The Differences Between Theravada And Mahayana Buddhism

[matt888]

hello,

I am new to Buddhism and want to learn more, I am interested in hearing all of your views about the differences between the two main branches of Buddhism - Theravada and Mahayana.

thanks,

Matt

[mizzi39]

Sorry!

Edited July 8, 2009 by mizzi39

[mizzi39]

Theravada - Mahayana Buddhism

Ven. Dr. W. Rahula

(From: "Gems of Buddhist Wisdom",

Buddhist Missionary Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1996)

Let us discuss a question often asked by many people: What is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism? To see things in their proper perspective, let us turn to the history of Buddhism and trace the emergence and development of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism.

The Buddha was born in the 6th Century B.C. After attaining Enlightenment at the age of 35 until his Mahaparinibbana at the age of 80, he spent his life preaching and teaching. He was certainly one of the most energetic man who ever lived: for forty-five years he taught and preached day and night, sleeping for only about 2 hours a day.

The Buddha spoke to all kinds of people: kings and princes, Brahmins, farmers, beggars, learned men and ordinary people. His teachings were tailored to the experiences, levels of understanding and mental capacity of his audience. What he taught was called

Buddha

Vacana,

i.e. word of the Buddha. There was nothing called Theravada or Mahayana at that time.

After establishing the Order of monks and nuns, the Buddha laid down certain disciplinary rules called the

Vinaya

for the guidance of the Order. The rest of his teachings were called the

Dhamma

which included his discourses, sermons to monks, nuns and lay people.

The First Council

Three months after the Buddha's

Mahaparinibbana,

his immediate disciples convened a council at Rajagaha. Maha Kassapa, the most respected and elderly monk, presided at the Council. Two very important personalities who specialised in the two different areas - the

Dhamma

and the

Vinaya -

were present. One was Ananda, the closest constant companion and disciple of the Buddha for 25 years. Endowed with a remarkable memory, Ananda was able to recite what was spoken by the Buddha. The other personality was Upali who remembered all the

Vinaya

rules.

Only these two sections - the

Dhamma

and the

Vinaya -

were recited at the First Council. Though there were no differences of opinion on the

Dhamma

(no mention of the

Abhidhamma)

there was some discussion about the

Vinaya

rules. Before the Buddha's

Parinibbana,

he had told Ananda that if the

Sangha

wished to amend or modify some minor rules, they could do so. But on that occasion Ananda was so overpowered with grief because the Buddha was about to die that it did not occur to him to ask the Master what the minor rules were. As the members of the Council were unable to agree as to what constituted the minor rules, Maha Kassapa finally ruled that no disciplinary rule laid down by the Buddha should be changed, and no new ones should be introduced. No intrinsic reason was given. Maha Kassapa did say one thing, however: "If we changed the rules, people will say that Ven. Gotama's disciples changed the rules even before his funeral fire has ceased burning."

At the Council, the

Dhamma

was divided into various parts and each part was assigned to an Elder and his pupils to commit to memory. The

Dhamma

was then passed on from teacher to pupil orally. The

Dhamma

was recited daily by groups of people who often cross check with each other to ensure that no omissions or additions were made. Historians agree that the oral tradition is more reliable than a report written by one person from his memory several years after the event.

The Second Council

One hundred years later, the Second Council was held to discuss some

Vinaya

rules. There was no need to change the rules three months after the

Parinibbana of

the Buddha because little or no political, economic or social changes took place during that short interval. But 100 years later, some monks saw the need to change certain minor rules. The orthodox monks said that nothing should be changed while the others insisted on modifying some rules, Finally, a group of monks left the Council and formed the

Mahasanghika -

the Great Community. Even though it was called the

Mahasanghika,

it was not known as Mahayana, And in the Second Council, only matters pertaining to the

Vinaya

were discussed and no controversy about the

Dhamma

is reported,

The Third Council

In the 3rd Century B.C. during the time of Emperor Asoka, the Third Council was held to discuss the differences of opinion among the bhikkhus of different sects. At this Council the differences were not confined to the

Vinaya

but were also connected with the

Dhamma.

