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

**Cd9JfGHR** · 06-26-2010, 04:51 AM

Regarding all sentient beings as having been one's mother at one time or another is a key element in Mahayana philosophy and is considered both a factual statement and also useful in the generation of bodhicitta, as far as I can recall from my past studies.

Whilst I was aware of it, this was never a belief that had prominence in my own offline practice (which may have been quite different to yours, I really don't know.) - The idea that my reason for not hurting a spider should be that it was my mother in a past life was always too preposterous to comprehend.(Though I've no doubt it is a useful belief for some) For me its much easier to think that it's a tiny fellow being just getting on with its life and feeling great fear at the presence of a giant human trying to catch it in a jar.

Were you not taught the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination ? Regarding "the two truths," can we not see a parallel between 'relative and ultimate' and 'mundane and supramundane' ? As for Bodhisattva ideals, those can be found by practicing the Brahma Viharas and the Karaniya Metta Sutta.

Regarding emptiness, rather than banging on about it endlessly through this or that philosophical system, we can skip all that, and reach independent conclusions through understanding it directly in an experiential way which is free from speculation and clinging, if we meditate.

Having attended many offline Mahayana teachings and then read essays and listened to some talks by Theravada teachers which mention emptiness, it seems to me to be utterly ridiculous to suggest that Mahayana has somehow got a superior, 'greater' viewpoint on this subject.

The key is quite simply to practice to understand the truth, rather than to intellectualise.

Just as an aside, there is also an article 'Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas' by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm

Personally I see some similarities and many differences between traditions... and there's no doubt in my own mind that whilst it has beneficial teachings, Mahayana is a later add-on which was not taught directly by the historical Buddha himself. My purpose in posting this article however, was certainly not to increase sectarianism on either side of the fence.

Surely what is important is how we apply the Buddha's teachings to ourselves and additionally how each of us then applies that practice outwardly to the world around us .

If we just do a lot of flowery gushing and trumpeting about various 'ideals' and then have destructive emotional reactions and spread negativity when things go wrong or don't fit with what we want, we then make the lives of ourselves and others a misery in the process...and we haven't really learned or practiced very much that's beneficial, whichever tradition we follow.

I doubt if I have much more to say on this topic now.

06-26-2010, 04:51 AM	#5
Cd9JfGHR Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 491 Senior Member	Regarding all sentient beings as having been one's mother at one time or another is a key element in Mahayana philosophy and is considered both a factual statement and also useful in the generation of bodhicitta, as far as I can recall from my past studies. Whilst I was aware of it, this was never a belief that had prominence in my own offline practice (which may have been quite different to yours, I really don't know.) - The idea that my reason for not hurting a spider should be that it was my mother in a past life was always too preposterous to comprehend.(Though I've no doubt it is a useful belief for some) For me its much easier to think that it's a tiny fellow being just getting on with its life and feeling great fear at the presence of a giant human trying to catch it in a jar. Were you not taught the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination ? Regarding "the two truths," can we not see a parallel between 'relative and ultimate' and 'mundane and supramundane' ? As for Bodhisattva ideals, those can be found by practicing the Brahma Viharas and the Karaniya Metta Sutta. Regarding emptiness, rather than banging on about it endlessly through this or that philosophical system, we can skip all that, and reach independent conclusions through understanding it directly in an experiential way which is free from speculation and clinging, if we meditate. Having attended many offline Mahayana teachings and then read essays and listened to some talks by Theravada teachers which mention emptiness, it seems to me to be utterly ridiculous to suggest that Mahayana has somehow got a superior, 'greater' viewpoint on this subject. The key is quite simply to practice to understand the truth, rather than to intellectualise. Just as an aside, there is also an article 'Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas' by Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm Personally I see some similarities and many differences between traditions... and there's no doubt in my own mind that whilst it has beneficial teachings, Mahayana is a later add-on which was not taught directly by the historical Buddha himself. My purpose in posting this article however, was certainly not to increase sectarianism on either side of the fence. Surely what is important is how we apply the Buddha's teachings to ourselves and additionally how each of us then applies that practice outwardly to the world around us . If we just do a lot of flowery gushing and trumpeting about various 'ideals' and then have destructive emotional reactions and spread negativity when things go wrong or don't fit with what we want, we then make the lives of ourselves and others a misery in the process...and we haven't really learned or practiced very much that's beneficial, whichever tradition we follow. I doubt if I have much more to say on this topic now.
	Quote