4

As far as I've heard, Mahayana Buddhists aspire to become Buddhas themselves in the future or want to become followers of a future Buddha like Buddha Maitreya. So, are Mahayana Buddhists discouraged from attaining enlightenment within the Gautama Buddha Sasana? If yes, wouldn't that be limiting the scope of enlightenment compared to Theravada Buddhism? Wouldn't that also make the taking refuge in the Triple gem meaningless, as they do not want to follow the teachings of the Gautama Buddha to attain enlightenment.? If the answer to the first question is 'no', any links to Mahayana specific texts which encourage one to attain Nibbana within this Sasana would be appreciated.

Andriy Volkov
  • 58,251
  • 3
  • 54
  • 163
Sankha Kulathantille
  • 25,668
  • 1
  • 22
  • 64
  • 1
    do the answers below address your question? Can you see that Jayarava below has made a widely acknowledged error of western interpretation? –  May 18 '18 at 23:10
  • 1
    @YesheTenley you can upvote or downvote according to what you think is right or wrong – Sankha Kulathantille May 19 '18 at 02:26

5 Answers5

9

In early Buddhist texts one gains nibbāna and is freed from ever having to be reborn again. Many people achieved this and in relatively short time frames. The Buddha of the early texts seems to have expected the enlightened practitioners he left behind (hundreds if not thousands of them according to the texts) to teach others how to achieve this. If each disciple themselves freed only two other people, the whole world would soon be free. The traditional Buddha told his followers that the Dhamma should be their refuge and teacher when he was gone.

However by the time the Mahāyāna sutras were being composed a significant level of doubt and insecurity seems to have crept into their minds. At the same time they began to inflate the role and the capabilities of the Buddha in their retelling of the stories. (This trend is covered in my article: Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014). The dilemma is this: if the Buddha was truly compassionate, how could he die and leave us behind? Something of this dilemma is openly expressed in the opening of the Suvarṇabhāsottama Sutra (Fantastic Golden Light) in which Ratnaketu asks why the Buddha only lived 80 years if merit increases lifespan and the Buddha had infinite merit. The answer is that the Buddha only appeared to live and die, but that in fact he is eternal. This is typical of the hyperbolic response of the Mahāyāna and the gradual conversion of Buddhism into a more theistic religion, with Buddha as God.

In order to deal with this problem the Mahāyāna intellectuals conceived of the bodhisatva as getting to the threshold of awakening, and having more or less all the advantages of being awakened, but not attaining nirvāṇa which would ensure they could not be reborn. In this view the bodhisatva eschews enlightenment in favour of repeated rebirth to come back and help beings. In this view also we see a vastly inflated role for the bodhisatva. The Mahāyāna seems to have anxiety about the Dharma not being sufficient. One needs the (increasingly god-like) intervention of a Buddha or bodhisatva. Interestingly some Theravādins also lost heart. This view is seen, for example, in Peter Masefield's book Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism. Masefield, a respected translator and practising Theravādin, argues that without the physical presence of a Buddha nibbāna was not possible - and that the possibility of enlightenment would have died out within a generation of the Buddha's death. It's a view that is relatively easily refuted, Masefield cherry picks his Pāḷi quotes and studiously ignores any contradictory information. (see my unpublished review of his book).

Thus we are left with the image of the bodhisatva with many magical or godlike powers, a kind of messianic saviour figure, who helps otherwise helpless beings by being repeatedly reborn amongst us to lead us to the goal that we are otherwise incapable of reaching ourself.

In many ways this is a profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, though a very positive view of bodhisatvas and buddhas. It reaches its apotheosis in the teachings of the Japanese Buddhist, Shinran, who entirely abandoned the idea that human beings could become enlightened and preached reliance on the vows of Amitābha (recorded in the Sukhavativyūha Sūtras) a Buddha who lives in another universe but who has promised to meet people after they die and lead them to his Pureland from where they can become enlightened with no effort.

So yes, in Mahāyāna Buddhism one typically vows to become a Buddha, but a Buddha once dead cannot be reborn, so one, as it were, puts off Buddhahood until all beings are free, which at the present rate of beings being freed is essentially forever.

