Theravada and Mahayana

[Cheshire Cat]

I want to start a thread about Therevada and Mahayana schools.

It seems to me that in this section there's a lot of talk about Mahayana teachings, so that it seems that there's just a single sect.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

[林愛偉]

I want to start a thread about Therevada and Mahayana schools.

It seems to me that in this section there's a lot of talk about Mahayana teachings, so that it seems that there's just a single sect.

 

 

As I learned, both are under one banner, "Buddhism", meaning there should be no differentiation as in making schools, though people have done so any way. The Buddha taught according to the level of understanding of the people he met, and those who became his disciples. Some needed a certain way and others needed something else...like medicinal herbal concoctions. In order to get some to awaken, he taught one way, and then when their capacities increased, he taught another method to get them further.

 

Whichever worked for the cultivator, he gave them the needed teaching method.

[Cheshire Cat]

As I learned, both are under one banner, "Buddhism", meaning there should be no differentiation as in making schools, though people have done so any way. The Buddha taught according to the level of understanding of the people he met, and those who became his disciples. Some needed a certain way and others needed something else...like medicinal herbal concoctions. In order to get some to awaken, he taught one way, and then when their capacities increased, he taught another method to get them further.

 

Whichever worked for the cultivator, he gave them the needed teaching method.

 

If it is so, then the buddhist scriptures should be extremely difficult to understand: if the Buddha gave so many different teachings, (sometimes contradictory), then we should find this characteristic (of being various and not coherent) even in the early canon used by the theravadins.

A disciple who live with his teacher, listen carefully to what it is said. In addition, Buddha's teachings were give openly and not in secrecy.

We should have this statement "Some need a certain way and others need something else" from the very beginning.

 

Instead, we have a distinct "break" with the Lotus Sutra and the story of the burning house.

 

Unfortunately, we have little historical information and the choice here is made just by faith.

But I think that it is fair here not to say that a teaching is higher than the others.

I'm not willing even to say that hinayana disappeared because it was suited for inferior persons.

 

Just different Dharma gates for different minds

[Vmarco]

To me, both Hinayana (used, just to upset prideful Theravadans, LOL), and Mahayana are both dead Ways. Over the following Centuries, various entities, developed Lineages, Traditions, etc to interpret Buddhism; and all closed or canonized their "Way."

How many of these Ways that actually produced enlightened folks? For the most part, only a third Way and fourth Way (Vajrayana Buddhists sects) have been successful. A Way that refuses to embrace new expression when not producing results is a dead Way"

 

As I understand them,...in simplicity,...Theravadans seek a better life for their next incarnation,...Mahayana seek nirvana for their next incarnation,...Vajrayana welcomes full awakening in this lifetime,...Kagyu (Tilopa's Fourth Stream) focuses very little on attaining good karma, but is an all out pursuit, whatever it takes, to awaken to truth realization, today.

 

The third and fourth Ways are associated with 84 (or a significant number of) Awakened Ones. In the 13th Century, at the time of the Islamic invasions, which nearly annihilated Buddhism, much of the Vajrayana texts went terma, and thus ceased a great stepping stone from the Long Paths to the Short Path.

http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/23

 

The competitive nature of "my dog is bigger and your dog" does little to contribute to the elevation of sentient beings. I'm not advocating that the Short Path is better or worse,...but there should be a mindfulness of it among the Long Paths. Any debate over which Long Path is better, is equally as ridiculous.

Competition is not only a distraction to spirituality, but has an inherently hostile, us verses them mentality that is contrary to the true nature of basic human beingness. Competition is about as natural and needed as the Abrahamic religions. Just as there is no such thing as healthy delusion or a healthy religion, there is no healthy competition. Competition does not build character, it reinforces low self-esteem.

 

Competiion encourages animosity, envy, hostility, hate, war, and illiberalism. The synonyms of competition include contention, rivalry, conflict, strife, struggle and combativeness.

