Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's true that most of us do not have a real living teacher, and so we have to make do with what resources we have available. In studying as much as we can about the Buddha-Dharma, we often study many points of view, and so there's bound to be some mixing up and some confusion. I still have some confusions myself, but I'm gradually working through them.

Thank you for helping to give some perspective.

I know that even in the Mahayana, there are Hinayana teachings. Hinayana here is not meant to indicate the Therevada tradition, but is used to specifically address the foundations of Buddhist philosophy and practice (such as vipassana/shamatha, the four noble truths, et cetera). Of course not every Mahayana tradition or school includes Hinayana teachings, but I know that certain Tibetan schools do.

I do think that you're assuming we're confused because we do not directly coincide with what you have learned, and that's just as faulty a view as that which you believe we hold.

While the Hinayana did spawn the idea that the Buddha is just a man, and anyone can become Buddha provided they hold the perfections, this is not restricted to the Hinayana schools (specifically Theravada alone). This view is present in some Mahayana teachings - there are a ton of Mahayana branches, and assuming they all believe the same exact things is a flawed idea. For instance, I received the teaching of the Buddha being a man that held out an ideal to help us all and not a perfect godling from a Mahayana monk from Vietnam, and the teaching of the poison arrow from a Japanese Zen practitioner who identifies otherwise with Mahayana teachings.

Conversely, I've read discourse by a Theravadan monk who claimed that while the Buddha started a normal human, he did perform miracles and ascended to a bodily perfection of sorts. The Buddha's paranirvana, according to this monk, was just the final perfecting of his form. His teachings were backed by the sutras of the Tripitaka, as well - he could site you example after example inside Theravadan text of the Buddha and his closest attendants, monks and nuns springing all kinds of miracles for the purpose of teaching others.

Claiming these teachings belong to one school only is a very narrow viewpoint, is all I'm saying. I've found them across the board. 3nodding

No, I was actually thinking of both them and the 10 perfections, which is a Theravadan teaching and has much in common with the 6 paramitas.So you discount it as a part of Mahayana simply because it's Zen? Zen is Mahayana, one of many schools, and it is as representative of the faith as your sample, which seems to be more Pure Land than anything I've learned thus far. It's solid, but not representative of all of us. smile Mmhm, but as I have already stated, it IS Mahayana, which means your claim that all us Mahayanans must believe a certain way is an incorrect view of the whole of the path - not all of us have exactly the same teachings, even if the sutras the schools sprang from are the same ones. 3nodding While they may have been added at a 'later date' (which is, by the way, irrelevant - the teachings of the miracles are still there and still believed in by a number of Theravadans), and claiming no Theravadans believe the Buddha or his attendant monks and nuns performed them is a faulty assumption. After all, is not the greatest supernormal power that of teaching to someone in a manner that will enlighten them? If one must perform a miracle to teach, then just by opening his mouth to anyone, the Buddha performed one. smile Stories of the Buddha himself performing miracles? No problem. Here's a list of some I remember from the accepted Pali canon offhand: The big one is in Digha Nikaya, actually - book 11, the Kevatta Sutta, in which the Buddha himself admits to having knowledge of how to do any of the following: Reading minds, being of many forms, flying through the air, appearing and vanishing, and numerous other things - but that they're not really useful powers, don't accomplish much in the way of teaching other people anything, and that's why he doesn't like to use them.

At the end, he admits that his ability to awaken people by telling them exactly what they need to hear is the highest form of these powers, and has good uses, so it gets used. And that all the powers he doesn't like using? They can be used to instruct, if done well.

The Sangarava Sutra says the same thing in less paragraphs, over in Anguttara Nikaya, also in the Sutta Pitaka, and to a worshipful brahman.

I do not recall where they are from, but know that tales of a prideful woman being knocked down a peg when the Buddha created an image of her that aged is in there, as well as a man who tried to murder him, but no matter how far he ran, even thought the Buddha never sped up his pace, the would-be killer never caught up until he gave up the idea of murder.

As for the monks and nuns, I admit they were likely added afterwards (albeit shortly, from what I gather - the current Tripitaka was compiled at around the same time), but the stories of the elder monks and the elder nuns are still considered Theravada canon, miracles, supernormal powers and all. The Therigatha (considered the 9th book of the Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka) and Theragatha (considered the 8th book of the same), both recount the monks and nuns of extraordinary power.Not necessarily; without a backbone of teachings from Theravadan schools, for instance, some of the Mahayana teachings would not exist. Everything comes from somewhere, and while all the former words may not apply to the present, it's important to know where they came from.

This is not to say one should pick and mix, throwing things about willy-nilly, of course, but at least know the backbones of the schools, and understand that everything is not always as one person says, or as one person sees. There's more to it than one man's viewpoint, after all. Then why tell others they don't know what they're practicing in the first place, if they practice what they have been taught after solid questioning, and it makes sense to them? It all goes to the same place anyway; I fail to see why you attempt to lock them in absolute 'Theravadans don't have miracles, Mahayanans must worship the Buddha'. If we are to not have absolutes like this, why do this?

That's all I don't understand with this. It doesn't make sense to force others into your view of what their school is, especially if they're practicing in it and you are not. 3nodding

This is not to say your understanding of their school might not be greater, you may simply lack their specific instruction in the dharma and not comprehend their ideals and methodology in the Path.

After all, if you meet the Buddha... xd

I'm just giving very general answers and divisions/guidleines, that is all.

Thank you for the added info, and as the indian tradition is, you lose in debate, you adopt the others view - so thank you.

Namaste.

It is unfortunate that many people who are interested in the Buddhist faith - regardless of the school - do not have an available teacher. In such cases, however, I'd prefer to see the potential student being exposed to a wide array of Buddhist thought and teachings, even if some of the minor points become confused. The ability to relate and realize the ultimate nonduality of seemingly contradictory concepts is extremely important to the beginning student of Buddhism. To me, this development is so important and central to Buddhism that it takes precedence over learning the finer points of each teaching.

The bird cannot fly
A silvery moon shines down
The stick is not there.

I was fortunate enough to have a teacher from early on, so I can't really speak from experience on the point... sweatdrop

But I agree. After a year of dedicated study (or the equivalent amount of time in half-interested looking) one should begin to grasp the meaning of Truth and know what angle they would like to approach it from, e.g. which yana they would like to pursue. The key is still understanding that it is all Truth and all device, but by our natures and predispositions and illusory understandings, it must be approached from different angles.

But what about Zen? Isnt it in Mahayana also to become or to reach Buddhahood as well? There are some Theravada monks who also took the Bodhisatva vows.

The only thing I can think of is Pureland. In which practicioners recite the name of Amitabha Buddha to be reborn in his western pureland and reach buddhahood there rather then in this lifetime.

There are also Zen and Pureland combined. If the practicioner (while practicing pureland as well) does not reach his/her goal in this lifetime by the means of Zen, then he/she will have a chance and fall into the safety net of the Pureland. Do you understand? I hope I said it well.

Anyway, I think the best miracle is the teachings of the Buddha in itself.