Jayarava
  • 4,539
  • 16
  • 29
  • 2
    These claims to the supposed historicity of the Mahayana are just that: claims. They also appear to be uninformed ones and do not relate to the lived experience of beliefs of Mahayana practioners as I know them. I consider the above as disparaging the Mahayana and founded upon ignorance manifesting as arrogance based upon speculative and ill-motivated claims to historical truth. –  May 14 '18 at 22:07
  • 1
    If you don't think this is a good answer, may I suggest you write a better answer? Jayarava hasn't visited this site since 2015: so I doubt he will see your comment (unless you contact him off-site). Saying his answer is based on ignorance isn't polite. Please note too that it isn't really moderators' jobs, here, to assess or censor content -- e.g. to judge whether an answer is true, whether it's well-referenced, or even whether it's on-topic. You can't ask a moderator to intervene every time you see anything you disagree with: instead, vote down, post a constructive comment for the author ... – ChrisW May 14 '18 at 22:35
  • 1
    ... or post a better answer of your own. Another possibility, if you see a post which needs improvement, is to edit it yourself. Try to make edits which you think the author would approve of -- try to avoid a "hostile edit" i.e. an edit which the author won't like and would want to undo. If you feel you must make a "hostile edit" (e.g. to remove hostility from the OP) then try to make the edit as small, minimal, as possible. @YesheTenley – ChrisW May 14 '18 at 22:41
  • 1
    I do not ask a moderator to intervene based off my disagreement with a post. Nevertheless, this post is disparaging the Mahayana and should be edited to correct IMO. I apologize for the impolite usage of the word “ignorant” and I will write my own answer as you suggest. –  May 14 '18 at 22:43
  • I will suggest an edit and might I suggest to the moderators in kind that tolerating intolerance has not worked out as well as you may have thought? Of course, you can blame me for that I suppose or perhaps the lax discipline has contributed to an environment where people just sneer and don’t say anything? @ChrisW and Andrei ^^^^ –  May 14 '18 at 22:47
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – ChrisW May 15 '18 at 07:38
  • Yeshe's comment is very useful to me in getting an overview of this supposed point of controvetsy –  May 13 '21 at 19:00
  • @ChrisW I do not think that the words 'answer is based on ignorance' are impolite. Neither am I saying they are polite. It was not about that at all. It is your inference which makes it appear impolite to you. They are, from Yeshe Tenley's point of view, an expression of what he infers the case to be. – HomagetoManjushri May 13 '21 at 20:13
  • Religieux are often confused when confronted by historical facts that contradict their dogmas. Buddhists expect the world to operate on their terms and get upset when we don't. Tibetan Buddhists more than most since their religion is far more dogmatic and uncompromising due to being a religious diaspora. It doesn't surprise me or concern me that a Tibetan Buddhist doesn't get it. They don't get history or science, it's not part of their culture. – Jayarava Oct 12 '21 at 09:53
4

Re: "Mahayana Buddhists aspire to become Buddhas themselves in the future" -- if I can speak for "Mahayana Buddhists", they say that in order to correctly follow the teaching of Gautama Buddha, one must fully understand what Gautama Buddha meant when he spoke his teaching, which means one must clearly see what Gautama Buddha saw under the Bodhi tree (if not all infinite depth, at least its main essence). When one attains the same vision that Gautama Buddha attained, and completely realizes in practice the same practice that Gautama Buddha realized, one effectively becomes equivalent to a buddha, and for all practical purposes we can call such fully realized student "a buddha". It is in this sense that "Mahayana Buddhists aspire to become Buddhas themselves in the future".

"or want to become followers of a future Buddha like Buddha Maitreya" -- if next Buddha comes here tomorrow, wouldn't you want to become a follower and get the teaching from the first hands?

"So, are Mahayana Buddhists discouraged from attaining enlightenment within the Gautama Buddha Sasana?" -- this is an incorrect conclusion you drew from an incorrect understanding of two assumptions above. Mahayana Buddhists do not reject Gautama Buddha dispensation, quite the opposite, they aspire to be the best students of Gautama Buddha, to the point of equating their teacher in vision and realization one day; they also put the true spirit of the teaching above the letter of the teaching, which is why they prefer live tradition whenever possible.