 

Social psychologist Alfie Kohn pointed out in his impressive 'No Contest - The Case Against Competition' a multitude of negative effects of competition, many of them subtle. Kohn articulates that competition arises from four myths. First, the "survival of the fittest", which really manifests a purpetual struggle in society. Second, that competition builds character. Yet it has been shown that only those with low self-esttem require competitive activities. People with high self-esteem has no need to externally prove anything or beat others. Thirdly, that competition is fun. Competition reduces spontaneous play to superiority/humiliation dynamic. Fourthly is the fallacy that competition increases productivity. However, study after study shows that cooperation, not competition, leads to higher levels of achievement. "That most of us consistently fail to consider the alternatives to competition is a testament to the effectiveness of our socialization." Alfie Kohn

[Vmarco]

Just different Dharma gates for different minds

 

Yes,...but when reduced, there are only 6 Dharma Gates.

 

The Shurangama Sutra says, "As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated."

 

Why is that not being taught?

[Apech]

To me, both Hinayana (used, just to upset prideful Theravadans, LOL), and Mahayana are both dead Ways. Over the following Centuries, various entities, developed Lineages, Traditions, etc to interpret Buddhism; and all closed or canonized their "Way."

How many of these Ways that actually produced enlightened folks? For the most part, only a third Way and fourth Way (Vajrayana Buddhists sects) have been successful. A Way that refuses to embrace new expression when not producing results is a dead Way"

 

As I understand them,...in simplicity,...Theravadans seek a better life for their next incarnation,...Mahayana seek nirvana for their next incarnation,...Vajrayana welcomes full awakening in this lifetime,...Kagyu (Tilopa's Fourth Stream) focuses very little on attaining good karma, but is an all out pursuit, whatever it takes, to awaken to truth realization, today.

 

...

 

 

I know I am turning myself into Mr. Buddha knowitall around this place ... but I have to disagree with your summation of the yanas. Theravadans seek quick liberation form samsara and see the path as a way to nirvana and non-returning. For them the Buddha does not return after nirvana. Mahayana seeks liberation for self and others and has a paranirvana in which the inseperability of samsara and nirvana is recognised through sunyata. Buddhas do return to teach. Vajrayana as you say direct path awakening in one lifetime but basically the same view of nirvana as mahayana.

[Vmarco]

I know I am turning myself into Mr. Buddha knowitall around this place ... but I have to disagree with your summation of the yanas. Theravadans seek quick liberation form samsara and see the path as a way to nirvana and non-returning. For them the Buddha does not return after nirvana. Mahayana seeks liberation for self and others and has a paranirvana in which the inseperability of samsara and nirvana is recognised through sunyata. Buddhas do return to teach. Vajrayana as you say direct path awakening in one lifetime but basically the same view of nirvana as mahayana.

 

The Short Path is not much interested in Nirvana, because Nirvana is just as impermanent as Samsara,...merely the pleasent side of duality. Nirvana may be a sort of liberation from suffering, but not THE liberation. The Mahayana view, as I understand it (as I fundamentally disagree with Yellow and Black hats), hold "others" in high esteem because that is how Buddha realized enlightentment,...not for himself, but as a consequence of a desire to understand the root cause of suffering,...which he uncovered to be, not seeing things as they are.

 

I will be relocating to a Theravada Country soon, and as such, look forward to more posts on this discussion,...not only for the truth, but for what people, especially Theravadans, believe to be the truth. From the little I understand, I'm going to have to be very careful not to discuss Buddhism in Theravadan Countries, as they get quite upset about anything which goes beyond their orthodox view,...although this upsetness is not displayed emotionally, but through displays of snubbing, spurning, shunning.

[thelerner]

I will be relocating to a Theravada Country soon, and as such, look forward to more posts on this discussion,...not only for the truth, but for what people, especially Theravadans, believe to be the truth. From the little I understand, I'm going to have to be very careful not to discuss Buddhism in Theravadan Countries, as they get quite upset about anything which goes beyond their orthodox view,...although this upsetness is not displayed emotionally, but through displays of snubbing, spurning, shunning.

 

It would a shame to take the time and effort to go to China and end up having bad time because you carry the heavy luggage of prejudiced views. I recommend dropping your simplified view of Theravada and take the opportunity to learn. Keep your mind open and fresh. Go in full of your 'Real Truth' vs there 'limiting beliefs' and you'll create a self fulfilling prophecy where you're snubbed, spurned and shunned.

