāna sūtras often depict bo-dhisattvas as compassionate, they hardly ever encourage anything like so-cial service, working for the poor, overcoming the caste system or other forms of social injustice, or anything along these lines. Bodhisattvas are compassionate because they aim to become Buddhas; they do not actually need to work for the benefit of others in this life. In terms of so-called “real” religious significance, identifying as a bodhisattva probably meant little more than that, rather than envisioning a series of heavenly rebirthsafter death and eventual transformation into one sort of exalted super-natural being (the arhat), Buddhists began to envision themselves even-tually being transformed into a diferent sort of even more exalted super-natural being.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In the nineteen-twenties and thirties the paradigm of Buddhism qua moral philosophy was rapidly overtaken by the idea that Buddhism is fundamentally about meditation and the attainment of a romantically conceived, supposed form of awakened consciousness depicted as the goal of human existence. This new vision was first developed by D. T. Suzuki, under the strong influence of the work of William James.25 The existence of this form of consciousness was accepted by scholars, even though no evidence was presented for it. Suzuki’s vision quickly became so influen tial, and remains so today, that it can be difficult to recognize how unprec edented it was both in scholarship and Buddhist traditions themselves. Though Suzuki conceded to Pāli scholars that early texts provide little support for his view,26 scholars immediately began to read it back into early texts. This happened so seamlessly that it is now generally imagined that the understanding of Buddhism as a philosophy or way of life centered on meditation is based on the Pāli canon. Though it took some time, scholars eventually developed a coherent theory that fit early Mahāyāna into Suzuki’s paradigm in a positive way, the so-called “forest hypothesis,” which emerged in the mid-nine teen nineties and became the most influential theory in the field for roughly the following two decades.27 According to this theory, Buddhism degenerated into institutionalization and ritual in the centuries after its origin and early Mahāyānists tried to revive its original focus on the quest for awakening. This theory makes it possible to imagine Tibetan Buddhism and Zen as preserving traditions of meditation that go back, through early Mahāyāna, to early Buddhism, providing strong support for the fundamentally mistaken idea that Buddhism is essentially about meditation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > The main innovation of the forest hypothesis was a move to take references to forest-dwelling and ascetic practice as evidence for the practice of meditation, which Mahāyāna sūtras rarely encourage, or the quest for awakening. Mahāyāna went overnight from being a form of lay devotionalism to a hardcore, monastic, meditation movement. Descriptions of glorious Buddhas and otherworldly paradises filled with perfumed rivers and israeliteeled trees were re-imagined as prescriptions for the practice of meditation. Apart from the dubiousness of equating advocacy of harsh discipline with the pursuit of religious experience, the theory’s main problem is that few early Mahāyāna sūtras actually encourage forest dwelling or ascetic practice any more than they do meditation. Only two of the roughly dozen sūtras translated into Chinese in the second century, for instance, advocate these practices, and they do so only indifferently or inconsistently. The large majority of other sūtras also do not advocate them and there are no known sūtras for which they are a primary focus. Instead of advocating harsh discipline, Mahāyāna sūtras are more often concerned to provide justification for behaviour, especially sexual behaviour, that is prohibited by traditional Buddhist morality. Unusual sūtras that focus on criticizing the immoral behaviour of others may represent attempts to counterbalance the general trend or even merely to impress preaching audiences with virtuous-sounding talk. The fact that the forest hypothesis found support among so many normally rigorous scholars may seem difficult to comprehend, but can perhaps be taken as a cautionary example of the strength of the perennialist paradigm and how it has distorted Buddhological research.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Idea of the Bodhisattva
    The idea of the bodhisattva was the point of departure for authors of Mahāyāna sūtras, but not in the way that is often imagined. Since the time of Rhys Davids, scholars have tended to envision Mahāyāna emerging from people or groups making a decision to become bodhisattvas. The main question of early Mahāyāna has thus long been: Why did they do this? As we shall see in the next section, however, when Mahāyāna sūtras first emerged, Buddhists did not believe it was possible to become a bo dhisattva or meaningfully undertake the path to Buddhahood in this life. Rather than encouraging their followers to undertake the bodhisattva path from the beginning, Mahāyāna authors made it possible for them to identify as bodhisattvas with the bold claim that they had already become advanced bodhisattvas in previous lives. It thus seems most likely that these texts were responsible for the emergence of a coherent bodhisattva tradition, rather than the other way around. This conclusion additionally makes it possible to understand the important fact that no bodhisattva tradition is known ever to have emerged that was not associated with these texts, which most theories neglect. Indeed, most previous theories do not attempt to explain the composition, transmission, and preservation of Mahāyāna sūtras—a vast enterprise that is virtually all we know for certain that early Mahāyānists actually did—at all. Early Mahāyāna sūtras sometimes include people pursuing arhatship and pratyekabuddhahood in their intended audiences, suggesting that some people involved in the early movement did not identify as bodhisattvas. Along with serving as a soteriological ideal, the figure of the bodhisattva was the key to the presentation of Mahāyāna sūtras’ distinct ontological, cosmological, and Buddhological perspectives.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      . Early, nonMahāyāna sūtras clearly depict the Buddha as possessing vast knowledge that he never imparted to his disciples. They generally present this as a reflection of his pragmatism: He taught his śrāvakas only what was neces sary for them to put an end to suffering and avoided topics of merely theoretical interest. At the same time, pre-Mahāyāna texts recognize the ex istence of bodhisattvas, and depict them as central figures in the Buddhistworld, but never present any teachings for them, leaving a lacuna in the Buddhist vision that was recognized as a problem by Mahāyānists and non-Mahāyānists alike. The non-Mahāyāna author of the Abhidharmadīpa commentary, for example, accepts the Mahāyāna claim that the Buddha must have given teachings for bodhisattvas and dubiously tries to argue that such teachings are contained in the Tripiṭaka.28 Since bodhisattvas sought the omniscience of a Buddha, rather than mere liberation, they needed to know precisely the things that the Buddha did not teach his śrāvakas. Presenting texts with the Buddha’s special teachings for bodhi sattvas thus gave Mahāyāna authors free rein to explore the content of his hidden knowledge, enabling them to dramatically expand and transform the early Buddhist vision, while at the same time presenting their followers with a path to a higher religious attainment.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >
    Though scholars often depict Mahāyāna sūtras as encouraging their followers to become bodhisattvas, they apparently never actually do so. They also never present any ritual or other means of entering the pathto Buddhahood, and apparently never depict anyone doing so outside of the presence of a living Buddha. Like non-Mahāyāna texts, they also depict new bodhisattvas as having little chance of ever reaching Buddhahood and as being in constant danger of falling away from the path. In order to work around these problems, Mahāyāna authors boldly claimed that people who accepted and used their texts had already become bodhi sattvas in past lives, and either already received, or gotten close to receiving, a prediction from a living Buddha. From early times, it was believed that a great deal of merit (puṇya) was necessary for one to be able to encounter and accept Buddhist teachings. Mahāyāna authors extended this idea and claimed that only bodhi sattvas who have made significant progress on the path will be able to encounter and have faith in Mahāyāna sūtras. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā, for instance, makes this claim in more than twenty distinct passages. One states, for example, that “those sons and daughters of good family for whom this Prajñāpāramitā will even come within range of hearing will be those who have done service to former [Buddhas], with good roots that were planted under many Buddhas . . . how much more so those who will memorize this Prajñāpāramitā, retain it in memory [etc.].”32