At the end of this Council, the President of the Council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book called the

Kathavatthu

refuting the heretical, false views and theories held by some sects. The teaching approved and accepted by this Council was known as

Theravada. The

Abhidhamma Pitaka

was included at this Council.

After the Third Council, Asoka's son, Ven. Mahinda, brought the

Tripitaka

to Sri Lanka, along with the commentaries that were recited at the Third Council. The texts brought to Sri Lanka were preserved until today without losing a page. The texts were written in Pali which was based on the Magadhi language spoken by the Buddha. There was nothing known as

Mahayana

at that time.

Coming of Mahayana

Between the 1st Century B.C. to the 1st Century A.D., the two terms Mahayana and Hinayana appeared in the

Saddharma Pundarika Sutra

or the Sutra of the Lotus of the Good Law.

About the 2nd Century A.D.

Mahayana

became clearly defined. Nagarjuna developed the

Mahayana

philosophy of Sunyata and proved that everything is Void in a small text called

Madhyamika-karika.

About the 4th Century, there were Asanga and Vasubandhu who wrote enormous amount of works on

Mahayana.

After the 1st Century AD., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then the terms of

Mahayana

and

Hinayana

were introduced.

We must not confuse

Hinayana

with

Theravada

because the terms are not synonymous.

Theravada

Buddhism went to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C. when there was no

Mahayana

at all.

Hinayana

sects developed in India and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka. Today there is no

Hinayana

sect in existence anywhere in the world. Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo unanimously decided that the term

Hinayana

should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc. This is the brief history of

Theravada, Mahayana

and

Hinayana.

Mahayana and Theravada

Now, what is the difference between

Mahayana and Theravada?

I have studied Mahayana for many years and the more I study it, the more I find there is hardly any difference between

Theravada and Mahayana with

regard to the fundamental teachings.

- Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.

- The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.

- The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.

-

The

Paticca-samuppada

or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.

- Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.

- Both accept

Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta

and

Sila,

Samadhi, Panna

without any difference.

These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question.

There are also some points where they differ. An obvious one is the

Bodhisattva

ideal. Many people say that

Mahayana

is for the

Bodhisattvahood

which leads to Buddhahood while

Theravada

is for Arahantship. I must point out that the Buddha was also an Arahant. Pacceka Buddha is also an Arahant. A disciple can also be an Arahant. The Mahayana texts never use the term Arahant-yana, Arahant Vehicle. They used three terms:

Bodhisattvayana, Prateka-Buddhayana, and Sravakayana.

In the Theravada tradition these three are called

Bodhis.

Some people imagine that Theravada is selfish because it teaches that people should seek their own salvation. But how can a selfish person gain Enlightenment? Both schools accept the three Yanas or

Bodhis

but consider the

Bodhisattva

ideal as the highest. The

Mahayana

has created many mystical

Bodhisattvas

while the

Theravada

considers a

Bodhisattva

as a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, ultimately becoming a fully Enlightened Buddha for the welfare of the world, for the happiness of the world.

Three Types of Buddhahood

There are three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple. The attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two.

Some people think that Voidness or

Sunyata

discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a

Mahayana

teaching. It is based on the idea of

Anatta

or non-self, on the

Paticcasamuppada

or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word

Sunya.

What is

Sunya?"

The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty." This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book,

"Madhyamika Karika".

Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

Ven. Dr. W. Rahula

hope this helps!

Edited July 8, 2009 by camerata
Fixed broken html.

[rockyysdt]

Thanks Mizzie.

Aren't there other differences as well such as the style of meditation practiced.

I was under the impression that Theravada Buddhism favored continuous "self awareness meditation" by focusing on oneself in daily life, whilst Mahayana concentrates on "silent sitting meditation".

Is this incorrect?

[Xangsamhua]

hello,

I am new to Buddhism and want to learn more, I am interested in hearing all of your views about the differences between the two main branches of Buddhism - Theravada and Mahayana.

thanks,

Matt

Thanks for the topic, matt888. I'm pretty unclear on a lot of things, too, so I found the Ven. Rahula summary posted by mizzi39 quite helpful.

From what I can gather, Mahayana is more elaborated than Theravada. There seems to be a lot of mythology, especially in Tibetan Buddhism - lots of heavens and gods and demons, though presumably much of this can be set aside if one wanted to. (I can't see Matthieu Ricard, for example, going in for that kind of thing.)