[C T]

It would a shame to take the time and effort to go to China and end up having bad time because you carry the heavy luggage of prejudiced views. I recommend dropping your simplified view of Theravada and take the opportunity to learn. Keep your mind open and fresh. Go in full of your 'Real Truth' vs there 'limiting beliefs' and you'll create a self fulfilling prophecy where you're snubbed, spurned and shunned.

How true.

[RongzomFan]

As I understand them,...in simplicity,...Theravadans seek a better life for their next incarnation,...Mahayana seek nirvana for their next incarnation,...Vajrayana welcomes full awakening in this lifetime

 

 

Simply put, Mahayana arose as a reaction to the crypto-realism of Hinayana Abhidharma.

[Apech]

Simply put, Mahayana arose as a reaction to the crypto-realism of Hinayana Abhidharma.

 

 

Crypto-realism?

[RongzomFan]

yes

[林愛偉]

Interesting indeed, the idea of such differentiation within the Buddha-Dharma is false thinking in and of itself.

Theravadan, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Conscious-only, Secret School, etc... all these are just conceptualizations of a method.

 

What is the method? Simply to investigate the mind. Find where it is, and see one's original nature.

Like everything, there are different levels to reach before realizing the result. Just like school; one cannot go to University, unless they have been to high school, middle school, primary school. Unless they are geniuses in which they go from any grade level to the one fit for their abilities. It has happened in the Buddha Dharma as well, and during the Buddha's time.

 

The use of the terms and methods within the different "schools" of Buddhist Education are only expedients for the mind cultivating. They don't exist. It doesn't matter if a "Theravadan" or "Mahayana" method gets one to their goal. It doesn't matter if the Buddha spoke first the "Theravadan" and then later spoke the "Mahayana" teachings. The fact is that these methods were expounded on, and they have merit to them.

 

Has anyone actually ever sincerely and fully practiced the "Mahayana" ? Has anyone actually ever sincerely upheld and applied the methods within it? Read the sutras and commentaries and contemplated their meanings (of the "Mahayana")?

 

If not, I understand all the bickering about this and that. If SO, then something was terribly amiss in one's guidance and contemplation.

 

All Buddha's teachings point the cultivator inwards, ,to turn their senses inwards. Be it through bowing, recitation, contemplation, visualization, breath work, adorning the Buddhalands, Mindfulness of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, Mantra, Mudra, and the various other methods ....They all point the cultivator to illuminate within.

 

There should be no more discrimination on this and that school. It is all just false thinking. I'm not going to quote which sutra says what for this, simply because it doesn't matter. The underlying principle of the Buddha Dharma is such that the discriminating mind ends.

 

I practice what people call the Mahayana, Theravada, Secret School, Chan, Pure Land, Tantric. How? Because it is Buddha Dharma, and all under one school, the school of non-discrimination. It was spoken by the Buddha, so be it. Who ever messed up the formations of this and that method is unimportant. What's important is one finds a good and wise advisor, and apply themselves in the cultivation of the way in which works according to their own capacity to understand.

 

I go to a Daoist temple and show respect to the Gods and Immortals there, I go to a Buddhist temple and do the same for the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and Dharma Protectors. I go to a Church, a mosque, a Temple (Judaism), Ashram, etc...and show my respects. Why? because there is nothing outside the Dharma-Realm. All things have the Buddha Nature. regardless of the method they utilize, one way or another they will be, or are already, realized Buddhas.

 

It is quite amusing to see such discrimination about which school is proper, and which isn't. Remember, where ever the Buddha Dharma went, it took on the culture it met, so as to become accessible and understood (somewhat) by the locals of the land. The people themselves created hierarchy, rituals, and blended their culture with the Buddha's teachings. hence the Tibetan Tradition, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, soon-to-be European and American versions.

 

They all have benefit, as long as one can see past the superficial presentations and get to the "meat and potatoes" of it all.

