How Is Theravada Buddhism Different from Mahayana Buddhism?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2021
- In this lecture, Prof Van Norden discusses the differences between Theravada Buddhism (dominant in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia) and Mahayana Buddhism (dominant in East Asia, including China and Japan). Recorded 15 March 2021 on Zoom.
Previous Lecture: Buddhism on No-Self, Reincarnation, and Language, • Buddhism on No-Self, R...
Following Lecture: Buddhism Comes to China, • Buddhism Comes to China
For more on the term "Hinayana," see Bhikkhu Analayo, "The Hīnayāna Fallacy," jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/arti....
For the Steely Dan song, "Boddhisattva" (which I played for my students prior to the lecture), see here: • Bodhisattva
0:55 Introducing my Cat Pinky
1:15 Overview of Theravāda vs. Mahāyāna
7:40 Arhat vs. Bodhisattva
12:52 Is it “Turtles All the Way Down”?
22:42 Upāya (Skillful Means)
30:43 Sexuality
32:58 Faith and Transfer of Merit
37:54 No-Self vs. No Individual Self - Домашні улюбленці та дикі тварини
Maybe this is part of a larger module that you elaborate on further in another video, but there are a few aspects of Pure Land Buddhism that I believe could use further clarification. Full disclosure: I am of partial Japanese descent and many of my family members follow the Japanese Pure Land school of Jodo Shinshu, so I accept that this may inform my perspective.
It was the understanding of Jodo Shinshu’s founder Shinran that the recitation of Amitabha’s name (nembutsu) was not an act of faith in Amitabha per se, but more of an outward expression of the futility of all deliberate self efforts toward achieving enlightenment, as these acts themselves were still viewed as a manifestation of attachment (a “desire” for one’s own salvation). Of course there is still an element of faith in Amitabha’s Primal Vow, but the greater emphasis is on acknowledging that no self efforts will bring one closer to enlightenment. Even the “practice” of nembutsu itself is not considered to generate karmic merit, but merely an expression of gratitude and a reminder to oneself. However, in some other Pure Land schools like Jodo-Shu, nembutsu is considered to generate merit.
Regarding the concept of the Pure Lands (Sukhavati in the case of Amitabha), while practitioners of Pure Land schools may seek to be reborn there and they are often described as heaven-like in nature, the end goal of liberation is still the same as in other Buddhist schools. The Pure Lands are viewed more as realms where achieving enlightenment is expedited or where the teachings of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can be better understood. This is especially important in Jodo Shinshu, as Shinran believed that the world was so karmically polluted that not even the most pious could truly pursue enlightenment within their lifetime. There may be an element of upaya in the promise of rebirth in a more pure realm, but the acknowledgement that it is not itself the ultimate goal sets it apart from the concept of a heaven in, for example, the Abrahamic faiths.
People interpret each religious tradition in different ways.
Currently taking my bachelors in history of religions, got a test on south and east asian religions on the 23rd. Your lectures and explanations for buddhism has been so valuable! It really shows how different it can be depending on how the professor structures and explains the information in their lectures. I have felt our lectures and course literature are lacking, me and friends have a hard time easily digesting what they are saying and writing. But this lecture basically set everything straight and i learned so much! Thank you professor Van Norden!
Thank you so much!
This could be the best lecture on Buddhism I heard so far in my life
Thank you!
Thank you professor for such clarity in your courses, i feel like a lost traveler in this huge eastern asian's philosophy, your help is much appreciated !
Excellent exposure! Thank you very much for sharing it!
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Professor, you talk is very informative and light-hearted too. A nice sense of humor with some of your personal stories mixed in creates an interesting talk for a topic that most other speakers have a hard time presenting.
Stay well
Thank you for your kind words!
Thank You for explaining the Nāgārjuna vs the Theravada. One of the most brilliant and simplest ever.
Thank you, Professor!
Mahayana has many good and inspiring insights even if I believe they go too far on certain things. Personally I compare the new texts to the Pali Canon and if the ideas do not contradict it I see it as being in the basic spirit of the Buddha. If it does I disregard it. That is my basic approach on this matter.