There has been much adaptation to the cultures and ways of thinking of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam and that has developed multiple schools and traditions in Mahayana. For example, traditional Bon religion has influenced Tibetan Buddhism, and Taoism and Confucianism gave the Zen schools some of their character (though Zen was brought from India by Bodhidhamma). Buddhism came to Tibet via China.

Though the Bodhisatva ideal may be common to both Mahayana and Theravada, it seems to me to be given more emphasis in the former.

Women seem to have higher status in Mahayana and can be ordained as Bhikkhunis. This is now also available in the Sri Lankan Syamnikaya school, but not in Thailand and the other Theravada nations. Ironically, the Syamnikaya was founded by a Thai monk who went to Sri Lanka in the 18th century.

Philosophical issues, e.g. over the meanings of anatta and sunyata, are probably common to both vehicles, though I discovered today that the Prajnaparamita is a Mahayana sutra that, according to Edward Conze, teaches that:

One should become a bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.

There is no such thing as a bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a 'being', or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment. To accept both of these contradictory facts is to be perfect.' (Wikipedia article: Prajnaparamita)

Mahayana, especially Zen, seems to delight in paradoxes or sometimes apparently mutually contradictory propositions.

Santi Asoke is a heterodox, though lively, sect in Thailand outside the main sangha, and presents itself as a fusion of Theravada and Mahayana. It uses the label "Buddhism with open eyes", a slogan that can refer to open-mindedness and breadth of vision, or to its de-emphasizing of sitting meditation in favour of constant mindfulness, rather like the teaching of Thich Nhat Hanh. (Please note, this may be a rather impressionistic view of Santi Asoke.)

Please note also that TNH does not disparage sitting meditation. It is a part of his monastic discipline, but not a big one. I think some Mahayana schools do a lot of it, e.g. Rinzai and Soto Zen in Japan. Tenzin Palmo, the extraordinary (English) Tibetan Buddhist nun, meditated for over 12 hours a day for 12 years in a North Indian mountain cave from 1976 - 1988.

[camerata]

Women seem to have higher status in Mahayana and can be ordained as Bhikkhunis.

Not in all schools, though. From Tenzin Palmo's Wiki bio: "The ordination was as a shramanerika, or novice nun, the highest level of ordination currently available for women in the Tibetan tradition where the bhikshuni sangha has died out. However, with the support of her teacher, in 1973 Tenzin Palmo received the full bhikshuni ordination in Hong Kong, one of the first Western women to do so."

A quote from her reminds me that Mahayana is big on vows (even the buddhas make Great Vows): "I have made a vow to attain Enlightenment in the female form - no matter how many lifetimes it takes."

[matt888]

thanks alot for that mizzi39, thats exactly what i was looking for. Very helpful.

Matt

[matt888]

I hope people continue this discussion as things are finally becoming a bit clearer to me! I have friends in Manchester UK who practice under the guidence of Lama Jampa Thaye who is trained in the Sakya and Karma Kagyu traditions of Buddhism. The reason why i created this topic was because a few of them dont speak to highly of Thai Buddhism, I never really challenged this to much as i know very little on the subject, so dont (hopefully soon didn't!) have a foot to stand on, the general feeling I got from them is that Thai Buddhism is quite conservative/strict/rigid. I live in Thailand so obviously it would be easier for me to start learning/practicing here, but didn't want to go down the wrong path!

again big thanks to everyone who has made an imput to the discussion.........

[mizzi39]

Thanks Mizzie.

Aren't there other differences as well such as the style of meditation practiced.

I was under the impression that Theravada Buddhism favored continuous "self awareness meditation" by focusing on oneself in daily life, whilst Mahayana concentrates on "silent sitting meditation".

Is this incorrect?

You are probably correct rockyysdt. I am no way an authority on Buddhism. What I posted (pasted) I read sometime ago and decided to bookmark the page since I asked the same question myself.

my wife is a devout Buddhist and since she is Thai, follows Theravada. She will sit for 2 hours in meditation, and tries to practice mindfulness throughout her day. (not always easy with our 1 year old son) I would assume that both schools focus on both meditation practices, but i could be incorrect.

