Why so few Buddhists?

[kit]

Mettha and blessings to all.

 

[Gracchus]

One thing that should be recognized is that whatever school of Buddhism you espouse is irrelevant once you have attained enlightenment. All schools of Buddhism are means to that end, and are variously effective among various types of people.

I heard a story about the Dalai Lama some years ago who was asked about the "Eight-fold Path". He said, "Well the first is the path of right thought... I forget the rest." Like the scaffolding used in building, Buddhism can be discarded when enlightenment has been attained.

Religion hampers the attainment of enlightenment because enlightenment entails the relinquishing of dogma and presupposition, and almost all religions demand belief in a dogma.

Buddhism is a finger pointing at the moon. Having seen and recognized the moon, it is not irreverent or blasphemous to use your finger to pick your nose or wipe your ass.

 

[kit]

I do think we would all agree with your first paragraph gracchus.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste gracchus,

thank you for the post.

that is quite correct. this is, by the by, precisely the reason that Buddhas use Buddha dharmas to teach the Dharma. once a being has reached the Other Shore, they no longer need the raft

metta,

~v

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste kit,

thank you for the post.

I don't think it is a mistaken view.

to view the Theraveda school as somehow "lesser" is a mistaken view in my estimation. this is more a product of cultural elitism than anything else. you are, of course, free to disagree.

Misconceptions arise from the term Hinayana. (Namely that our School is really only for Bikkhus). It does become something of an insult. I myself tend to see it that way.

that is unfortunate since the term is not meant in such a manner. in the overall view of Yanas, it seems unusal to preclude the Theravedan school, as such, the first Yana is ascribed to their view. that is not to say, however, that the Theravedan school was the initial school it is, however, the only extant school of the Hinyana tenet systems.

Of course Vajrayana has distinctives that noticeably differentiate it from other schools. I fail to see how tantric features somehow separate Vajrayana from the overall concept of MAHAyana.

have you studied much of the Vajrayana tantric teachings? as a being moves through the higher tantric teachings, many things which are part and parcel of normative Mahayana practice are left behind and, from that point of view, can no longer be properly categorized as Mahayana.

the other main difference is in the exposition of sunyata and how it applies to the teachings which, generally, is revealed through the philosophical schools associated with each tradition.

metta,

~v

 

[kit]

I have studied a bit about vajrayana. There certainly are esoteric aspects to be sure. That doesn't though seem to take it out of the Mahayana.

Are you positing that Tantra is "Hinayana"?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Kit,

thank you for the post.

I have studied a bit about vajrayana. There certainly are esoteric aspects to be sure. That doesn't though seem to take it out of the Mahayana.

it is more of a difference in scale than in doctrine, to be sure. to some extent, there isn't really much of an issue to conflate the two Yanas together, especially in casual conversation as we are having here.

Are you positing that Tantra is "Hinayana"?

oh, not at all the Tantric teachings are not found in the Pali canon in any explicit manner.

metta,

~v

 

[CarpathoRusyn]

Count me in!

 

[MooTipping]

Why aren't there Buddhist on Christian forums? Well...because Christian forums generally attract more...well.. Christians, than Buddhists.

I'm Buddhist. And there is a Buddhist forum..somewhere.

 

[kit]

The Pali canon is not what defines the term Hinayana. It is more co-incidence that the Pali canon is the the scripture of the Theravada whom some say is within "Hiniyana". Virtually by definition if Tantra isn't in Mahayana then it is de fact Hiniyana.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste kit,

oh, i agree, it is simply the way it is, not a proper definition of such.

the tantric teachings are part of the Vajrayana which is, in some sense, a super-set of the Mahayana canon. one of the interesting things about the Tibetan canon is that includes the full Pali canon along with the full Chinese canon, essentially (for non-Buddhists) the full Hinyana and Mahayana scriptures, along with various commentaries from different Buddhist figures in history.

for non-buddhists, i suspect the differences are not all that apparent

metta,

~v

 

[Aradia]

The Pali canon is not what defines the term Hinayana. It is more co-incidence that the Pali canon is the the scripture of the Theravada whom some say is within "Hiniyana". Virtually by definition if Tantra isn't in Mahayana then it is de fact Hiniyana.

If I may come out of my slumber momentarily, I might agree with some points and disagree with others (vaj should be used to this by now! =).

Hinayana is certainly a pejorative, however it ought not be applied to theravada. The pali "hina" means inferior, lowly, bad, et cetera. The term came about because the mahayanists who broke away viewed the school they opposed as being bad. But the school in opposition was not theravada, but rather another of the no-longer-extant schools.

At the same time, a bit of understanding is needed when confronted with the term. When it was translated into tibetan, it took on slightly different connotations (sorry, I don't recall the tibetan). This is whence the "common" non-pejorative usage stems. It differentiates the practice of (the tibetan translation of) hinayana with the practice of mahayana. However, this refers to practice only, and not to any particular schools.

As far as vajrayana goes, it's a false dilemma to claim that not being mayahana automatically makes it hinayana. Likewise, not being hinayana doesn't automatically make it mahayana.