Mishu 米殊
  • 2,299
  • 9
  • 17
Andriy Volkov
  • 58,251
  • 3
  • 54
  • 163
  • Fully understanding the teaching of the Gautama Buddha means to become another Sammasambuddha. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Samma-sam-buddha One does not follow the teaching of another Buddha to become a Sammasambuddha. That's against the definition itself. The next Buddha cannot appear in the world while the Sasana of the Gautama Buddha is still there. So again, basically what you are saying is Mahayana Buddhists do not want to attain enlightenment within this Sasana. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 27 '14 at 09:19
  • No, you are misinterpreting what I said to fit your preconceived idea. Mahayana Buddhists read Pali Suttas and practice Gautama Buddha's teaching, PLUS they also study teachings given by the best students of Buddha. – Andriy Volkov Jul 27 '14 at 13:18
  • Of course they do! But they do all that to attain enlightenment in another Sasana or become Buddhas themselves. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 27 '14 at 15:15
  • No. Like I said, the best son wants to become like his father, the best student of a doctor wants to become a doctor like his teacher, the same way the best students of Buddha want to become buddhas. Mahayana students do not deny or reject Gautama Buddha's dispensation, quite the opposite they are the most faithful students. – Andriy Volkov Jul 27 '14 at 15:31
  • 1
    But being a doctor or being like one's father are not goals one must achieve on one's own without the guidance of others. So there's no comparison there. And there's nothing wrong with aspiring to become a Buddha if one is capable of great deeds and worthy of striving for it. What I'm questioning is the sense in injecting such ideas to all Mahayana followers in general. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 27 '14 at 15:47
  • I think the main problem with this answer is that it does not address bodhisatvas putting off enlightenment until all beings are freed from saṃsāra combined with the notion that saṃsāra is endless. – Jayarava Aug 17 '15 at 10:15
  • @Jayarava that’s because that notion is one that is not true and is unfounded. Bodhisattva’s do not put off enlightenment... exactly the opposite! How better to help sentient beings than to become fully enlightened! –  May 14 '18 at 22:14
  • 1
    Pushing a large following to take the Bodhisatta vows does not make them best students of the Buddha. The best students of the Buddha are Arahaths. The beings who attain enlightenment by following the teaching of the Buddha. If you have to teach someone how to become a Buddha, he wouldn't be a Buddha in the first place. – Sankha Kulathantille May 16 '18 at 15:49
  • You see Sankha - you are arguing based on the concept you heard and got attached to. But in the real life, there is no difference. It is the same practice and the same Goal. Drop your concept and come back to reality please. – Andriy Volkov May 16 '18 at 16:03
  • I think Sankha's view is based on two doctrines/definitions: 1) if you're enlightened then you're not reborn (so if you want to remain a Bodhisattva you must delay enlightenment). 2) There is by definition only one Buddha per sasana -- so it's impossible (or mistaken) to use the teachings of this sasana's Buddha to aspire to become a Buddha, because a Buddha (by definition) discovers dharma originally and teaches it, after a previous sasana ended (i.e. it cannot be learned, it is "without a teacher to point out the dharma"). – ChrisW May 16 '18 at 16:22
  • 1
    Yeah I get that. And from M perspective those points above are reifications of loosely defined approximations, that were never meant to be anything more than expedient means. Even Buddha attaining his Bodhi all by himself is not a strict truth, it's an approximation. I suppose this is the real reason for all these M/T arguments, since day 1. – Andriy Volkov May 16 '18 at 17:20
  • I guess from Sankha’s perspective there is no one on this earth capable of the Bodhisattva ideal nor will there be until the next Buddha appears to turn the wheel of dharma? There apparently can be only one in each world system at a time? Like do the laws of karma/samsara make it so that only one individual capable of achieving Buddhahood appears in one any world system at any one time? –  May 16 '18 at 23:25
  • That's by definition, that "Buddha" is one who got it without any help from previous Buddha, hence they can't overlap – Andriy Volkov May 16 '18 at 23:29
  • Every Bodhisattva is helped by previous Buddhas whether they know it or not. They even receive a prediction from them. In the very life that they attain the complete enlightenment they are helped. I guess I don’t agree with that definition nor see how it makes sense... –  May 17 '18 at 11:06
  • Well, it's a definition given by the Buddha himself in one of the suttas... – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 11:23
  • Ah, can you please link to it? –  May 17 '18 at 12:29
  • I'm driving at the moment... Maybe @SankhaKulathantille has it handy? Or you can always ask it as question and someone will find it – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 12:33
  • @YesheTenley SN 22.58 says that "a sammāsambuddha" and "a mendicant freed by wisdom" are alike in being "freed by not grasping, due to disillusionment, fading away, and cessation of form"; and that the difference between them is that the Buddha brings the way into being and explains it, whereas the other follows the path and acquires it later: so the Buddha is the first, and a teacher. That's not the only difference though -- see Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas for more details. – ChrisW May 17 '18 at 14:37
  • That's it. This is the only direct quote from the Buddha himself that defines the difference, as far as I know. The other differences (Buddha's ability to teach according to each student's capacity, the special powers etc.) are assumed to be the-Buddha-only powers by some, but there are numerous examples in suttas (and in post-canonical texts) to the contrary. So my interpretation of this, there is no difference in result, only a difference in status, and (optionally) a diversity of skill levels. It is my belief this result is what Mahayana means when it calls someone "a buddha". – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 15:07
  • 1
    Once again, we are arguing about labels and designations here, which is the main problem with "beginning students" - to assume that labels and definitions can ever be precise and concrete. The entire point of Buddhism (IMO) is to go beyond naive attachment to simplistic notions => invalid expectations based on those attachments => suffering based on those invalid expectations. But given that reification is THE key problem behind "samsara-mind", I'm not surprised that so many people get caught up in definitions. – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 15:17
  • I think we are in agreement Andrei :) we are mucking around in conventionalities and labels because we are (at least I am) samsaric beings. OTOH, reasoning and conventionalities are the tools we use to arrive at the ultimate. At least that is what is said in my tradition hahaha –  May 17 '18 at 17:36
  • Apparently, some of us are more in agreement than others ;) – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 17:43
2