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Other passages state that those who believe in or are not frightened by the text are already “irreversible” bodhisattvas who have received pre dictions from Buddhas in past lives. The way the Aṣṭasāhasrikā presents it, the Aṣṭasāhasrikā itself serves as a sort of signpost on the bodhisattva path that indicates to whomever encounters it that he or she is either an irre versible bodhisattva, or nearly an irreversible bodhisattva, already. An important passage in the text criticizes bodhisattvas who reject the text because they do not trust its claim that they are irreversible since the text does not mention them specifically by name. This suggests that the claim was intended to be taken literally and that convincing people that they were already bodhisattvas was an important part of the presentation of the text. Similar passages are found throughout Mahāyāna sūtras, in such texts as the Pratyutpanna, Akṣobhyavyūha, smaller and larger Su khāvatīvyūhas, Ajitasenavyākaraṇa, Samādhirāja, Śūraṃgamasamādhi, Druma kinnararājaparipṛcchā, Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, Ratnarāśi, and many others. Later Mahāyāna authors developed other ways of attributing bodhisattva status to their followers. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, for instance, claims that all beings are destined to become Buddhas, and explicitly states that receiv ing a personal prediction from a Buddha is not necessary. Yogācāra au thors developed the theory that beings belong to distinct lineages (gotra) that inherently predispose them to the eventual attainment of arhatship, pratyekabuddhahood, or Buddhahood, making it possible to attribute bo dhisattva status to Mahāyānists without forcing it on others.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >At this time, the Bhagavān had finished begging for food within the city walls of Śrāvastī. After eating, he returned to the Jeta Grove Monastery and walked about, eventually arriving at the place where Rāhula was. There he addressed Rāhula, saying, “You should cultivate practice with the method of Ānāpānasmṛti. Cultivating practice with this method, every notion of worry and sorrow that you have will come to an end. You are still cultivating practice incorrectly with impurity, and your desires have not yet ended. Rāhula, you should now cultivate practice with a mind of kindness, and all anger will come to an end. Rāhula, you should now cultivate practice with a mind of compassion, and all cruelty will come to an end. Rāhula, you should now cultivate practice with a mind of contentment, and all jealousy will come to an end. Rāhula, you should now cultivate practice with a mind of equality, and all pride will come to an end.”

