DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Haibundadam** · 04-05-2011, 08:34 AM

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.

04-05-2011, 08:34 AM	#2
Haibundadam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 434 Senior Member	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.
	Quote