E-Learning Programs

I think the Brahmaviharas are a very good unifying point, and in fact one perhaps often overlooked by the Mahayana who so often seem to view the sravakayana followers as 'selfish' and devoid of compassion. The teachings on karuna and metta in the suttapitaka, not only of Theravada but what can also be seen from the other early schools in the Chinese Agamas, are at times perhaps unifying enough for them to be considered as Mahayana teachings. It may have been Chogyam Trungpa who talked about the attitude of Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana may be help by anyone of any school. Thus a selfish tantric practitioner may in fact be really 'Hinayana', and a compassionate Theravadin 'Mahayana'.

Dear DWallez,

Agree with you. If we dwell into all branches of buddhism (theravada/mahayana/vajrayana), there is a very strong emphasis on the concept of understanding, and realising the "self". I may be not be accurate in saying this, but the achieving of enlightenment would be the true aim of any buddhist.

Accesstoinsight is a very good site, and there is a ipad/ipod version too, which is something you can download and carry around.

Regards,

Wong

The link is interesting, while hardly surprising...

Mahayana schools departed more or less substantially from early teachings, but they usually see themselves as an evolution, a new (better?) formulation of an old Truth, an adaptation to new forms of society, but they usually accept the Tripitaka as a reference. They may not rely exclusively on it, may not rely on it at all (if you think of Pure Land buddhism, some might even reject mindfulness cultivation as a likely waste of time in our age of decadence... during which there is no hope to reach Enlightenment on this plane of existence on Earth... but by doing so, they still justify why they do not follow particular precepts or sutras of the original Suttapitaka, i.e. they still use the Tripitaka as their reference point).

Basically most Mahayana schools would consider themselves "higher" than Theravada BUT the sense of this is that they're built "on top of" it. Theravada represents the foundation on which the rest of the constructions stands. There is no Mahayana school without reference to the original teachings, and Theravada made it its job to maintain and transmit these as faithfully as they could. As such, there is little contradiction.

The Abhidhamma probably is the part least shared with Mahayana, given the Mahayana schools developed their own interpretations of the suttas. From my perspective, this is the key point: Theravada and Mahayana developed their interpretations of the same suttas. If you consider that the interpretation, rather than the original suttas, is key then you can oppose the schools one to another. If you see the common point (the suttas), then all the schools are pretty unified.
I don't think Buddha taught of excluding other schools while claiming "my" school is the right, legitimate, one. Isn't splitting the sangha one of the worst possible acts for a monk? I know, I know, each split comes with both sides claiming to carry on with the "real" teachings... but it remains important for us to be inclusive. We all rely on the initial understanding of dukkha.

[another useful related reading: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html]

Dear LC,
I read thru the material sharing by you. That is good reference. Thank you

With metta,
gaik yen