Nagarjuna's stance of reality (conditioned plus unconditioned) is wholly standing on philosophical-dialectical perspective that "nothing static or self-nature really intrinsically exists, hence 'empty' is based on the fundamental premise of conditionality, whereas the early Buddhist school such as Theravada approaches reality from experiential/contemplative side - if everything is ultimately empty, there is no longer a necessary to make any effort to develop direct insight into seeing their transient nature. Without seeing the true nature that paves the way to liberation, by conflating all phenomena as empty is nothing beyond a beautiful conceptual understanding.
BA in Religious Studies and a Masters in Religion here and these are genuinely the best lectures on the subject matter I've come across! One thing I'm still trying to figure out: I've heard the idea that the extreme realms (heaven and hell) are upaya before but what I can't figure out is whether or not that is a fairly standard opinion among practicing Buddhist philosophers/leaders traditionally or is that more of a modern development? Is it sort of like Plato's Noble Lie or an evolution of Buddhist teachings?
Thank you for your kind words! I think most lay Buddhists and even many monks and nuns think the stories of heavens and hells are literally true, but more sophisticated thinkers in the traditions know they are upaya. In fairness, I think most practicing Christians are confused about matters of theology that experts at the Vatican (say) would correct them on.
@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy makes sense to me! Thank you!
Great lecture, just confused about the turtles. Doesn't the paticcasammupada assert that the skhandas arise dependant on conditions, ie that they don't exist independently? Also aren't there many Mahayana traditions which teach of a ground reality or ground consciousness eg. rigpa in dzogchen, dharmakaya in mahamudra? I have heard many Theravada teachers find no contention with Nagarjuna's Shunyata, they assert it to be an upaya communicating anatta.
The skhandas are dependent but they have a svabhava (self-nature) according to Theravada. If you watch some of my later lectures, you will learn that some forms of Mahayana believe in a transpersonal reality, but they also stress that that reality does not have an independent self-nature.
Is this a neutrel and non-sectoral view of theravada and mahayana? i'm looking on objective views to help me decide which school i should follow. thanks so much for the video!
My intention was to be as non-sectarian and neutral as possible. I hope I achieved that.
Have you ever been a monk? Have you ever had a discussion with David Reynolds? David spent 30 yrs as a theravahda Buddhist monk. Not only that Dave is a intelligent person.
He sounds really interesting!
@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy he has a youtube ch. Pannobhasa. Does Q&A Usually on Sundays.
@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophy Oh he is very interesting guy. I listen to him. He can give great talk or interview with you.
Pardon my ignorance, but didn't Siddhartha Guatama teach, that once someone reaches enlightening, that they end their journey. As in they live no longer? If so, doesnt that imply Buddha etc are no longer in existence after they pass away? Again, I am learning. So bare with me.
We don't know what Siddhartha Gautama taught. We only know what later people say he taught. Most have said that enlightenment does not lead to immediate death.
Mic drop. Logic is ok. Thank you sir.
@@BryanVanNordenPhilosophybs.
The answer, to after samsara, is out there, but they hide it. -// for what it's worth, I think the small stuff matters, therfore God is in all things.
Slight correction: Manjushri is the Bodhisattva of Prajna (Wisdom), Avalokiteshvara is the Bodhisattva of infinite compassion and mercy.
Thank you! "Those who correct me are my friends; those who flatter me are my enemies."
who cares, all made up mahayana story :D
I have seen people eliminate the "lesser and greater" yana appellations for "Sravakayana and Bodhisattvayana" which is a little more accurate for the two paths. Neither is "better."
Also, to perform nianfo (the recitation of Amiuofo) is just that; Amituofo being the Chinese word for Amitabha Buddha. The Western Pure Land is not a heaven per se but a training ground to become a Buddha - which sounds like fun to me; Earth kinda sucks.
Don't worry about being "enlightened" or whatever the hell that is supposed to really mean. Enter the stream (sotapanna) and the Dharma will never be lost to you no matter how many incarnations you endure.
