Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism
29 Mar '12 05:52Originally posted by robbie carrobieNirvana points towards to the extinguishing of desire/craving for the self-gratifying experience that derives from the attachment to the illusion that there is a self separated and cut off from the rest of the observer universe. Hence it is the extinction of the false contracted state of being that grasps constantly a separate self-enclosed identity that operates at the expense of others. Since at this state of awareness there is no trace of the contracted sense of being a separate entity from the observer universe and the sense of I-ness is disappeared, this deep state, accompanied by “unimaginable bliss” is known as “deathless” because simply there is nobody to die (however, in this Floating -real, but like an illusion, that is- World we are born and reborn at every moment).
yes dear beetle the mind and its influence were readily apparent, so to was a pure
belief, that of reincarnation, for me thinks that the ancients must have looked at the
world and derived the belief from the cyclical nature of the universe, birth, life,
death and rebirth. The problem with Christianity and Christians in general is just
that, ...[text shortened]... ation, for why should the private life of the singer influence our appreciation
of the melody?
This realization alone does not bring about a permanent shifting of the point of attention (enlightenment). “Enlightenment” (a specific brand new point of attention/ approaching of these things as a child etc) and “Liberation” (from anicca/impermanence, annata/lack of permanent self and dukkha/suffering-unsatisfactoriness) emerge when one holds just the continuum of the cognitive process without the slightest trace of ownership of the cognitions (Anattalakkhana Sutta, Udana, Phena Sutta).
But what is the scope of the liberated being? What distinction can be made between the liberation from suffering an arahant can achieve, and the liberation of the wisdom of a Buddha? The Sangha during the 2nd Buddhist Council (circa 380-350 BCE) stumbled on this silly metaphysical disagreement, and from this disagreement emerged at the right corner the Theravada and the Elder Brothers, and at the left the “Great Majority” of the other monks, the Mahasangikas, whose perspective became the forerunner of the Mahayana.
About that time, another split occurred, this time realistic: where the Dharmas real or not real? According to the Sarvastivada school of thought, Dharmas were fully real and eternal and hence past, present and future happenings could be considered inherently existent -and later on, the Hinayana Sarvastivada tradition came up with two variations, Vaihbashika and Sautrantica. (And later on, Madhyamikas showed amongst else an infinite regress as regards the existence of the Past, Present and Future, showing that if the conditions that create an effect are not self-created, then they are created by something other than themselves, which, if not self-created, would be created by something other than itself, and so on to infinity; therefore, the present effect could never be created!).
Of course, contrary to the Christian denominations, all these systems were not used for winning metaphysical debates in the name of the so called “orthodoxy”, but as differ step by step refined methodologies aiming to help the disciples to narrow in on the finer explanations of the Suttas. Since Theravada and Mahayana/Vajrayana have the single aim “Enlightenment and Liberation”, each approach is by definition relatively true and functional. One’s opponent is not one’s interlocutor and his beliefs, but one’s illusions.
So, I too wonder if Gautama Buddha had really in mind the distinction of monks and laypersons when he formed his system; conducting always the evaluation of the mind seems to me enough😵
Back to Top