[PersonalLoansBank]

Coming from the "Early Buddhism and the Heart Sutta" thread, Kris quoted a very interesting sutta that maybe offers a good material for a new discussion:

The Mahayana literature seems to be more about a worldview, a religion and a philosophical edifice than the guidelines to understand Dukkha and its origin and to set the practical means to cease it, found in the Pali Canon.

From the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta Kris quoted:

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

and then he tells about it:

Anyone (Buddhist or not) thinking along these lines is left in limbo by Buddha. He's not saying that things exist, but he's also not saying they don't. This is a highly uncomfortable state of affairs but to judge Buddha's response in this context is to completely misunderstand the reply he gave - more of which later.

Not answering the question to the satisfaction of logicians didn't make it go away and Buddhists in certain places and at certain times must have faced derision for their lack of "views". An inadequate response to a developing and increasingly sophisticated theistic Hinduism.

As I read the sutta I could not avoid the sensation of reading a great Zen treatise guiding into silent learning. I never felt a mental limbo but a beautiful way to tell Vacchagotta to stop clinging into worldviews, useless philosophical Gordian knots and religious believes that what makes us is to give substance [mental formations?] to dukkha so to originate it.

So, haven't we had, at least for short moments, when experiencing mindfulness, that feeling where there is no need or reason to get into such entanglements, where the mind is still and we are completely present and aware?

Any comments?

[Haibundadam]

Coming from the "Early Buddhism and the Heart Sutta" thread, Kris quoted a very interesting sutta that maybe offers a good material for a new discussion:

The Mahayana literature seems to be more about a worldview, a religion and a philosophical edifice than the guidelines to understand Dukkha and its origin and to set the practical means to cease it."

Any comments?

One of the points that the Dalai Lama makes in "Essence of the Heart Sutra" is that emptiness, or Sunyata isn't a 'thing' or an established, separate state of existence:
"It is important to clarify that we are not speaking of emptiness as some kind of absolute strata of reality, akin to, say, the ancient Indian concept of Brahman, which is conceived to be an underlying absolute reality from which the illusory world of multiplicity emerges. Emptiness is not a core reality, lying somehow at the heart of the universe, from which the diversity of phenomena arise."

The concept of emptiness in describing reality is like referring to heat to describe tea. Heat is a condition of tea. Aside from that, there is no cup of heat floating around.

I would agree that the Mahayana literature "...seems to be more about a worldview..." , if by world view what is meant is a description of the world of perceptions. This may be the difference between the two. Whereas Pali literature describes ways to relate to our perceptions of the world, Mahayana sutras take those very perceptions to task. As far as being a religion or philosophical edifice, I think that depends on the person. My good friend Phra Suriyan, a Thai forest monk now living in a wat the United States, has meditated among tigers, snakes and wild elephants, without a hint of distraction. Yet if a woman happens to sit down on a bench next to him or offer to shake hands, he breaks into a panic. Now don't get me wrong, I admire him for his adherence to his vows (even if the vow about handling money seems to have been eased up a little) but my point is that how one relates to --or has been taught to relate to --particular dhamma teachings is very personal, and not necessarily due to the texts themselves.


So, perhaps for many people the Mahayana texts also provide guidelines to understand Dukkha and its origin and to set the practical means to cease it, by dissecting Dukkha.

[bunkalapa]

"It is important to clarify that we are not speaking of emptiness as some kind of absolute strata of reality, akin to, say, the ancient Indian concept of Brahman, which is conceived to be an underlying absolute reality from which the illusory world of multiplicity emerges. Emptiness is not a core reality, lying somehow at the heart of the universe, from which the diversity of phenomena arise."

Hi fojiao,
Absolutely wonderful statement there and I couldn't agree more. The only thing I've found is that emptiness is used in precisely that way by the tenets systems in Mahayana Buddhism and with good reason.

The second we ask ourselves about an ultimate state or reality, we need to furnish ourselves with an answer. The solution is usually a deity or the void. The Mahayanists chose the latter but if you look carefully at how they present it, it has elements of Advita philosophy, ie: we are deluded by Maya and trapped in an illusory fake reality.

The escape is to comprehend the void nature of this illusion, then we will no more assent to it's appearance.

my point is that how one relates to --or has been taught to relate to --particular dhamma teachings is very personal, and not necessarily due to the texts themselves. Obviously, the way a teacher presents the material will inform a student's understanding of it but the Mahayana tenets system is very well structured and has been transmitted from ancient India. This system was considered sacred and the gateway to understanding emptiness.


So, perhaps for many people the Mahayana texts also provide guidelines to understand Dukkha and its origin and to set the practical means to cease it, by dissecting Dukkha. They uphold the 4NTs but have their own interpretation of "true suffering" - ignorance of the 'true state', the emptiness of inherent existence.

I think if we're after a Mahayanist 'means' of training - which at it's core avoids proliferation and speculation - we can find it in completion stage tantric practice.

[himecthekWiff]

I think that if we examine Mahayana Buddhism through the examples of where it is widely practiced at the popular or common level, in Chinese-speaking countries and in Japan, then we cannot ignore the cultural and historically political influences that suggest that your statement is true. In Taiwan, for example. Taoist temples are everywhere, some as small as tool sheds and some practically the size of cathedrals. It should not be surprising that people would desire to fit dhamma into the framework they already understand. Don't we who are raised in Greek logical thinking styles and western science do the same thing?

There, people consider themselves a little bit Buddhist, a little bit Tao, some Confucius, depending on the function of each philosophy. So, for example, Avalokiteshvara, who may very well been an actual fellow in Gotama's original entourage, is now Ms. Kuan Yin, who is prayed to in the same way that Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary. The fact that Buddha is treated as a god may not really be such a big deal.

In Japan, the most widely practiced form of Mahyana Buddhism is Shin, or Pure Land. This school, and Nichiren Buddhism both gained wide popularity largely due to political reasons. Their founders believed that the message of the Dharma had become obscured and corrupted by the cozy relationship which had developed between the large temples and the government. Despite their outward appearances which seem to bear no similarity to Theravadan teachings at all, they still share the basic tenets of Dhamma, the four noble truths, the foundations of impermanence, no self, dissatisfaction, etc. and they each have developed extremely effective methods for letting go of the ego.

However, if we examine the actual Mahayana teachings and contributions by people such as Nagarjuna, I am not so sure that your conclusion is entirely accurate. Mahayanists do not deny that, ultimately, a 'fake' reality has been established. They would just argue that it is no more real than the one you are experiencing right now. In Vajrayana teachings, these too are dissolved.

[diutuartina]

Well... I am not a very enthusiastic fan of Mahayana philosophy so I can speak with the authority of someone that is very involved with it but the exploration I did for some time into that movement gave me a uncomfortable feeling of a religion, that, in words of Kris, change God to Emptiness as a kind of ultimate reality. This Emptiness results curiously very similar to the Atman of the Hinduism and much more to the Theosophical Atman.

This kind "ultimate reality" [world/cosmos view?] has open the door to the many metaphysical realms that pervades this Mahayana worldview. This kind of Absolute or ultimate reality [ultimate speculation?] equates with one of the warnings the historical Buddha gives to Vacchagotta posted at the Opening Post. There is no need to elaborate around ultimate emptiness if mind is settled, clear and aware in the present moment.