[camerata]

I don't think you can lump all Mahayana meditation styles together. After all, the raison d'etre of Mahayana is that different people need different ways to reach enlightenment. Theravada meditation is mainly divided into samatha ("calming") and vipassana ("insight") meditation. Plus there is metta (loving-kindness) meditation, etc. Tibetan sects use "deity visualization" meditation, as does Chinese Pure land. One Japanese Zen sect uses "just sitting" meditation. Some sects use chanting rather than meditation. Some focus on receiving the grace of a buddha.

[rockyysdt]

I don't think you can lump all Mahayana meditation styles together. After all, the raison d'etre of Mahayana is that different people need different ways to reach enlightenment. Theravada meditation is mainly divided into samatha ("calming") and vipassana ("insight") meditation. Plus there is metta (loving-kindness) meditation, etc. Tibetan sects use "deity visualization" meditation, as does Chinese Pure land. One Japanese Zen sect uses "just sitting" meditation. Some sects use chanting rather than meditation. Some focus on receiving the grace of a buddha.

As Matt888 hinted, which one (Mahayana or Theravada ) should we follow, or is it best to keep away from politics & stick to the original teachings of Buddha, as well as gravitate to the meditation style you're comfortable with?

If the latter would receiving instruction from one or the other camp compromise your journey?

Edited July 9, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

As Matt888 hinted, which one (Mahayana or Theravada ) should we follow, or is it best to keep away from politics & stick to the original teachings of Buddha, as well as gravitate to the meditation style you're comfortable with?

If the latter would receiving instruction from one or the other camp compromise your journey?

I think it's really a personal choice depending on what drew you to Buddhism and what you want to get out of it. For me, it was Sakyamuni who discovered nibbana for the first time in recorded human history, so what he said is of the most interest to me. On the other hand, hardly any of us are making a serious effort to become a sotapanna, so I guess what's important is whether the practice you choose gives you the results you want.

Meditation isn't easy. Mixing styles from different sects would probably confuse you or at least slow you down if you are new to it. Still, famous Buddhists like Jack Kornfield have tried many different styles. As it happens, he's a proponent of vipassana.

I've come across some Buddhists who just didn't seem to get into regular meditation and they just do metta meditation.

[phetaroi]

As Matt888 hinted, which one (Mahayana or Theravada ) should we follow, or is it best to keep away from politics & stick to the original teachings of Buddha, as well as gravitate to the meditation style you're comfortable with?

If the latter would receiving instruction from one or the other camp compromise your journey?

I can only speak for myself here. I see different faiths (for example, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam) as spheres of teaching. I have chosen the Buddhist sphere of understanding, and within that sphere I choose to follow "Thai Buddhism". However, I am also open to "truth", and if the truth also leads me to Mahayana Buddhism, so be it. Christianity, so be it. Islam, so be it.

There are those in this group who are seeking nirvanna. I am seeking perfection of morality, and that is, of course, a very broad topic.

[fabianfred]

As Matt888 hinted, which one (Mahayana or Theravada ) should we follow, or is it best to keep away from politics & stick to the original teachings of Buddha, as well as gravitate to the meditation style you're comfortable with?

If the latter would receiving instruction from one or the other camp compromise your journey?

I think it's really a personal choice depending on what drew you to Buddhism and what you want to get out of it. For me, it was Sakyamuni who discovered nibbana for the first time in recorded human history, so what he said is of the most interest to me. On the other hand, hardly any of us are making a serious effort to become a sotapanna, so I guess what's important is whether the practice you choose gives you the results you want.

Meditation isn't easy. Mixing styles from different sects would probably confuse you or at least slow you down if you are new to it. Still, famous Buddhists like Jack Kornfield have tried many different styles. As it happens, he's a proponent of vipassana.

I've come across some Buddhists who just didn't seem to get into regular meditation and they just do metta meditation.

I thought we were all seriously trying to reach the safety of Sotapanna in this very life............ a much more reachable goal than aiming for Arahant .....

As far as Western Tibetan Buddhists who like to disparage Thai Buddhism.......... well we all assume we are on the correct path don't we...... when in fact there are several paths to the same goal....... personally I think it is the Mahayana tradition who have gone astray...