Greetings from Northern Cali.
Namo Amituofo!
This is like an endless thought experiment to try and wrap one's head around what is buddhism and to try and sort it all out. It's honestly a lot of fun to geek out on, but it does go in circles. At least for me it used it.
There are two things that I think are useful.
1. Sources should only come from Suttas or Sutras. Things that are only directly from what the Buddha said. Commentaries, although wonderful and thought provoking and not necessarily wrong, can be cause confusion.
2. The start of buddhism should be to discern the difference between an Arahant and a Buddha, and what awakening is. Awakening is "seeing" dependent origination. Plain and simple. Both Buddhas and Arahants see dependent origination in its fullest. However what differs is their purification or skillful means. A Buddha is more well rounded, while Arahants can be rough around the edges, they can still have problematic personality traits etc. Having understood this, then the difference between the Hinayana and Mahayana is the goal of Arahatship vs a Buddha to be. Bodhisattvas are on the path to becoming Buddhas to be, so they are not awakened yet. So they will stick around in samsara to build up better successive rebirths before they cash in their chips. Now Vajrayana is a branch of Mahayana but is meant to have the means to speed up the skillful process (in therory).
So interestingly enough the term Hinayana is actually more acurate given the discrepancy in goals. I know it can be used in a derogatory way, but that's not what I'm doing here.
Sutras are not necessarily more authentic than commentaries, since many sutras are later forgeries.
How does one spell 'Theravada' in the Sanskrit Devanagari (or IAST)? I'm trying to make sure I have the pronunciation right.
थेरवाद thēravāda
@@sandeepteja8823 Thanks.
I love your series but Upaya sounds quite potentially dangerous - a sort of anything goes. Throw away the analytical rigor and accept everything as true.
Professor since you are not a buddhist how would you debate and prove that reality does exist? For you is it turtles all the way down or no? Is there a ground truth for you and if you have a paper or a video or a book discussing this where can I look at it? Thanks.
I agree that the doctrine of upaya can be used as a rationalization for saying just whatever is convenient.
22:20 "There has to be something real, in the sense of independently existing" - Independent of what, of everything? If that is the case, I am with the metaphysical view that there is only one thing. Otherwise you will always find some dependency...
In Theravada this world of form is real and something to escape.
In Mahayana this world of form is an illusion that must be seen as such.
Its like the difference between escaping from a real prison cell versus pretending the walls aren't real...so what is the point of escape?
Self realized "Enlightened" Buddha", understood the entire universal phenomena on how conscious energies behave, designs with help of universal elements, which human six sensory aggregates perceptions , eye, ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), & mind feeling senses. call subjects physical universes as objects, amalgamate & generate to a "energy " which will produce a " thought" become a life " energies " as 31 realms of existence in this solar system. Within strength of wisdom attitudes of conscious energy forms. According to Lord Buddha, Human form is unique of all other forms, because of completed "Human Brain" which capable to enlightenment . In this very Human life. In Theravada Buddhism. Second chance is very minimum and rare to gain a Human life. 10000000000 to one. Factor of ." Kammic " phenomena Abhidhamma, Thrirpitaka in patichcha-samuppaada / Dependent Origination Buddhist path, scriptures explains in authentic Buddhas' teachings.
Thank you! Great video. Nothing personal but I believe a comment could be useful regarding what you say 37:10 : i don’t believe faith has a direct causality to your lack of enlightenment. I believe you (just like the rest of us) are not enlightened because we haven’t put in the work to become enlightened. The faith is only required in order for us to keep putting in the massive amount of exercise required to become enlightened constantly. But its the work that gets us to the final goal, not the mere knowledge of the path.
This reminds me of a similar situation when it comes down to working out. One complains that although one has attended many weightlifting, seminars, and has read all or many of the major bodybuilding techniques and books and has even spoken one-to-one with master bodybuilders like Arnold Schwarzenegger, yet, they have not become like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Was it their lack of faith in Arnold Schwarzenegger that prevented them to become like him? Is that your argument here?
