Arhats....

[RongzomFan]

You haven't quoted anything yet. Who knows what Master Nan actually said.

[RongzomFan]

Hmmm...you sounded very offended. From what experiences and authority you have to say that you know the dhrama to become a Buddha....

 

 

I never heard before today, that you have to become an arhat before you become a Buddha.

[ChiForce]

You haven't quoted anything yet. Who knows what Master Nan actually said.

So, you are telling me I am lying because.......hmmm.....help me out here.... ? Don't be silly. I can see our little discussions aren't going anywhere because you and I aren't reading the same book. Or sharing the same knowledge or understanding....

[RongzomFan]

So, you are telling me I am lying because.......hmmm.....help me out here.... ? Don't be silly. I can see our little discussions aren't going anywhere because you and I aren't reading the same book. Or sharing the same knowledge or understanding....

 

Why do you refuse to quote the passages?

[ChiForce]

Why do you refuse to quote the passages?

Because I don't feel like typing up paragraphs. Two, the book was first published in English during 2004. Maybe even earlier in Chinese,. Whatever he wrote or said, they have been read and understood for over a decade. It has become an accepted knowledge. Therefore, why am I needing to "prove" to you in what he wrote? Maybe you should read his books if you are so interested......

[RongzomFan]

Because I don't feel like typing up paragraphs. Two, the book was first published in English during 2004. Maybe even earlier in Chinese,. Whatever he wrote or said, they have been read and understood for over a decade. It has become an accepted knowledge. Therefore, why am I needing to "prove" to you in what he wrote? Maybe you should read his books if you are so interested......

 

 

Since you refuse to show the actual quotations, I have to conclude you are probably misunderstanding what is written.

[ChiForce]

Since you refuse to show the actual quotations, I have to conclude you are probably misunderstanding what is written.

Yeah, yeah, that's right. Heheh...sigh...

[RongzomFan]

This is according to the Nikayas (oldest Buddhist texts). Mahayana schools have completely different models of the stages of enlightenment.

 

this

[DragonScholar]

According to Master Nan, both Hinyana and Mahayana schools aren't separate but stages....unless he is wrong. You know....

 

I don't know anything about Master Nan, although it's worth pointing out that the Theravada - who follow the Nikayas, and thus the four-fold model of Enlightenment I posted earlier - do not consider themselves Hinayana. The whole Hinayana/Mahayana distinction is itself a Mahayana framework.

 

The idea that they are stages along a single path is a very common idea in many different Mahayana schools, so it is not surprising to me that Master Nan endorses this view.

 

For a further discussion of these issues from a Theravada perspective, check out the article "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism" by Venerable W. Rahula.

Edited May 6, 2013 by DragonScholar

[RongzomFan]

The idea that they are stages along a single path is a very common idea in many different Mahayana schools, so it is not surprising to me that Master Nan endorses this view.

 

What are you talking about now?

[RongzomFan]

-------

Edited June 21, 2013 by alwayson

[DragonScholar]

 

 

They are not Mahayana. So they have to be Hinayana.

Did you read the article in my previous post?

It is universally accepted by scholars that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana are later inventions. Historically speaking, the Theravada already existed long before these terms came into being. That Theravada, considered to be the original teaching of the Buddha, was introduced to Ceylon and established there in the 3rd Century B.C., during the time of Emperor Asoka of India. At that time there was nothing called Mahayana. Mahayana as such appeared much later, about the beginning of the Christian Era. Without Mahayana there could not be Hinayana. Buddhism that went to Sri Lanka, with its Tripitaka and Commentaries, in the 3rd Century B.C., remained there intact as Theravada, and did not come into the scene of the Hinayana-Mahayana dispute that developed later in India. It seems therefore not legitimate to include Theravada in either of these two categories.

[RongzomFan]

 

Did you read the article in my previous post?

 

 

I thought you were making an argument based on some other logic I've heard before, but you weren't.

Edited May 6, 2013 by alwayson

[DragonScholar]

 

What are you talking about now?

 

I have heard this argument before - that one starts with Hinayana practices, moves through Mahayana practices, and culminates in Vajrayana (Esoteric) practices. For example, here's a take on the issue from a Kagyu perspective:

 

Hinayana is the basic level of Buddhist teaching and practice thatis common to all traditions, though it is often associated with the Theravada tradition. It is called 'the lower vehicle', but it is not lower in the sense that it is of lesser value than the Mahayana or Vajrayana vehicles. Instead, it is the foundation level of Buddhism. Just as a house needs a solid foundation in order to be strong, so also do the other Buddhist vehicles or paths need the solid foundation that Hinayana provides.

(Source)

 

As you can see, the conception is clearly one that is progressive; one builds a Hinayana "foundation" upon which one then proceeds to move on to the Mahayana and finally the Vajrayana. Master Nan seems to hold a similiar view.

 

I am not saying that all Mahayana schools adopt this view, but it's common enough.

Edited May 6, 2013 by DragonScholar

[RongzomFan]

Some website?

 

I've read many Kagyu works in translation.

 

I'm not buying any of this.

Edited May 6, 2013 by alwayson

[themiddleway]

Hi all. Quick question, I thought that Hinayana refers to an extinct form of Buddhism ? My understanding was that the earlier schools of Buddhism misunderstood the teachings on emptiness, the earlier model of Samsara and Nirvana is dualism no..?

[DragonScholar]

Some website?

 

I've read many Kagyu works in translation.

 

I'm not buying any of this.

 

We'll, I'm not selling it. My point - which you appear to have missed - is simply been that this view is fairly common, not that it is correct.

Edited May 6, 2013 by DragonScholar

[DragonScholar]

Hi all. Quick question, I thought that Hinayana refers to an extinct form of Buddhism ? My understanding was that the earlier schools of Buddhism misunderstood the teachings on emptiness, the earlier model of Samsara and Nirvana is dualism no..?

 

There is no consensus about exactly what "Hinayana" refers to. Some do apply it to now extinct schools of Buddhism, like the Sarvastivadins. Some people apply it to Theravada Buddhism which is practiced throughout Southeast Asia and the world.Some apply it not to any particular school, but to a narrow-minded attitude which one might encounter in any particular school of Buddhism.

Edited May 6, 2013 by DragonScholar

[RongzomFan]

We'll, I'm not selling it. My point - which you appear to have missed - is simply been that this view is fairly common, not that it is correct.

 

I don't buy its common, by you posting a website.

[RongzomFan]

My understanding was that the earlier schools of Buddhism misunderstood the teachings on emptiness, the earlier model of Samsara and Nirvana is dualism no..?

 

Mahayana arose as a reaction to crypto-realist Abhidharmas. Thus Mahayana is the essence of Buddhadharma.

 

I thought that Hinayana refers to an extinct form of Buddhism ?

 

Mahayana mainly critiqued other schools' Abdhidharmas, not Theravadin Abhidharma. But Theravada is definitely Hinayana.

Edited May 6, 2013 by alwayson

[C T]

Some people believe Hinayana is like having a scooter instead of a Maserati.

 

God (and i, and some Italians too) knows there are some paths where Maseratis simply become too awkward and useless as a means of traversing these narrow byways.

 

........................

[RongzomFan]

Hinayana can never reach the same goal as Mahayana, which is Buddhahood.

[C T]

Hinayana can never reach the same goal as Mahayana, which is Buddhahood.

Prehistoric assumption.

 

Tulku Urgyen equates Hinayana to the View, Meditation to Mahayana, and Action to Vajrayana. The culmination of these 3 aspects = Dzogchen, or Maha Ati.

[RongzomFan]

Prehistoric assumption.

 

Tulku Urgyen equates Hinayana to the View, Meditation to Mahayana, and Action to Vajrayana. The culmination of these 3 aspects = Dzogchen, or Maha Ati.

 

Where is this at?

[C T]

Where is this at?

Rainbow Painting. The book.