Why do they assume that their Boddisatva path....in which they vow to not enter Nirvana until all other beings have.... is superior to the theravada...who go for personal freedom as Arahant...?

Considering that the VAST majority of beings exist in the lower realms..... they are going to be waiting a long time.... standing just outside Nirvana and holding the door open for others....

And why do they assume that an Arahant...after his/her Parinibbana....cannot return to help other beings? Of course such an arahant would not take re-birth.... since they have escaped from Samsara.... but they still exist.... in a state incomprehensible to us putuchon....and can take on human form to come and teach those who would benefit from it.

[camerata]

And why do they assume that an Arahant...after his/her Parinibbana....cannot return to help other beings? Of course such an arahant would not take re-birth.... since they have escaped from Samsara.... but they still exist.... in a state incomprehensible to us putuchon....and can take on human form to come and teach those who would benefit from it.

Do you have a scriptural reference for the idea of arahants being able to take on human form after Parinibbana, Fred? I don't recall seeing one.

[mizzi39]

Choose your own path and be a light unto yourself. After all isn't that what Buddhism is all about? Not being a follower? I think calling or referring to yourself as a Buddhist divides you from the rest of humanity, and is no different than saying "I am Christian", I am Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, American, British, Italian, French, A free mason etc, etc, etc. Unless you have adopted or practice Buddhism as a religion, why would a person want to refer to themselves as a Buddhist? To belong to a tribe? To me this is nothing more than tribal mentality that divides people, and no matter how peaceful "a tribe" you are, tribal mentalities are counterproductive, and destructive.

[fabianfred]

And why do they assume that an Arahant...after his/her Parinibbana....cannot return to help other beings? Of course such an arahant would not take re-birth.... since they have escaped from Samsara.... but they still exist.... in a state incomprehensible to us putuchon....and can take on human form to come and teach those who would benefit from it.

Do you have a scriptural reference for the idea of arahants being able to take on human form after Parinibbana, Fred? I don't recall seeing one.

sorry..i do not....

An important part of my education on Thai Buddhism with particular emphasis on the laws of karma comes from reading the Thai books about the life of Luang Por Jaran...the Abbot of Wat Ampawan, Singhburi. In these there are many stories...

http://www.geocities.com/piyapane/ this site has a few english translations

Read Book 1....................the lady with two bodies ...refers to an Arahant (Phra Malai) who visits the hel_l realms

Luang Por's own teacher was an Arahant who he called 'the monk in the forest'... an Arahant who appeared now and then.....waiting for him to be ready to teach.... living for hundreds of years (if a real person)

perhaps i am wrong to say 'take on human form'....but what i mean is that they can make themselves known to beings in various realms in samsara for purposes of teaching..... not that once they have died they are moving on and never to be seen from again....... who are we to know about what the capabilities are of a being that has reached the state of nirvana.....

Edited July 10, 2009 by fabianfred

[phetaroi]

I thought we were all seriously trying to reach the safety of Sotapanna in this very life............ a much more reachable goal than aiming for Arahant .....

First of all, and this is a serious question -- who is the "we" you are referring to here? For myself, I'm just in the learning phase and trying to live a more moral life (not that I've done that badly in the past).

Edited July 11, 2009 by camerata
Fixed quotes.

[fabianfred]

I thought we were all seriously trying to reach the safety of Sotapanna in this very life............ a much more reachable goal than aiming for Arahant .....

First of all, and this is a serious question -- who is the "we" you are referring to here? For myself, I'm just in the learning phase and trying to live a more moral life (not that I've done that badly in the past).

Even the monks are often guilty of putting Nirvana on too high a shelf..... something for 'the future'...a distant but attainable thing...... women are told....yes they can attain nirvana....just make lots of merit, die, then be reborn male and become a monk...... utter rubbish..

Although reaching nirvana in a single lifetime is extremely difficult...we can and should aim for sotapanna in this very lifetime..... a much more attainable goal.

That is why we need to realise what a precarious position we are in....... the true dhamma is getting harder to find......just doing good and getting reborn in heaven is no use....we may come back after a few thousand years and find the dhamma lost again...