To me, it would be more rational to believe that that individual has not become like Arnold Schwarzenegger simply because he hasn’t been working out at the gym every day like Arnold Schwarzenegger and those like him teach to do. Clearly, the individual needs to believe in these master trainers and have faith that their technique works, otherwise how are they going to be able to overcome those darker and lazier moments and be able to still go to the gym every day despite not feeling like it?
We also similarly need some level of faith to keep our butts on the cushion every day. Ideally, at least for me, I try not to dwell in blind face, but I try to have faith in my own past experiences. The faith is just an aid.
I mean, hypothetically, if you were somehow able to practice the technique as taught properly, you should be able to reach the final goal of full enlightenment also without faith.
Theravada Buddhism will follow the previous Buddha, Gotama Buddha. They will try to attain Nibbana in this life or will wait Next Buddha🙏.
Mahayana Buddhism will wait Next Buddha and they all can or may try to become Bodhisattva🙏.
This is according to my understanding.
Because Buddhas are not only one. All men can practice to become Buddhas.
Interesting. I probably like the Chinese Buddhist take because I follow Advaita Vendanta
Mahayana and Vajrayana is actually Hinduism or Advaita in many ways.
Small vehicle = one occupant
Great vehicle = infinite occupants
That is a sectarian way of understanding it, yes.
Buddha taught only Buddha Dhamma, not small vehicles or great vehicles, they all are created by *egoistic men* to claim mine is better or *greater* than others.
Midel figer relgion
Personally I think Mahayana is a very diluted form of the real teachings that has lost its way in its effort to cater to the lowest common denominator through "skillful" means.
i agree
Yes and no. The earliest form of what became Mahayana was the Mahasangika, which was created by the first schism. The Mahasangika seem to have brought forth bad faith arguments against Arhats because they disliked living by the vinaya (monk's rules) and wanted to change it.
Today I mostly agree that Mahayana has become an appeal to the lowest common denominator that doesn't want to make real effort...except for Zen. Zen inherits Mahayana beliefs but sort of stands alone in placing emphasis on meditation and enlightenment.
No, Mahayana is the superior vehicle. Theravada is of course true, but it was intended by Lord Sakyamuni to be a foundation so people could accept Mahayana more easily as they would be already used to basic Buddhist beliefs from the Pali Tripitaka. There is nothing lower or diluted about Mahayana, if you think this then you clearly haven't looked into the immeasurably deep philosophical teachings and analysis of the legendary Mahayana masters like Nagarjuna, Santideva, Vasubhandu and Asanga.
@@AverageBuddhist88 Mahayana masters are Nagarjuna Santideva and Asanga but not Buddha. That makes sense :)
@@naturecure280 What I meant is that they had very deep philosophy, and they followed Mahayana. This shows that Mahayana isn't lower or diluted as some of the top Buddhist philosophers (who even Theravadins appeal to sometimes, e.g. Dignaga and Dharmakitri) followed Mahayana. Also, the fact that the 8,000 Lined Prajnaparamita Sutra is as old as the Pali Canon (and possibly even written decades before it), as well as how historians believe that it's ideas existed in India during the 2nd Buddhist Council and possibly even before, shows that Mahayana is authentic, no matter what sectarian narrative the Theravadins want to force on everyone.
Mahayana, should not be called buddhism. If buddha did not teach it.- it is something else, thats ok. But dont call it. buddhism
LET ME BE REAL HERE!!
A lot of Mayahana and Threavada talks are more and more complex these days.
.. Both teaching are "same" in Main core 4 noble truths.
Difference are as followed
- Threavada teaching is " We have ways. We can teach u if u want to be free. However, u must Do it yourself. "
-Mahayana teaching is " We have ways. We can save other . come on let's share other people the way of enlightenment . We will do it later. "
The choice is up to u.
OMG. Many things in his talks are missunderstanding in terms of real Tibetan traditional tantric buddhism and sutra. Don't believe him, he mixs up with his own concepts alot.
It's not a talk about Tibetan Buddhism.
Tibetan Buddhism is also Mahayana and Vajrayana