Or for all those Rakshasha out there...get to the "meat and bones". hahahahaahahahahaha

 

 

When I was asked, at a Tibetan Buddhist temple back in NY recently, what tradition of Buddhism to I teach, I replied I speak on the Buddha-Dharma. They looked at me funny, (the lay people). And asked me again, but of what tradition, and I again replied, Its all Buddhism, there is only the fundamental principle. Then I played along and said, a tradition with no tradition. They smiled, and said when are you moving to our city? hahaha I was planning to, but decided to come back to China.

[Vmarco]

It would a shame to take the time and effort to go to China and end up having bad time because you carry the heavy luggage of prejudiced views. I recommend dropping your simplified view of Theravada and take the opportunity to learn. Keep your mind open and fresh. Go in full of your 'Real Truth' vs there 'limiting beliefs' and you'll create a self fulfilling prophecy where you're snubbed, spurned and shunned.

 

I don't present myself to society-at-large as a arrogant truth sayer,...and am rather superficial with ordinary folks,...as they are with with. Any hints of honesty however, I pursue it easily. In fact, Ez or Eza has been a nickname of mine for years,...because the people I engage with usually find me Ez to be with. Because you and CowTow have a myriad of prejudiced views (your word) does not mean that others are like you. I generally focus on the underlying core essence of people,...their basic goodness,...which is often obscure from them due to their dishonesty in not seeing things the way the are.

 

Although you appear to be still dangling with self-fulfilling prophesies,...struggling through an imaginary reality that you consider real,...accumulating lies to make things more palatable, like a Sagittarius always feel they are evolving towards some better mundane situation,...for me, I don't have a bad time, even when the illusion of bad times stink around me.

 

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real"... The Teachings of Buddha, Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai

 

Nevertheless, I do habitually exhibit a profound consideration for Others,...and have no desire to activate Others into snubbing, spurning, or shunning,...which where I'm going, Westerners can unconsciously do. To suggest that a desire to not activate Others into snubbing, spurning, or shunning, somehow manifests a self-prophesy to be snubbed, spurned or shunned, is ludicrous New Age neurosis.

 

As far as my posts,...in consideration of those I respond to, I try to respond in a similiar tone,...thus reply to abrasive posts with a fragrance of abrasiveness.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Vmarco

[Simple_Jack]

Crypto-realism?

For whatever reason, the Sarastivadin Abhidharma and Theravadin Abhidhamma, only expounds on pudgala-anatman. It doesn't go as far as expounding on dharma-anatman. Which is puzzling, because the Pali cannon (and the Chinese agamas) has suttas which fully expounds emptiness (Phena Sutta, Maha-Sunnata Sutta, Cula-Sunnata Sutta, Sunnata Sutta, etc.)

 

To know more about the different schools/sub-schools, these links are okay to start out with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhism & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism

[Apech]

For whatever reason, the Sarastivadin Abhidharma and Theravadin Abhidhamma, only expounds on pudgala-anatman. It doesn't go as far as expounding on dharma-anatman. Which is puzzling, because the Pali cannon (and the Chinese agamas) has suttas which fully expounds emptiness (Phena Sutta, Maha-Sunnata Sutta, Cula-Sunnata Sutta, Sunnata Sutta, etc.)

 

To know more about the different schools/sub-schools, these links are okay to start out with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhism & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism

 

I just didn't understand the phrase crypto-realism.

 

Since I contribute to Wikipedia in another subject area and know how content is produced - I only use it as a quick look up and never for any in depth study.

 

I'm getting some good things out of this book http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Thought-Complete-Introduction-Tradition/product-reviews/0415571790/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1D6I8HBICH9MM

 

at present though its a pit patchy also.

[Cheshire Cat]

When I was asked, at a Tibetan Buddhist temple back in NY recently, what tradition of Buddhism to I teach, I replied I speak on the Buddha-Dharma. They looked at me funny, (the lay people). And asked me again, but of what tradition, and I again replied, Its all Buddhism, there is only the fundamental principle. Then I played along and said, a tradition with no tradition. They smiled, and said when are you moving to our city? hahaha I was planning to, but decided to come back to China.

 

In the West, we have a christian cultural basis that it's present even amongst those who deny it.