[Xangsamhua]

And why do they assume that an Arahant...after his/her Parinibbana....cannot return to help other beings? Of course such an arahant would not take re-birth.... since they have escaped from Samsara.... but they still exist.... in a state incomprehensible to us putuchon....and can take on human form to come and teach those who would benefit from it.

Do you have a scriptural reference for the idea of arahants being able to take on human form after Parinibbana, Fred? I don't recall seeing one.

sorry..i do not....

An important part of my education on Thai Buddhism with particular emphasis on the laws of karma comes from reading the Thai books about the life of Luang Por Jaran...the Abbot of Wat Ampawan, Singhburi. In these there are many stories...

http://www.geocities.com/piyapane/ this site has a few english translations

Read Book 1....................the lady with two bodies ...refers to an Arahant (Phra Malai) who visits the hel_l realms

Luang Por's own teacher was an Arahant who he called 'the monk in the forest'... an Arahant who appeared now and then.....waiting for him to be ready to teach.... living for hundreds of years (if a real person)

perhaps i am wrong to say 'take on human form'....but what i mean is that they can make themselves known to beings in various realms in samsara for purposes of teaching..... not that once they have died they are moving on and never to be seen from again....... who are we to know about what the capabilities are of a being that has reached the state of nirvana.....

Fred, how literally do you think we should take Luangpor Jaran's stories? I read three of his books a few years ago and thoroughly enjoyed them, but I think I did so because I took his stories as just ... stories - not real, credible events. Thai people believe these stories and repeat them with wide-eyed wonder, but I can't treat them the same way. I don't think the people who create the stories are charlatans, but to me the stories are just too many and too similar. They form a genre - the Thai transkinesis/return from the dead/manifestation of karmic justice, etc genre. I don't know where to fit them into my Western post-Enlightenment mindset. To believe them all would be too believe too much and too many, but I don't want to dismiss them all either.

[Samuian]

I don't think you can lump all Mahayana meditation styles together. After all, the raison d'etre of Mahayana is that different people need different ways to reach enlightenment. Theravada meditation is mainly divided into samatha ("calming") and vipassana ("insight") meditation. Plus there is metta (loving-kindness) meditation, etc. Tibetan sects use "deity visualization" meditation, as does Chinese Pure land. One Japanese Zen sect uses "just sitting" meditation. Some sects use chanting rather than meditation. Some focus on receiving the grace of a buddha.

thanks for this explanation to the audience!

It is very much as the roots, the stem, the leaves, the flower,

it's petals, the juice flowing in it, the minerals, the soil

the rain, the air, the sun and a myriad of other factors we not even "see" -

make the plant!

But we tend to "see" only the, to us, most important part of it, the flower!

If I may advise, the scholar may take great care of not getting carried away

by the branches, colors, and other sensations of the Buddha Vaccana caused

by it's myriads of interpretations and comments, but

to "dive" into it's very essence and explore it towards deeper understanding

and full comprehension of the very teachings!

It's the cherry, the taste of it and not the understanding why the cherry looks like this and tastes like that,

why there are black, red and yellow cherries, the cherry is the cherry, is the cherry!

Edited July 11, 2009 by Samuian

[fabianfred]

Fred, how literally do you think we should take Luangpor Jaran's stories? I read three of his books a few years ago and thoroughly enjoyed them, but I think I did so because I took his stories as just ... stories - not real, credible events. Thai people believe these stories and repeat them with wide-eyed wonder, but I can't treat them the same way. I don't think the people who create the stories are charlatans, but to me the stories are just too many and too similar. They form a genre - the Thai transkinesis/return from the dead/manifestation of karmic justice, etc genre. I don't know where to fit them into my Western post-Enlightenment mindset. To believe them all would be too believe too much and too many, but I don't want to dismiss them all either.

He is known for two main things...Vipassana meditation....and his temple is now a very large and busy centre for this....

and his knowledge about the laws of karma...and as you say...many tales of its workings and effects.

I would say that his popularity...and the attendance at his temple ..are directly related to all these books published about his life....virtually a biography...in Thai...

The workings of karma are deep...but very logical....

He is an Arahant....so he wouldn't make things up or lie...in order to be famous.

His many other studies and practices in various forms of meditation etc. have given him the ability to 'see' other beings karma........read their minds telepathically...and see their past lives...

