Namaste from a Theravada Buddhist

[upasaka]

Namaste all.

I practice Theravada Buddhism. I am giving consideration to being ordained as a monk. I have been practicing Buddhism for close to a decade, at first I was drawn to Mahayana, especially Zen. As I have practiced and read the Pali Tipitaka I have come around to believing that Theravada represents truly what the Buddha taught.

I am interested in all the religions that sprang from India. If I believed in self I would be Hindu, but I am convinced of the Buddha's teachings on no-self and dependent origination. Despite this, I have the utmost respect for the many teachings of Hinduism. I am more familiar with Vaishnavism than Shaivism due to my exposure to materials published by ISKCON. I hope to share with and learn from everyone here. Looking forward to deep and friendly conversations!

[Believer]

Welcome and good to have you on board. I am sure we will learn a lot from you, as you will, from some of the people in the forum.

[Madhuri]

Welcome to the forums :)

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam upasaka:

Many Hindus consider Buddhism a companion or brother religion. I know Buddhists who feed Hindu monks because there are no Buddhist monks available. I'm sure the opposite is true as well. Welcome!

Aum Namasivaya

[Ekanta]

Namaste all.
If I believed in self I would be Hindu, but I am convinced of the Buddha's teachings on no-self and dependent origination.

Hi and welcome, upasaka.
Its interesting this... "No-self"... or is it "Not-self". Which is it? I just wonder what your view would be if you read this from pali canon:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste upasaka,

Welcome to HDF! I myself am very interested in Buddhism, and I look forward to learning more about it. Hopefully you will learn a lot about Sanatana Dharma here in turn.

Jai Sri Krishna

[upasaka]

Hi and welcome, upasaka.
Its interesting this... "No-self"... or is it "Not-self". Which is it? I just wonder what your view would be if you read this from pali canon:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html


namaste!

You ask an excellent question. The Buddha teaches that people are composed of the five aggregates, (matter, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness) and there is nothing else beyond the aggregates. Each aggregate is "not-self", so there is "no-self" to be found.

I do understand that some believe the Buddha was not denying the self completely, he was only stating what was not self. My reply to that is; if the Buddha did think there was a self, he was silent about what it is. I do not believe he would have been silent on the matter as it would directly pertain to liberation. The Buddha is clear that we must stop craving what is impermanent, and all of the aggregates are conditioned by dukkha, anicca, and anatman.

Thanks to all who have replied to me! Looking forward to corresponding with all of you!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

hello and namasté


I practice Theravada Buddhism. I am giving consideration to being ordained as a monk. I have been practicing Buddhism for close to a decade, at first I was drawn to Mahayana, especially Zen. As I have practiced and read the Pali Tipitaka I have come around to believing that Theravada represents truly what the Buddha taught.

I am interested in all the religions that sprang from India. If I believed in self I would be Hindu, but I am convinced of the Buddha's teachings on no-self and dependent origination. Despite this, I have the utmost respect for the many teachings of Hinduism. I am more familiar with Vaishnavism than Shaivism due to my exposure to materials published by ISKCON. I hope to share with and learn from everyone here. Looking forward to deep and friendly conversations!
May I ask a question or two?

Are you from the school of hīnayāna or mahāyāna ( or other) - and can you help us ( me ) understand the difference here?

In your approach is there dīkṣā (initiation) into your spiritual techniques? Can you explain if there is i.e. the intent, process, etc. and who does the initiation?

Is there yogāṅga i.e. 'the means of attaining an end' that you purse? ~ process ~ . In yoga we have this¹.

Any light you wish to offer on buddha-ji's 4 noble truths would be wonderful.

I have a few more questions but will await your ideas and feedback on the above if you have time to pursue ( like your views on śūnyavāda and the like)

praṇām


words
yogāṅga is generally said to be 8 in number , i.e. yama , niyama , āsana , prāṇāyāma , pratyāhāra , dhāraṇā , dhyāna , and samādhi.

[Believer]

Buddha's teachings are summed up in Four Noble Truths: existence is full of suffering; suffering is traceable to desire; desire can be transcended, leading to nirvana, or cesation of material existence. The means to transcendence is the Eight-fold Path of proper views, action, resolve, speech, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration.

[upasaka]

[QUOTE=yajvan;47365]hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Are you from the school of hīnayāna or mahāyāna ( or other) - and can you help us ( me ) understand the difference here?