Because of this background, we can hardly believe that someone could follow many different religions (as many buddhist sects at once)... it's our frame of mind: in christianity, one cannot be muslim or buddhist at once.

 

It's our delight to find differences, where people of the East find similarities.

We have judaism, many christian sects and two Islamic sects... we are at war since time immemorial

And those religions are quite similar ...

 

We want to put very accurate tags on people.

This situations are very common in the west.

[林愛偉]

In the West, we have a christian cultural basis that it's present even amongst those who deny it.

Because of this background, we can hardly believe that someone could follow many different religions (as many buddhist sects at once)... it's our frame of mind: in christianity, one cannot be muslim or buddhist at once.

 

It's our delight to find differences, where people of the East find similarities.

We have judaism, many christian sects and two Islamic sects... we are at war since time immemorial

And those religions are quite similar ...

 

We want to put very accurate tags on people.

This situations are very common in the west.

 

I dont follow the list of religions I posted, but if ever brought to those places, I show resect to their traditions.

 

*** Yes, this labeling is prevalent in the world. When I was at the NY Chinese consulate, I met up with one of the Consul's on Education and Culture. His friend came by and asked me what type of Buddhism I practice. I replied just Buddhism. He thought I didn't understand Chinese, so he said I practice Tibetan Buddhism. I replied, I know, I can tell, and you and I are the same, I practice Buddhism, and we are cultivation brothers. He was shocked, and smiled, and I smiled, and we chatted on. lol

 

If we can just get past the labels within our practice, there is so much more to realize.

Edited February 5, 2013 by 林愛偉

[Simple_Jack]

I just didn't understand the phrase crypto-realism.

 

Since I contribute to Wikipedia in another subject area and know how content is produced - I only use it as a quick look up and never for any in depth study.

 

I'm getting some good things out of this book http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Thought-Complete-Introduction-Tradition/product-reviews/0415571790/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1D6I8HBICH9MM

 

at present though its a pit patchy also.

Ahhh, ok. Anyways, that's why in reaction to the limitations of his commentary on the Sarvastivadan abhidharma: Vasubhandu composed the Mahayana abhidharma-samuccaya.

 

You might find this thread interesting: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=7256. It's on the different views (between Mahayana and Hinayana,) on the fallibility of Hinayana arhats (basically, arhats represent a non-afflictive ignorance.)

 

This book was recommended from that thread, which will be released in May: http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Schools-Small-Vehicle/dp/0824835662/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360110247&sr=1-2&keywords=andre+bareau.

[Cheshire Cat]

This post is based on the lessons of Prof. Malcolm David Eckel.

Historians say that it is the Second Buddhist Council that led to the beginnings of Buddhist sectarianism.

As the community expanded across northern India in that time, monks began to adapt the teaching to new situations and encountered much greater difficulty enforcing unanimity in doctrine or discipline. This is a natural thing.

This resulted in a dispute in the samgha. Thus, we had a second Buddhist council.

Historical accounts of this council are contradictory; it is difficult to be certain either about the source of the controversy or about its outcome.

For example, one account says that the controversy was provoked by Mahadeva, a nice monk.

Another says that it was provoked by disagreement over two prohibitions in traditional monastic discipline: one prevented monks and nuns from using gold and silver; the other prevented them from carrying salt from one day to the next. Those were very difficult problems: monks went mad for salt...

Out of this dispute came a split between two major parties.

The party known as the Sthaviravada, or “Doctrine of the Elders,” was the predecessor of the Theravada tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia (with the exception of Vietnam).

The party known as the Mahasamghika, or “Great Community,” was the predecessor of the Mahayana tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of North and East Asia.

These disputes eventually gave rise to eighteen schools (nikaya), only one of which still survives in its traditional form. The sole surviving school is the Theravada (Pali for Sthaviravada) tradition of Southeast Asia.

[林愛偉]

 

This post is based on the lessons of Prof. Malcolm David Eckel.

Historians say that it is the Second Buddhist Council that led to the beginnings of Buddhist sectarianism.

As the community expanded across northern India in that time, monks began to adapt the teaching to new situations and encountered much greater difficulty enforcing unanimity in doctrine or discipline. This is a natural thing.