He also studied Dhammkaya meditation with Luang Por Sod at Wat Pak nam....then studied Vipassana.... at the same time as Luang Por Sod did...( a little known fact...) at Wat Mahathat Bangkok.

He was also very detailed at keeping records of any and all experiences of his own and those that he came to know about from people who came to him at his temple.....so that he could use them to tell people about and give examples of the workings of karma.

The thai biography about his life is in six volumes.... not the simple Law of Karma series...of which only three got translated (in part) into English....here....

http://www.geocities.com/piyapane/

[Xangsamhua]

Fred, how literally do you think we should take Luangpor Jaran's stories? I read three of his books a few years ago and thoroughly enjoyed them, but I think I did so because I took his stories as just ... stories - not real, credible events. Thai people believe these stories and repeat them with wide-eyed wonder, but I can't treat them the same way. I don't think the people who create the stories are charlatans, but to me the stories are just too many and too similar. They form a genre - the Thai transkinesis/return from the dead/manifestation of karmic justice, etc genre. I don't know where to fit them into my Western post-Enlightenment mindset. To believe them all would be too believe too much and too many, but I don't want to dismiss them all either.

He is known for two main things...Vipassana meditation....and his temple is now a very large and busy centre for this....

and his knowledge about the laws of karma...and as you say...many tales of its workings and effects.

I would say that his popularity...and the attendance at his temple ..are directly related to all these books published about his life....virtually a biography...in Thai...

The workings of karma are deep...but very logical....

He is an Arahant....so he wouldn't make things up or lie...in order to be famous.

His many other studies and practices in various forms of meditation etc. have given him the ability to 'see' other beings karma........read their minds telepathically...and see their past lives...

He also studied Dhammkaya meditation with Luang Por Sod at Wat Pak nam....then studied Vipassana.... at the same time as Luang Por Sod did...( a little known fact...) at Wat Mahathat Bangkok.

He was also very detailed at keeping records of any and all experiences of his own and those that he came to know about from people who came to him at his temple.....so that he could use them to tell people about and give examples of the workings of karma.

The thai biography about his life is in six volumes.... not the simple Law of Karma series...of which only three got translated (in part) into English....here....

http://www.geocities.com/piyapane/

Thanks Fred

He's pretty impressive.

I certainly didn't think he was telling lies when I read the books. If I had thought that I wouldn't have enjoyed them. Basically, I didn't/don't know what to think about the stories and the role of these experiences in teaching.

It seems there are masters (non gender-specific) in different religious traditions who have these experiences and insights. We just have to be open to them and make judgements on the basis of the person's life and works.

[fabianfred]

If I recall correctly there are four types of Arahants....having attained to nirvana with differing abilities... and their special powers or attainments are not the same...... just as there are three varieties of Sammasambuddha....those who practiced as a Boddisatva for four/eight/ or sixteen Asongkaya...plus 100,000 Aeons

anyone who can read Thai should try his biography...I can recommend the books and tell all about them... only a half of one of them is translated into English. ... The Fruit of Karma... by Sudassa Onkhom

Edited July 11, 2009 by fabianfred

[fabianfred]

just looked it up... there are six degrees of Arahant....and three degrees of Sotapanna

[phetaroi]

If I recall correctly there are four types of Arahants....having attained to nirvana with differing abilities... and their special powers or attainments are not the same...... just as there are three varieties of Sammasambuddha....those who practiced as a Boddisatva for four/eight/ or sixteen Asongkaya...plus 100,000 Aeons

anyone who can read Thai should try his biography...I can recommend the books and tell all about them... only a half of one of them is translated into English. ... The Fruit of Karma... by Sudassa Onkhom

Fred, are you sure there are 100,000 Aeons? Not 95,000? Or 107,000? And just exactly who says?

[fabianfred]

If I recall correctly there are four types of Arahants....having attained to nirvana with differing abilities... and their special powers or attainments are not the same...... just as there are three varieties of Sammasambuddha....those who practiced as a Boddisatva for four/eight/ or sixteen Asongkaya...plus 100,000 Aeons

anyone who can read Thai should try his biography...I can recommend the books and tell all about them... only a half of one of them is translated into English. ... The Fruit of Karma... by Sudassa Onkhom

Fred, are you sure there are 100,000 Aeons? Not 95,000? Or 107,000? And just exactly who says?