Theravada is hinayana. There are a number of differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Both acknowledge the authenticity of the Pali Tipitaka when it comes to recording the words of the Buddha. The Pali canon came into being with the first Buddhist council that convened after the Buddha passed into final Nibbana. The Buddha's attendant, Ananda, recited the discourses he heard to the monastic community. These are the discourses that Theravada sees as authoritative. Some centuries later, other sutras began to appear, the earliest probably being the mahaprajnaparamita sutras, these new sutras became the focus of a movement within the monastic community that became Mahayana. The ideal goal for a Theravada Buddhist is to become an arahant, the Mahayana ideal is the bodhisattva. Mahayana believes that all are destined to become fully-awakened Buddhas. Theravada holds that Buddhas are rare; the Buddha is a trailblazer that we follow to perfect enlightenment. You don't have to be a Buddha to achieve Nibbana.

Historically, Theravada spread into south and southeast Asia, (Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand) while Mahayana went north and northeast, (Tibet, China, and Japan). Mahayana has morphed into many different schools including Zen, Pure Land, and the many varieties of Tibetan Buddhism. Some Mahayana schools place a deep emphasis on the idea of shunya, or emptiness. They hold that emptiness is the ultimate state of reality, Theravada disagrees with this. It's not that we deny that things are empty of self-nature, we just reject emptiness as a metaphysical statement of ultimate reality. The Buddha warned against unnecessary philosophizing that does not pertain to the elimination of suffering. Other Mahayana schools, such as Zen, hold that reality is Mind-Only, in other words, the external world is merely a projection of mind, which is the only thing that really exists. Again, Theravada rejects this. The Buddha does not teach that the world is unreal. Mahayana is explicitly non-dualistic, (the base of reality is either emptiness or Mind, depending on the Mahayana school) while Theravada makes no claims of non-duality.

I'm sorry for the brevity of the above explanations about the differences between the two. I've just scratched the surface and I would be happy to elaborate on anything regarding the subject.

In your approach is there dīkṣā (initiation) into your spiritual techniques? Can you explain if there is i.e. the intent, process, etc. and who does the initiation?

In Theravada there is a ritual that one can do as a lay-follower which is called Taking Refuge in the Triple Jewels. The person declares that they are taking refuge in the Buddha, in the Dhamma (in this context the Buddha's teachings), and in the Sangha (the Buddhist community). This is presided over by a monk and witnessed by monks, nuns, and layfollowers. Not sure though if it is a direct equivalent to an initiation process as Taking Refuge is simply making a public declaration that one follows the Buddha.

Is there yogāṅga i.e. 'the means of attaining an end' that you purse? ~ process ~ . In yoga we have this¹.

The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path to Nibbana as the process to eliminate suffering. Meditation is very important to the process. There are two types of meditation that the Buddha encourages and instructs in over and over throughout the Pali canon, samatha or calming meditation and vipassana or insight meditation.

In terms of samatha, the Buddha recommends anapanasati meditation to watch the breath move across the anapana spot under the nose. This is used to move into the jhana absorptions.

Vipassana must be mastered in order to achieve Nibbana. All phenomenon, be they physical or mental, internal or external, must be understood on the deepest level to be impermanent, conditioned by suffering, and empty of self-nature. Vipasaana, when mastered, allows one to penetrate to this deepest level.

Any light you wish to offer on buddha-ji's 4 noble truths would be wonderful.

The Four Noble Truths are the core of what the Buddha teaches. These unite all Buddhists, both Theravada and Mahayana.

I have a few more questions but will await your ideas and feedback on the above if you have time to pursue ( like your views on śūnyavāda and the like)

Sunya is useful as another way of approaching dependent origination. It is a teaching meant to illustrate that things do not exist independently, it is not meant to be a metaphysical position. (As I wrote above though, many Mahayana Buddhists do see sunya as a description of the non-dual base of reality, something that is considered an extreme position by Theravada.)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté upasaka (upāsaka उपासक )

you offered

The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path to Nibbana as the process to eliminate suffering.
I like how you write nirvāṇa (Nibbana) - in saṁskṛt the b's and v's are very connected. We see this with the word bṛhaspati and is often writen as vṛhaspati. He is the guru of all the devatā. And this 'guru' is also considered Jupiter as a ~planet~ or graha.