"So, are Mahayana Buddhists discouraged from attaining enlightenment within the Gautama Buddha Sasana?"

Emphatically no! This is a misconception.

If the answer to the first question is 'no', any links to Mahayana specific texts which encourage one to attain Nibbana within this Sasana would be appreciated.

How about a Bodhisattva vow? This is the auxiliary vow #14:

To abandon: Believing and saying that followers of the Mahayana should remain in cyclic existence and not try to attain liberation from afflictions.

It says in the Mahayana texts that bodhisattvas give up enlightenment and remain in samsara or cyclic existence for the benefit of others. And so there is the danger that you misunderstand this and think, “Oh, bodhisattvas don’t try and get enlightened. They just stay in samsara. Because they don’t try and get enlightened, then they don’t apply the antidotes to the afflictions. They don’t purify their karma because they’re staying in samsara to benefit others.

If you think like that, that’s a misconception. That’s what this precept is getting at. Although it says that bodhisattvas remain in cyclic existence to benefit others, what that means is, a bodhisattva’s compassion for others is so strong that if it would be of ultimate benefit for sentient beings for a bodhisattva not to be enlightened, then the bodhisattva would happily give up even their own enlightenment because they’re so committed to serving sentient beings. But it clearly isn’t for the benefit of sentient beings for bodhisattvas not to be enlightened. Because a bodhisattva has this much ability to help others and the Buddha has this much ability to help others, so bodhisattvas are going to try really hard to get enlightened. They’re definitely going to apply the antidotes to the afflictions and purify their karma. And while they’re on the bodhisattva path, they’re still going to continue to come back to our world in order to benefit sentient beings.

The answer given above that plays into this misconception is erroneous and does not come from a self-identified Mahayana practitioner. It simply isn't the case that the Mahayana properly understood instructs Bodhisattvas to keep their afflictions or remain unenlightened in order to help others. That would be nonsensical and is thus not the case.

Objection! Hey, what about this verse from Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment (page 125):

  1. “I shall not be eager to reach
    Enlightenment in the quickest way,
    But shall stay behind till the very end,
    For the sake of a single being.

As His Holiness explains in the commentary to the text, this verse was taken from Shantideva's famous Bodhicaryavatara. A Bodhisattva is someone who vows to achieve enlightenment not for themselves, but rather motivated purely with the altruistic wish to help others. This verse reflects how someone aspiring to become a Bodhisattva should train their mind to achieve this pure altruistic motivation. It shows that a Bodhisattva is not someone who wishes to reach liberation in the quickest way possible for themselves alone. Although it might appear contradictory to the vow above, it is not in actual fact contradictory.

See this:

A commonly repeated misconception in Western literature is that bodhisattvas delay their own liberation. This confusion is based on a misreading of several different scriptural concepts and narratives. One of these is the Tibetan teaching on three types of motivation for generating bodhicitta. According to Patrul Rinpoche's 19th century Words of My Perfect Teacher (Kun bzang bla ma'i gzhal lung), a bodhisattva might be motivated in one of three ways. They are:

king-like bodhicitta - to aspire to become a buddha first in order to then help sentient beings
boatman-like bodhicitta - to aspire to become a buddha at the same time as other sentient beings
shepherd-like bodhicitta - to aspire to become a buddha only after all other sentient beings have done so

These three are not types of people, but rather types of motivation. According to Patrul Rinpoche, the third quality of intention is most noble though the mode by which buddhahood actually occurs is the first; that is, it is only possible to teach others the path to enlightenment once one has attained enlightenment oneself.

