[smifatv]

.
.


This was originally a topic at the old site and I thought I'd re-introduce it here because its an interesting subject for intelligent non-sectarian discussion.





I was reading this article by Ajahn Amaro of the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition and I thought I'd share it and see if others would like to make comments after reading it.


Between Arhat and Bodhisattva - Finding the Perfect Balance

"Ajahn Amaro examines the arguments for and against the arhat and bodhisattva ideals that define and too often divide the Buddhist traditions. He suggests a way out of the polarizing debate."

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issue...er/balance.php


Note.....The Nagarjuna reference is actually from Ch 15 of the Mulamadhyamakakarika and not from Ch 14, according to my own copy of the text.

[DJkillos]

Interesting article Aloka-D and a big topic. One very tiny aspect of which occurred to me, namely that followers of the Pali suttas may have difficulty accepting that all sentient beings are 'mother' beings.

[Cwvnyfsj]

One very tiny aspect of which occurred to me, namely that followers of the Pali suttas may have difficulty accepting that all sentient beings are 'mother' beings.

Can you quote me the section relating to "mother" beings in the article to which we're refering, please Kris, I didn't seem to be able to find it when I skimmed through it again just now.


My opinion on that one is that it's probably a useful tool for helping to generate compassion to all living things... but of course there are exceptions - because not everyone has a good interaction with their mother and regards her as a nuturing loving figure.

Personally I've regarded other living beings as like brothers and sisters on our planet for most of my life, regardless of any religious beliefs I've come into contact with.

Aren't we all followers of the Pali suttas in some way or other though ? - as is the author of the article himself, of course.

[Pelefaifs]

Can you quote me the section relating to "mother" beings in the article to which we're refering, please Kris, I didn't seem to be able to find it when I skimmed through it again just now.

Hi Aloka-D,
It wasn't in the article - I should have made that clear. It was just something which occurred to me whilst reading it, and in light of several threads we've had on BWB too.

My feeling is that an attempt to find compatibility between the two (whilst no doubt well meant) is a little problematic.

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.

For an adherent of the suttas, it seems this would be just a fabricated notion (based on a mistaken adherence to rebirth philosophy) unnecessary for the cultivation of right view and liberation. The bodhisattva path was never taught in the suttas, as the author mentions.

not everyone has a good interaction with their mother and regards her as a nuturing loving figure You've met my mum then?

Personally I've regarded other living beings as like brothers and sisters on our planet for most of my life, regardless of any religious beliefs I've come into contact with. Nice approach.

Aren't we all followers of the Pali suttas in some way or other though ? I don't really think we are. Although their content may form a kind of basis within the Mahayana schools, their main teachings on emptiness, the two truths, bodhisattva ideals, the darmakaya, Vajrayana etc. are nowhere to be found in the Pali, unless we wish to stretch selected quotes to prove a point.

A Mahayanist, therefore, comes to his practice from an altogether different angle and can't be classed as a follower of the Pali suttas in my opinion.

Obviously, that's a generalisation. There are people who study both.

Namaste

[Cd9JfGHR]

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.

[mpxricyNimb]

Turning the Middle Way on itself. I love it.

[SodeSceriobia]

Thanks for the article, Aloka-D.
Very helpful. It's best function was as a kind of anti-sectarian preventative measure, esp. in those times I may find myself guilty of such sloppy thinking.
Thanks for the meds!
Bill

[Vobomei]

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 .