In the scriptures it maintains that each fully enlightened Buddha practices the ten perfections as a Boddhisattva for an incalculable period......... either four/eight/or sixteen asongkaya...with a small amount of 100,000 aeons (mahakhappa) as interest.

An Aeon being equivalent to the duration from one big-bang to the next.

An Asongkaya is described in several ways..... some say 1 to the power of 140.... some say 10,000,000 to the power of ten.....whatever....they are called an incalculable period......

Whether it is 4 Asongkaya plus 100,000 years or lives or aeons.... it doesn't really matter..... all are unimaginably long.... so we must respect the Buddha for deciding to put up with all that time...stuck in samsara...for our benefit....when he might have chosen the easier path of ordaining as a monk and perhaps reaching Arahant in the life when he met the Buddha Dipankara.

[khaowong1]

Fred, how literally do you think we should take Luangpor Jaran's stories? I read three of his books a few years ago and thoroughly enjoyed them, but I think I did so because I took his stories as just ... stories - not real, credible events. Thai people believe these stories and repeat them with wide-eyed wonder, but I can't treat them the same way. I don't think the people who create the stories are charlatans, but to me the stories are just too many and too similar. They form a genre - the Thai transkinesis/return from the dead/manifestation of karmic justice, etc genre. I don't know where to fit them into my Western post-Enlightenment mindset. To believe them all would be too believe too much and too many, but I don't want to dismiss them all either.

He is known for two main things...Vipassana meditation....and his temple is now a very large and busy centre for this....

and his knowledge about the laws of karma...and as you say...many tales of its workings and effects.

I would say that his popularity...and the attendance at his temple ..are directly related to all these books published about his life....virtually a biography...in Thai...

The workings of karma are deep...but very logical....

He is an Arahant....so he wouldn't make things up or lie...in order to be famous.

His many other studies and practices in various forms of meditation etc. have given him the ability to 'see' other beings karma........read their minds telepathically...and see their past lives...

He also studied Dhammkaya meditation with Luang Por Sod at Wat Pak nam....then studied Vipassana.... at the same time as Luang Por Sod did...( a little known fact...) at Wat Mahathat Bangkok.

He was also very detailed at keeping records of any and all experiences of his own and those that he came to know about from people who came to him at his temple.....so that he could use them to tell people about and give examples of the workings of karma.

The thai biography about his life is in six volumes.... not the simple Law of Karma series...of which only three got translated (in part) into English....here....

http://www.geocities.com/piyapane/

thanks for the insight on Luang Poh Jarun.. I went to Wat Ambhavan in 2006 and wished him a Happy Birthday, and ended up staying for a 5 day meditation retreat... I have read nine of his books and really enjoy them.. I keep a copy of his book, Chanting Verses with me at all times and even refer to it now here at Wat Khao Lang in Lopburi...

[phetaroi]

In the scriptures it maintains that each fully enlightened Buddha practices the ten perfections as a Boddhisattva for an incalculable period......... either four/eight/or sixteen asongkaya...with a small amount of 100,000 aeons (mahakhappa) as interest.

An Aeon being equivalent to the duration from one big-bang to the next.

An Asongkaya is described in several ways..... some say 1 to the power of 140.... some say 10,000,000 to the power of ten.....whatever....they are called an incalculable period......

Whether it is 4 Asongkaya plus 100,000 years or lives or aeons.... it doesn't really matter..... all are unimaginably long.... so we must respect the Buddha for deciding to put up with all that time...stuck in samsara...for our benefit....when he might have chosen the easier path of ordaining as a monk and perhaps reaching Arahant in the life when he met the Buddha Dipankara.

Here is my point, and let me begin by saying that this is not a criticism, I am just trying to determine "where you are" in terms of Buddhist belief. It appears to me that you simply accept everything written in Buddhist scripture.

[camerata]

Although I myself don't accept everything written in (Theravada) Buddhist scripture, I've yet to see a coherent argument that doing so impedes the attainment of enlightenment. Quite the opposite, I would think.