This resulted in a dispute in the samgha. Thus, we had a second Buddhist council.

Historical accounts of this council are contradictory; it is difficult to be certain either about the source of the controversy or about its outcome.

For example, one account says that the controversy was provoked by Mahadeva, a nice monk.

Another says that it was provoked by disagreement over two prohibitions in traditional monastic discipline: one prevented monks and nuns from using gold and silver; the other prevented them from carrying salt from one day to the next. Those were very difficult problems: monks went mad for salt...

Out of this dispute came a split between two major parties.

The party known as the Sthaviravada, or “Doctrine of the Elders,” was the predecessor of the Theravada tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia (with the exception of Vietnam).

The party known as the Mahasamghika, or “Great Community,” was the predecessor of the Mahayana tradition that now dominates the Buddhist countries of North and East Asia.

These disputes eventually gave rise to eighteen schools (nikaya), only one of which still survives in its traditional form. The sole surviving school is the Theravada (Pali for Sthaviravada) tradition of Southeast Asia.

 

 

I came across this on wikipedia not too long ago. haha Very similar explanation.

 

I say, if the principles within the sutras of the various "traditions" resonate with the Buddha's Dharma, it doesn't matter how they want to break things up. I spend no time worrying about the different sects, and focus more on the principles.

[Jetsun]

My understanding is that the two truths doctrine of the Buddha means there is no real issue or problem with there being many different sects and groups in Buddhism, they can all be teaching genuine Dharma just from different perspectives.

[Vmarco]

It's our delight to find differences, where people of the East find similarities.

We have judaism, many christian sects and two Islamic sects... we are at war since time immemorial

And those religions are quite similar ...

 

We want to put very accurate tags on people.

This situations are very common in the west.

 

Interesting, but considering the youtube of post #1, that monk wasn't too keen on similarites.

 

I would so enjoy living among kindred spirits ,...people honest enough to recognize that all beliefs are lies. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs,...but just know it is a lie.

 

I do look foward to living in Asia,...and the similiarities. IMO, most people in the West, mired in their ugly belief systems, have little comprehension of the stupifying aburdity that is the dissymponic continuum of the West,...especially the exploitive Christian West.

[Cheshire Cat]

Interesting, but considering the youtube of post #1, that monk wasn't too keen on similarites.

 

 

The monk was asked specifically about differences

 

I say, if the principles within the sutras of the various "traditions" resonate with the Buddha's Dharma, it doesn't matter how they want to break things up. I spend no time worrying about the different sects, and focus more on the principles.

 

This is a good approach because you can keep an open heart and cultivate what resonates with you

 

Nonetheless, principles are theory... and only practice matters.

 

I will explain this idea with an historical example.

Christianity as it is known today was born by the hard work of St. Paul and some friends.

The original idea was very simple and could be considered as the "core" of Christianity:

"There's just one God and people cannot worship other deities, otherwise it's a sinful act.

But since God has no image, you should worship Jesus because not only he have a form, but he retains his physical body in the Heavens"

 

But people were not happy with this: they had thousands of deities. One God is just not enough.

So, it was established devotion to Saints, Martyrs and Virgin Mary in replacement of the old pantheon.

The old shrines were transformed in accordance with the new religion and the old gods became Saints: same functions, same roles, very similar rituals and beliefs ... but names changed.

The theological argument was "You can pray them and they can perform miracles, but those miracles are not from their own: when you pray to them, they ask to God in turn. And God may intercedes in your favor."

 

The principles is "There is just one God".

The practice instead, is a nice polytheism because there's no difference in the way one worships a Saint or God.

 

Personally, I think that a similar thing happened with buddhism: people were not happy in having no Gods... so, it was established the cult of bodhisattva.

The principles are different from other religions.... but practice is the same since people worship bodhisattvas and Buddhas as Christians worship God and the Saints.

 

Christian theory " I worship because in this way I will go to heaven"

Buddhist theory "I worship because in this way I will be a bodhisattva and then a Buddha"

 

But, since fundamentally they are doing the same thing, how could they expect different results?

Edited February 8, 2013 by DAO rain TAO