And more from Venerable Thubten Chodron here and here saying essentially the same thing:

The first one, the shepherd-like bodhisattva: when the shepherd goes, the sheep go in front. This is the bodhisattva that says, “Ok, I’m giving up my own enlightenment, and everybody else gets enlightened, then I get enlightened.” This seems to contradict what I said yesterday.

Then there’s the oarsman-type of bodhisattva, because he’s in the same vehicle so they arrive at enlightenment at the same time.

And then there’s the king-like bodhisattva: the king usually goes first, then everybody else follows in the entourage. That bodhisattva attains enlightenment first and then leads everybody else there.

They give these three examples and they say that actually the king-like bodhisattva’s the one of the highest faculties, because they realized that actually it’s more important to attain enlightenment for the benefit of others then to stay in samsara and not be able to help anybody as well as you could if you were already a buddha. They said that actually all bodhisattvas eventually get around to being king-like bodhisattvas and attain enlightenment for the benefit of sentient beings.

So the correct way to think about verses like the above about not being "eager to reach Enlightenment in the quickest way" for the sake of oneself is as a mind training for generating this shepherd-like pure altruistic motivation whereas in actual fact a Bodhisattva with high faculties will realize that to accomplish the goal of this pure altruistic motivation requires enlightenment and liberation in the quickest way possible!

To see just how wide of an agreement there is on this see also this quote from His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

Question: When a practitioner of the Great Vehicle vows not to enter into nirvana until all beings are liberated, how is it possible to fulfill this vow?

Answer: Three modes of generating an altruistic intention to become enlightened are described--like a king, like a boatman, and like a shepherd. In the first, that like a king, one first seeks to attain a high state after which help can be given to others. In the second, like a boatman, one seeks to cross the river of suffering together with others. In the third, like a shepherd, one seeks to relieve the flock of suffering beings from pain first, oneself following afterward. These are indications of the style of the altruistic motivation for becoming enlightened; in actual fact, there is no way that a Bodhisattva either would want to or could delay achieving full enlightenment. As much as the motivation to help others increases, so much closer does one approach Buddhahood.

Emphasis mine.

Now, there seems to be one significant area of disagreement between the Sanskit tradition and the Pali tradition (notice I didn't use Mahayana and Theravada on purpose) when it comes to the understanding of the attainments of the three vehicles. This is in Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions:

Some Buddhists say at the time of nirvana without remainder, the continuum of consciousness of the person ceases although nirvana without remainder exists. However, other Buddhists assert that all sentient beings will eventually attain buddhahood and the continuum of consciousness exists even after arhats pass away. At that time, arhats have a mental body and reside in a pure land, where they remain in meditative equipoise on emptiness. At the appropriate time, the Buddha arouses them from their meditative equipoise and causes them to enter the bodhisattva path and attain a buddha's awakening.

So while it is clear that the Sanskrit and Pali traditions differ in this respect, it is not at all the case that the Sanskrit or Mahayana practitioners in general discourage beings from attaining enlightenment or liberation with the Gautama Buddha Sasana.

  • What about this: 29. “I shall not be eager to reach Enlightenment in the quickest way, But shall stay behind till the very end, For the sake of a single being." from Atisa's Lamp? – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 12:48
  • @AndreiVolkov are you suggesting an improvement based on this seeming contradiction or do you disagree with the answer here and think it a real contradiction? –  May 17 '18 at 13:50
  • I guess I'm saying that comment to vow #14 does not resolve the seeming contradiction to my satisfaction. – Andriy Volkov May 17 '18 at 14:24
  • 2
    @AndreiVolkov ok, i've tried to clarify. hope this helps! –  May 18 '18 at 06:42
1
  1. Non-Mahayana Theravada Buddhists* aspire to become arahants. So, are they discouraged from performing wholesome karma to accumulate merit (puñña)? Probably not. Lay-following is not discouraged while there is still higher goal.

  2. Mahayana distinctive feature is acceptance of all teachings of Buddha. So from Mahayana perspective non-Bohisattva teachings and practices are integral part of Dharma and possible for some types of personalities.

  3. But, if person aspire to become budhisattva/buddha he probably should abstain from intent of leaving samsara to nirvana, but not from intent of reaching enlightenment (bodhi). He may wish to become enlightened bodhisattva, or even buddha.

__

* I assume that Mahayana Theravadin is possible, who don't deny Mahayana canon and/or aspire to become bodhisatta.

catpnosis
  • 2,009
  • 12
  • 12
  • Performing wholesome Kamma(Kusala) helps the cause to becoming an Arahath. So there's no case of discouraging that. Well, Theravada tradition accepts all teachings of the Buddha too. So it's not a Mahayana distinctive feature. The question is what is considered to be the teachings of the Buddha. Yes, becoming a Bodhisatva(to attain Buddhahood) is accepted in Theravada tradition too. But that is considered as possible only for beings capable of great deeds. It's not the path recommended to practice by default. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 27 '14 at 09:33
  • It's great deed to achieve state of arahant, is it practice recommended by default? (No.) Acquiring merit does not lead to nibbana. – catpnosis Jul 27 '14 at 12:30
  • Acquiring merits helps on the way to nibbana. If becoming an Arahant is not the goal recommended by default in Mahayana, not attaining enlightenment in this Sasana is the advice recommended by default. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 27 '14 at 15:09
  • For example, acquiring merit doesn't lead to nibbana, but still isn't discouraged as lay-follower practice. So presence of higher goal doesn't logically imply discouragement of lower goals. What is worth of discouragement is unwholesome actions. 2) Logic again: if something isn't recommended by default doesn't imply that contrary thing is recommended by default. If you don't follow logic nothing can be proven.
  • – catpnosis Jul 27 '14 at 23:34
  • This logic does not fit the scenario as vowing to become a Buddha necessarily means giving up all intentions of attaining enlightenment within this Sasana, whereas doing good deeds isn't discouraged even for monks in Theravada Buddhism.
  • So are you saying that neither of the goals are encouraged by default? Well, that leaves only becoming a Pacceca Buddha, unless Mahayana Buddhism does not encourage attaining any form of enlightenment. :)
  • – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 28 '14 at 07:02
  • Let agree first that what is not encouraged is not same as discouraged. Only bad deeds are discouraged. – catpnosis Jul 28 '14 at 20:06
  • That would be true for other situations. But not in this scenarios, if you take the full picture into account. Because what is encouraged as the alternative requires encouraging one to give up on the former goal. Encouraging one to give up on something is the same as discouraging :) – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 28 '14 at 20:30
  • Bad deeds are discouraged, but achieving nibbana is not bad deed, so it's not discouraged. You really don't provide syllogism in your statement, and just stating false dilemma. It's like saying that not giving birth is killing. But men don't give birth while not killing. And you misinterpret what 'discouragement' is. Providing one option first is not same as forbidding any other options. – catpnosis Jul 28 '14 at 20:48
  • There was question is bodhisatta path is possible in Theravada. Probably you should have asked something like is there non-bodhisatva path possible in Mahayana. – catpnosis Jul 28 '14 at 20:51
  • Now you are trying to shape it to look like a false dilemma. :) If we take a matching example, it's like encouraging to be virgin implies discouraging to get pregnant. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 28 '14 at 21:04
  • What's relevant to this topic is not about if non-bodhisattva path is possible in Mahayana. It's about what is encouraged by default in Mahayana. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 28 '14 at 21:10
  • Theravada does not say to lay-followers that they all should become monks by default. Thus, by logic that you apply to Mahayana, Theravada discourage monkhood. Which is not true. I think your question is asked from perspective which turned out to be not quite suitable for such complicated subject. – catpnosis Jul 28 '14 at 21:17
  • Now you are trying to shape it again with a different analogy. :) Attitude in Theravada tradition is to encourages those who are suitable to become monks to become monks. But if the default advice of a tradition is to leave the lay life and become monks, then it's discouraging people to live a lay life. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 28 '14 at 21:32
  • So if we get back to the topic, the difference I see here is that in the Theravada tradition, only beings who are worthy and capable of great deeds are encouraged to become Buddhas, whereas in the Mahayana tradition, being a Buddha or a follower of a future Buddha is given as the common advice to the mass whether the person is worthy of it or not. – Sankha Kulathantille Jul 28 '14 at 21:39