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Bhagavān told him, “Rāhula, suppose there is a bhikṣu who is happy being alone in quietude. In a secluded place, he corrects his body, corrects his intent, and sits cross-legged. Without any other mindfulness, he fastens his mind on the tip of his nose. When there is a long breath out, he is also aware of the long breath. When there is a long breath in, he is also aware of the long breath. When there is a short breath out, he is also aware of the short breath. When there is a short breath in, he is also aware of the short breath. When there is a cold breath out, he is also aware of the cold breath. When there is a cold breath in, he is also aware of the cold breath. When there is a warm breath out, he is also aware of the warm breath. When there is a warm breath in, he is also aware of the warm breath. He completely contemplates the in-breaths and out-breaths of the body, aware of them all. When there is breathing, he also is aware of its presence, and when there is no breathing, he is also aware of its absence. If there is an out-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the out-breath was conditioned by the mind. If there is an in-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the in-breath was conditioned by the mind. Thusly, Rāhula, one is able to cultivate the practice of Ānāpānasmṛti, to eliminate every notion of worry and sorrow, obtain the great fruit, and taste the sweet nectar.”

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At this time, Rāhula cultivated thusly, and a mind of desires was set free, not returning to the multitude of evils and deliberations. Contemplating with this mindfulness, he maintained the joy and bliss of roaming in the First Dhyāna, in which there is thinking and mindful contemplation. When thoughts and contemplations came to a rest, he experienced inner bliss and single-pointedness of mind. Without thoughts and contemplation, with only bliss born from samādhi, he roamed in the Second Dhyāna. Observing awareness, he experienced the physical pleasure that the Noble Ones constantly experience with equanimity, the complete satisfaction and mindfulness of roaming in the Third Dhyāna. When both pain and pleasure were eliminated, there were no more worries and vexations. Without pain and pleasure, only completely pure and perfect mindfulness, he roamed in the Fourth Dhyāna.

        From this samādhi, his mind was completely pure, without the dust of defilements, and his physical body was supple and soft. He was aware of places from the past, and remembered what he had previously done. He recalled previous lives over incalculable eons. He was aware of one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand, even hundreds of thousands of lives. He recalled the passing of eons as well as the destruction of eons, countless successions of eons and their destructions – hundreds of millions of incalculable eons. He recalled his previous births, that he had various names, was born into certain families, ate such and such food, experienced such and such suffering and happiness. He knew whether his lives were long or short, and that he died in such and such a place, and he was reborn in such and such a place.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >From this samādhi, his mind was completely pure, without fetters, and his mind was able to know about the origins of all sentient beings. Moreover, by means of the complete purity and clarity of the Divine Eye, he saw the birth and death of sentient beings, their good forms and evil forms, good destinies and evil destinies, and understood that in reality they actually come from good or bad actions. If there were sentient beings who practiced evil in body, speech, and mind, who insulted the Noble Ones, practicing and holding false views, then at the end of their lives when their bodies were broken apart, they would enter into the hells. However, if there were sentient beings who practice virtue in body, speech, and mind, who do not insult the Noble Ones, and who practice and hold correct views, then at the end of their lives when their bodies are broken apart, they would go to live in the heavens above. This is called the complete purity and clarity of the Divine Eye, with which one sees the birth and death of sentient beings, their good forms and evil forms, good destinies and evil destinies, and understands that in reality they actually come from good or bad actions.

          Moreover, he practiced the contemplation of suffering, and was aware of both the ending of suffering and the origin of suffering, truly aware of them as such. By means of developing this mindfulness, his mind attained liberation from the outflows of desires, and his mind attained liberation from the outflows of ignorance. After attaining these liberations, he naturally attained the liberation of wisdom, and birth and death then came to an end. Brahmacarya had been established, what was to be done, had been done, and there was no more coming back into existence – thus was his true awareness. It was at this time that Venerable Rāhula became an arhat.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *