The Skeptical "Buddhist"...Critical thinking & Buddhism..

[Cheshire Cat]

 

 

I spoke with a Theravada nun & she said that "Vajrayana is Buddhism with Hinduism mixed in."

 

Many would think that Theravadins in Sri Lanka would strictly follow the Theravada Canonical tradition, but was not so according to “Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka (BPS Publication) by A.G.S. Kariyawasam.

 

Theravadins in Sri Lanka, worship Gods for the purpose of banishment of evil influences and the attainment of prosperity in general and good harvests. Some of the Gods to name a few:

 

Vishnu – Peiktano Nat Min Gyi

Ganesh – Maha Peinne Nat Min Gyi

Pattini Goddess - most popular female deity of the Sinhala Buddhists

Lakshhmi

Saraswati Goddess – Tuyatadi mae daw

Chandi Devi - Sandi Devi

Loka Nattha – Kuan Yin Mae daw - Avalokitesvara

 

 

(from http://maungpaw.blogspot.it/2008/12/theravada-is-not-without-gods.html)

[C T]

Vajrayana is buddhist tantra which is a definition that implies something peculiar and not easily grasped.

You would understand more of what vajrayana is by speaking with theravadins who actually practiced it (tantra) to some extent rather than those who keeps an opinion or two.

 

 

 

According to the scriptures, Jesus taught to reconcile with God because he was the Messiah and soon he shall settle his reign. We are waiting since then, although he said that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

As for the "father" thing, to refer to God as father was (and is) common in jew prayers and hymns.

A passage from The Song of the Eastern Snow Mountain (a very old minor Tibetan text) reads:

 

"To the east of where that cloud is floating,

in that entirely victorious Virtue Solitude,

there resided the precious ones, difficult to be invoked,

Father Famous Goodheart, the sire, with his two spiritual sons.

 

The yoga and other teachings of the two stages of the road

relating to the profound Doctrine, they preached most fully.

To the pious of snowy Tibet

Your grace, O protectors, was ineffable."

 

 

 

A little something to mull over...

 

 

 

Link to the whole text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21260466/Van-Manen-Johan-The-Song-of-the-Eastern-Snow-Mountain

Edited August 14, 2013 by C T

[Cheshire Cat]

A little something to mull over...

 

The core beings in the shamanist religion are Father Heaven (Tenger Etseg) and Mother Earth (Gazar Eej). In history Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan), the unifier of the Mongolian nation, based his power on a mandate from Tenger himself, and headed all his declarations with the words “by the will of Eternal Blue Heaven.” Father Heaven is worshiped for what he is, the timeless and infinite blue sky. He is not visualized as a person, although he is said to have at least two sons. Worship of Father Heaven and Mother Earth is almost universal in Siberia, and is found in North America as well

 

http://buryatmongol.org/a-course-in-mongolian-shamanism/the-natural-world/father-sky-mother-earth-and-heavenly-objects/

Edited August 14, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[C T]

The core beings in the shamanist religion are Father Heaven (Tenger Etseg) and Mother Earth (Gazar Eej). In history Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan), the unifier of the Mongolian nation, based his power on a mandate from Tenger himself, and headed all his declarations with the words “by the will of Eternal Blue Heaven.” Father Heaven is worshiped for what he is, the timeless and infinite blue sky. He is not visualized as a person, although he is said to have at least two sons. Worship of Father Heaven and Mother Earth is almost universal in Siberia, and is found in North America as well

 

http://buryatmongol.org/a-course-in-mongolian-shamanism/the-natural-world/father-sky-mother-earth-and-heavenly-objects/

Yes, not visualized as a limited form is spot on. Its vastness is beyond comprehension... potentiality beyond bounds.

 

I am thinking here whether the 2 sons are symbolic indicative points of sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya, where the Father Heaven is representative of the dharmakaya.

[C T]

Many would think that Theravadins in Sri Lanka would strictly follow the Theravada Canonical tradition, but was not so according to “Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka (BPS Publication) by A.G.S. Kariyawasam.

 

Theravadins in Sri Lanka, worship Gods for the purpose of banishment of evil influences and the attainment of prosperity in general and good harvests. Some of the Gods to name a few:

 

Vishnu – Peiktano Nat Min Gyi

Ganesh – Maha Peinne Nat Min Gyi

Pattini Goddess - most popular female deity of the Sinhala Buddhists

Lakshhmi

Saraswati Goddess – Tuyatadi mae daw

Chandi Devi - Sandi Devi

Loka Nattha – Kuan Yin Mae daw - Avalokitesvara

 

 

(from http://maungpaw.blogspot.it/2008/12/theravada-is-not-without-gods.html)

My grandfather was a Sri Lankan theravadin buddhist (he passed on some years back), and performed ritualistic practices every morning, and would always begin his invocations with homage to Buddha all the planetary gods and deities like the ones you mentioned above. There's also Rahu and Ketu whom he placed very high on the pantheon.

[Apech]

My grandfather was a Sri Lankan theravadin buddhist (he passed on some years back), and performed ritualistic practices every morning, and would always begin his invocations with homage to Buddha all the planetary gods and deities like the ones you mentioned above. There's also Rahu and Ketu whom he placed very high on the pantheon.

 

 

Which also helps to illustrate that secular/atheist Buddhism is a modern confection ... I'm not saying it is without merit in the field of cognitive therapy and so on and you could say it demonstrates how flexible the dharma is that it can be adapted in so many ways to help people.

[C T]

Which also helps to illustrate that secular/atheist Buddhism is a modern confection ... I'm not saying it is without merit in the field of cognitive therapy and so on and you could say it demonstrates how flexible the dharma is that it can be adapted in so many ways to help people.

Flexibility is inherent in the Dharma, otherwise best it can do is partial rendering of insight. For insight to be complete and workable, Dharma practice considers all possibilities, rejects very little without first reflecting it off personal experience. Elitist attitudes and snobbishness has no place in genuine Dharmaship.

[Apech]

Flexibility is inherent in the Dharma, otherwise best it can do is partial rendering of insight. For insight to be complete and workable, Dharma practice considers all possibilities, rejects very little without first reflecting it off personal experience. Elitist attitudes and snobbishness has no place in genuine Dharmaship.

 

 

Good point. The path of the dharma, or its history through 2500 years shows that the simple and precise truths that it encapsulates are widely applicable through all cultures and environments. This is why I think the tendency of fundamentalism ... of trying to pare everything back to what is in the Pali Canon for instance is a mistake.

[stefos]

No shit.

 

 

 

You are the only one trying to reconcile them.

 

 

Why are you threatened by Hinduism? Especially with your love for Brahman?

 

No shit.

 

 

Tibetans know about jhanas, but will view stuff like pranayama superior to meditation, following in the vein of the Indian tradition.

 

 

No shit.

 

The sum total of your post is "No shit"

 

You are not a Buddhist otherwise you would have taken into consideration your emotional state in saying what you've stated which is overtly toned with anger.

 

Grow up & actually practice Buddhadharma. Whatever happened to Right speech/Perfect speech for example?

You are not presenting yourself properly but are emotion charged.

Vajrayana is buddhist tantra which is a definition that implies something peculiar and not easily grasped.

You would understand more of what vajrayana is by speaking with theravadins who actually practiced it (tantra) to some extent rather than those who keeps an opinion or two.

 

 

 

According to the scriptures, Jesus taught to reconcile with God because he was the Messiah and soon he shall settle his reign. We are waiting since then, although he said that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

As for the "father" thing, to refer to God as father was (and is) common in jew prayers and hymns.

1. Yes, you're right. That nun was sticking to her Theravada guns for sure.

 

I never said anything more than what she said. I'm not ignorant!

 

2. Yes, you're right: Come soon Lord Jesus!

 

If my memory doesn't cheat, the "impersonal Brahman" philosophy was developed much LATER Shakyamuni's time by Shankara...

at the time of the Buddha, hindu society has devas with personalities and nothing that could be similar to his idea of Nirvana.

 

No, this isn't correct. The impersonal Brahman philosophy did exist before & during the time of the Buddha.

 

The Pali Tipitaka contains many elements taken from "Hindu" sources:

A. Pranayama

B. Cosmological view: Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Akasa (ETC.)

C. The Buddhas 2 teachers prior to his enlightenment were yogis who knew the vedas and understood the jhanas.

 

Having stated the above, there are no immediate sources of what the Buddha said, only the Pali Tipitaka which was written 500 years after Shakyamuni died and in which great divisions & controversies over what he taught sprung up (24 schools period, etc.) leading to the existence of modern Theravada & Mahayana.

 

Flexibility is inherent in the Dharma, otherwise best it can do is partial rendering of insight. For insight to be complete and workable, Dharma practice considers all possibilities, rejects very little without first reflecting it off personal experience. Elitist attitudes and snobbishness has no place in genuine Dharmaship.

 

This is not true because your definition of "flexibility" is syncretism which is to say: Wherever you teach Buddhadharma, combine it with the local gods/goddesses & regional spirits of the land and it's all cool, no problems.

 

Shakyamuni would have probably said "Why are you telling the people lies by combining things into what I taught?"

Either Shakyamuni believed in an Ultimate deity or not, Either the noble 8 fold path is right or not, etc. etc.

 

Incidentally, THIS is how & why Christianity has so many different denominations: Syncretism & "The traditions of men" tacked on to what Jesus & the New Testament letters state! So, it's not a closed phenomenon to Buddhist circles as the Ch'an did the same in China with the mixing of Daoism & Buddhadharma.

 

I don't care about what the Thai, Burmese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, etc. do outside of the actual Buddhadharma itself as of deep importance although I do care about why it exists, I really care about Buddhadharma as it was taught by Shakyamuni himself alone!

 

Thank you.......

 

The Buddha taught one thing and not the various flavorings of Buddhist syncretism found all over the modern Buddhist world today.

 

Stefos

Edited August 15, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

I really care about Buddhadharma as it was taught by Shakyamuni himself alone!

 

Why did the ancient Indian universities propagate Vajrayana, which is clearly the teaching of the Mahasiddhas?

 

Come soon Lord Jesus!

 

Says the guy who rails against syncretism.

Edited August 15, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

No, this isn't correct. The impersonal Brahman philosophy did exist before & during the time of the Buddha.

 

If you believe Shakyamuni was merely a Upanishadic sage, why not just follow the Upanishads?

[C T]

The sum total of your post is "No shit"

 

You are not a Buddhist otherwise you would have taken into consideration your emotional state in saying what you've stated which is overtly toned with anger.

 

Grow up & actually practice Buddhadharma. Whatever happened to Right speech/Perfect speech for example?

You are not presenting yourself properly but are emotion charged.

1. Yes, you're right. That nun was sticking to her Theravada guns for sure.

 

I never said anything more than what she said. I'm not ignorant!

 

2. Yes, you're right: Come soon Lord Jesus!

 

 

No, this isn't correct. The impersonal Brahman philosophy did exist before & during the time of the Buddha.

 

The Pali Tipitaka contains many elements taken from "Hindu" sources:

A. Pranayama

B. Cosmological view: Earth, Wind, Water, Fire, Akasa (ETC.)

C. The Buddhas 2 teachers prior to his enlightenment were yogis who knew the vedas and understood the jhanas.

 

Having stated the above, there are no immediate sources of what the Buddha said, only the Pali Tipitaka which was written 500 years after Shakyamuni died and in which great divisions & controversies over what he taught sprung up (24 schools period, etc.) leading to the existence of modern Theravada & Mahayana.

 

 

This is not true because your definition of "flexibility" is syncretism which is to say: Wherever you teach Buddhadharma, combine it with the local gods/goddesses & regional spirits of the land and it's all cool, no problems.

 

Shakyamuni would have probably said "Why are you telling the people lies by combining things into what I taught?"

Either Shakyamuni believed in an Ultimate deity or not, Either the noble 8 fold path is right or not, etc. etc.

 

Incidentally, THIS is how & why Christianity has so many different denominations: Syncretism & "The traditions of men" tacked on to what Jesus & the New Testament letters state! So, it's not a closed phenomenon to Buddhist circles as the Ch'an did the same in China with the mixing of Daoism & Buddhadharma.

 

I don't care about what the Thai, Burmese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, etc. do outside of the actual Buddhadharma itself as of deep importance although I do care about why it exists, I really care about Buddhadharma as it was taught by Shakyamuni himself alone!

 

Thank you.......

 

The Buddha taught one thing and not the various flavorings of Buddhist syncretism found all over the modern Buddhist world today.

 

Stefos

[Simple_Jack]

In my view, there is no need to believe.

In fact, it is preferable not to believe.

Belief is grasping, holding on to concepts.

This is contrary to Buddha's teachings.

He did not want people to simply believe the truths of others but to discover the truth for themselves.

Much better to simply practice and make room for knowledge to displace belief.

 

In order for someone to fulfill the bold sentence would require unbiased examination and applying what is already laid out in Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana; all the while applying these teachings within the context of the teachings themselves (while being engaged without any prejudice from prior knowledge or experiences).

Edited August 20, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[stefos]

Why did the ancient Indian universities propagate Vajrayana, which is clearly the teaching of the Mahasiddhas?

 

 

Says the guy who rails against syncretism.

 

See, you don't know me, nor understand my motives.

 

I'll briefly explain my thoughts to you first:

 

1. I believe in ultimate & relative reality.....this is a fact

 

2. The ultimate reality is only 1, not 2 or 3 or 5 billion which is to say that reality IS God (non-conceptually speaking...raw "God" as it were for lack of more refined expression at the moment.

 

3. I believe that God expressed & expresses God's self always using people, nature, spiritual beings like Mamos & nature spirits, etc. & Buddhas.

 

4. I believe that Shakyamuni Buddha was used by God to express reality to his immediate culture in their particular way.

 

5. Enlightenment is knowing God, not emptiness only, as some buddhists (Theras) would say, nor "emptiness & energy" only (Vajrayanists) would express, nor just "emptiness, & energy & clarity" (Dzogchenpas) would express.

 

In the final view, Since Shakyamuni's teachings are not fundamentally known, logically a person would approach the Theras & ask them about Shakyamuni's teachings. The Theras however have been viewed upon by scholars as being only 1 sect which exists from ancient times & is therefore categorically NOT indicative of the corpus of Buddhist thought & teaching which I believe was in fact Theistic in nature to include Tantric & Dzogchen modes of consciousness.

 

God's consciousness is not limited to "empty" or "full" or "non-dual" because when we examine nature & the universe we see colour, movement, sound, scientific laws-be they static or non-static.

 

My motives are to be a blessing to people, no matter what faith or lack thereof (which is sad.....not blind faith mind you)

and to perceive "what is happening."

To me, both science & "religion" are not separate but approach reality from 2 different yet converging streams.

 

The Pali, Chinese, Ghandaran, and Tibetan scripts were written down after Shakyamuni died and therefore do not express the sum total of his words which makes embracing the religious edifice of Buddhism a tenuous affair, while embracing Shakyamuni's intent & whatever teachings he authentically gave as being worthy of research & merit & incorporation into my life.

 

Done.......

Stefos

 

 

If you believe Shakyamuni was merely a Upanishadic sage, why not just follow the Upanishads?

I'm actually looking into this!

 

Since you categorically embrace Tantra, the fact that the Buddha was taught by Upanishadic teachers who taught him yogic techniques, etc............I suggest you dig deeper into the Pali texts...my gut instinct is to say you have not studied them.

Nor do I claim to be a "Buddhologist" who has studied & researched deeply although I have studied & meditated along several lines.

 

This is not an attack on you, This is only a suggestion.

 

Be blessed & Have a beautiful day sir.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

the fact that the Buddha was taught by Upanishadic teachers who taught him yogic techniques, etc.

 

Reference?

 

Buddha's teachers were Sramanas.

[RongzomFan]

The Pali, Chinese, Ghandaran, and Tibetan scripts were written down after Shakyamuni died and therefore do not express the sum total of his words which makes embracing the religious edifice of Buddhism a tenuous affair....

 

You are under the misimpression that Buddhadharma is solely based on Shakyamuni.

 

Any legit Mahasiddha or terton is just as authoritative.

[Simple_Jack]

Good point. The path of the dharma, or its history through 2500 years shows that the simple and precise truths that it encapsulates are widely applicable through all cultures and environments. This is why I think the tendency of fundamentalism ... of trying to pare everything back to what is in the Pali Canon for instance is a mistake.

 

Even in the Pali canon, deities typically associated with "Hinduism", made pledges to be protectors of the buddhadharma and its followers. Calling to them for help or even venerating them is applicable in Buddhism.

 

If you believe Shakyamuni was merely a Upanishadic sage, why not just follow the Upanishads?

 

Haha, you know according to one of the "Jataka Tales": in one of his animal lives in his bodhisatta career (as a partridge), he was teaching the Vedas to a group of Brahmins, before being killed by a jealous ascetic who turned out to be Devadatta in a previous lifetime.

 

The Pali, Chinese, Ghandaran, and Tibetan scripts were written down after Shakyamuni died and therefore do not express the sum total of his words which makes embracing the religious edifice of Buddhism a tenuous affair, while embracing Shakyamuni's intent & whatever teachings he authentically gave as being worthy of research & merit & incorporation into my life.

 

I would just follow the advice and instructions of my guru (in your case ChNN), since in the end, conceptual knowledge belongs to the relative sphere which is unable to penetrate through to direct experience. Cultivation entails transcending conceptual constructs in order to reach the ultimate, right? You already have conviction in ChNN and Dzogchen, correct? So what's the use in studying the conceptual baggage of the lower yanas if you already have confidence in what ChNN teaches?

[Simple_Jack]

In my view, there is no need to believe.

In fact, it is preferable not to believe.

Belief is grasping, holding on to concepts.

This is contrary to Buddha's teachings.

He did not want people to simply believe the truths of others but to discover the truth for themselves.

Much better to simply practice and make room for knowledge to displace belief.

 

 

In order for someone to fulfill the bold sentence would require unbiased examination and applying what is already laid out in Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana; all the while applying these teachings within the context of the teachings themselves (while being engaged without any prejudice from prior knowledge or experiences).

 

Bump.

[RongzomFan]

stefos,

 

The main problem you have is that you view Buddhadharma as a man-made religion.

 

Buddhadharma is the only divine religion. Many things point to that including terma revelation and lhun grub visions, where everyone will see classic Greco-Buddhist seated Buddhas and other Buddhist imagery.

[stefos]

Even in the Pali canon, deities typically associated with "Hinduism", made pledges to be protectors of the buddhadharma and its followers. Calling to them for help or even venerating them is applicable in Buddhism.

 

 

Haha, you know according to one of the "Jataka Tales": in one of his animal lives in his bodhisatta career (as a partridge), he was teaching the Vedas to a group of Brahmins, before being killed by a jealous ascetic who turned out to be Devadatta in a previous lifetime.

 

 

I would just follow the advice and instructions of my guru (in your case ChNN), since in the end, conceptual knowledge belongs to the relative sphere which is unable to penetrate through to direct experience. Cultivation entails transcending conceptual constructs in order to reach the ultimate, right? You already have conviction in ChNN and Dzogchen, correct? So what's the use in studying the conceptual baggage of the lower yanas if you already have confidence in what ChNN teaches?

 

To me it's no "trouble" to view what the Theras teach.

 

Nor do I deny what ChNN teaches either!

 

The point is: Do these 2 coincide? Are the Theras teaching something older & thus more truer to Buddha's actual words?

 

Dzogchen says: "Essence = Emptiness" "Clarity = Unimpeded mental contact" "Energy = Thoughts/emotions & the state of no thoughts/emotions"

 

Jhanic experience seems to say the same thing BUT I must investigate this further.

 

So, I am visiting a Sri Lankan Theravada monk on 9/9 (U.S.Date) to ask deep & fundamental questions.

 

Thank you!

 

stefos,

 

The main problem you have is that you view Buddhadharma as a man-made religion.

 

Buddhadharma is the only divine religion. Many things point to that including terma revelation and lhun grub visions, where everyone will see classic Greco-Buddhist seated Buddhas and other Buddhist imagery.

 

The main problem sir, is "What actually is REAL Buddhadharma?"

 

I'm not denying people's experiences or experience but that experience can also be merely a rung on the ladder!

 

So, Theravada states one Ultimate, Dzogchen states another Ultimate.....Do these 2 coincide?

If not, Someone somewhere must be suspect, not to mention that the Pali texts are part of the tradition of the Theras & not the pre-schism Sangha!

[RongzomFan]

Do these 2 coincide?

 

nO.

[RongzomFan]

Read "Togden Shakya Shri: The Life and Liberation of a Tibetan Yogin "

 

Everything will be clear to you.

[Simple_Jack]

Dzogchen says: "Essence = Emptiness" "Clarity = Unimpeded mental contact" "Energy = Thoughts/emotions & the state of no thoughts/emotions"

 

Jhanic experience seems to say the same thing BUT I must investigate this further.

 

Jhana states does not apply to Dzogchen or Vajrayana as a whole. I'm sure you've already read ChNN's books, so just review "The Crystal And The Way Of Light".

 

 

The main problem sir, is "What actually is REAL Buddhadharma?"

 

I'm not denying people's experiences or experience but that experience can also be merely a rung on the ladder!

 

So, Theravada states one Ultimate, Dzogchen states another Ultimate.....Do these 2 coincide?

If not, Someone somewhere must be suspect, not to mention that the Pali texts are part of the tradition of the Theras & not the pre-schism Sangha!

 

First you have to drop the Western Abrahamic perspective of upholding a "real" doctrine or of possessing a "truer" expression of the ultimate when studying Dharmic traditions (or any Far Eastern religion really); while also putting aside Theravadin sectarianism. You should read Rajiv Malhotra's "Being Different"*.

 

Again it's not that the goals of Hinayana and Mahayana [using this as an umbrella term for all sects] are fundamentally different, but it's a matter of degree or depth of perception of the ultimate and its relation to the path and fruit of practice(s). The POV of the Dzogchen tantras has already been explained here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=404828

 

*Here's an article to give you an idea of what's covered in "Being Different": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/religious-difference-with-mutual-respect_b_1165589.html

Edited August 22, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[stefos]

Hi everyone,

 

I thank you for your participation. I appreciate your insights but beg to differ.

 

Sectarianism is alive & well, even from the Dzogchen standpoint! Moot point.

 

Be Well!

 

Stefos

[Simple_Jack]

Sectarianism is alive & well, even from the Dzogchen standpoint! Moot point.

 

Even in the predominantly Theravadin countries, according to Dr. Wapola Rahula, there are those who take vows to become buddhas:

 

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha126.htm

 

"In the 12th Century AD., in Myanmar (a strictly Theravada country), King Alaungsithu of Pagan, after building Shwegugyi Temple, set up an inscription in Pali verse to record this act of piety in which he publicly declared his resolution to become a Buddha and not a Sravaka.

 

In Sri Lanka, in the 10th Century, King Mahinda IV (956-972 AD.) in an inscription proclaimed that "none but the Bodhisattvas would become kings of Sri Lanka (Ceylon)". Thus it was believed that kings of Sri Lanka were Bodhisattvas.

 

A Thera named Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya who wrote the Milinda-Tika (about the 12th Century AD.) in the Theravada tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura, says at the end of the book in the colophon that he aspires to become a Buddha: Buddho Bhaveyyam "May I become a Buddha," which means that this author is a Bodhisattva.

 

We come across at the end of some palm leaf manuscripts of Buddhist texts in Sri Lanka the names of even a few copyists who have recorded their wish to become Buddhas, and they too are to be considered as Bodhisattvas. At the end of a religious ceremony or an act of piety, the bhikkhu who gives benedictions, usually admonishes the congregation to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realising one of the three Bodhis - Sravakabodhi, Pratyekabodhi or Samyaksambodhi - as they wish according to their capacity."

 

I don't think there was ever this polarizing attitude (between what we now refer to as "Hinayana" and "Mahayana") in Medieval India, especially if we take into account the curriculum's of the monastic universities such as Nalanda: where Hinayana and Mahayana were taught together.

 

In Mahayana Buddhism [using this as an umbrella term] all the lower vehicles build off of each other and culminate into the buddha vehicle which encompasses the rest. From the perspective of the buddha vehicle: they're all just means to mature sentient beings, of differing capacities, to the state of buddhahood.