Regarding this nirvāṇa, I see it as blowing out , extinction , cessation , setting , vanishing , disappearance . This can mean a few things. The extinction of ignorance ( this would be a vedāntic view).

Another view which is in line with this idea is extinction or annihilation ( śūnya ?) of individual existence or of all desires and passions. This = the extinction of ignorance and changes the 'individual' to Universal.

Now with some liberty I can also see this word nirvāṇa as offering oblations nir-vāpaṇa. Again the ultimate oblation is the offering-up of the self ( small 's') for the large Self ( the Universal as mentioned).

Some people in the West assume nirvāṇa means bliss. I can see how we can get to a definition of perfect calm as 'blowing out' , also associated with cooling, calming. Yet I struggle with bliss.

So, after all that do you care to answer this question on nirvāṇa ?
It is my understanding that with the hīnayāna approach this nirvāṇa must be created; with the mahāyāna approach it is already one's essence and divides it into active and static . Do you care to share your thoughts on this?

praṇām

[upasaka]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté upasaka (upāsaka उपासक )

you offered

I like how you write nirvāṇa (Nibbana) - in saṁskṛt the b's and v's are very connected. We see this with the word bṛhaspati and is often writen as vṛhaspati. He is the guru of all the devatā. And this 'guru' is also considered Jupiter as a ~planet~ or graha.


Regarding this nirvāṇa, I see it as blowing out , extinction , cessation , setting , vanishing , disappearance . This can mean a few things. The extinction of ignorance ( this would be a vedāntic view).

Another view which is in line with this idea is extinction or annihilation ( śūnya ?) of individual existence or of all desires and passions. This = the extinction of ignorance and changes the 'individual' to Universal.

Now with some liberty I can also see this word nirvāṇa as offering oblations nir-vāpaṇa. Again the ultimate oblation is the offering-up of the self ( small 's') for the large Self ( the Universal as mentioned).

Some people in the West assume nirvāṇa means bliss. I can see how we can get to a definition of perfect calm as 'blowing out' , also associated with cooling, calming. Yet I struggle with bliss.

So, after all that do you care to answer this question on nirvāṇa ?
It is my understanding that with the hīnayāna approach this nirvāṇa must be created; with the mahāyāna approach it is already one's essence and divides it into active and static . Do you care to share your thoughts on this?

praṇām

The Buddha teaches that Nibbana is the cessation of suffering, change, becoming, birth, aging, sickness and death. It is a state that is reached only when all clinging and attachments have been completely eliminated. Deep and penetrating insight must be developed first, this is why vipassana meditation is essential to enlightenment. Theravada disagrees with the Mahayana idea that there is no difference between samsara and nibbana. We do not believe that the Buddha taught some sort of "original nature" that is inherently enlightened. There is no inherent nature to mind. Mind is conditioned by what it comes into contact with. Nibbana is unconditioned.

Ultimately, Nibbana must be experienced to be truly understood. I am not enlightened, I have no experience of Nibbana so I must rely on the words of the Buddha to understand it. He typically describes it by stating what it isn't. This goes back to the sentence I wrote up above that nibbana is the absence of suffering and change. It can be experienced while alive as the Buddha entered it upon enlightenment. When he passed away he went into final Nibbana without remainder. Where did he go? I cannot say, in one of the suttas the Buddha says that asking where the Tathagata (the word the Buddha used most frequently when referring to himself) goes after death is like asking where a fire goes when you put it out.

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste all.

I practice Theravada Buddhism. I am giving consideration to being ordained as a monk. I have been practicing Buddhism for close to a decade, at first I was drawn to Mahayana, especially Zen. As I have practiced and read the Pali Tipitaka I have come around to believing that Theravada represents truly what the Buddha taught.

I am interested in all the religions that sprang from India. If I believed in self I would be Hindu, but I am convinced of the Buddha's teachings on no-self and dependent origination. Despite this, I have the utmost respect for the many teachings of Hinduism. I am more familiar with Vaishnavism than Shaivism due to my exposure to materials published by ISKCON. I hope to share with and learn from everyone here. Looking forward to deep and friendly conversations!

Buddhism essentially is branch of "Atheist Hinduism" that became its own religion on its own right.

Buddhism existing actually has benefitted Hinduism alot really.

There has been fierce debates historically, which forced Hinduism into becoming philosophically rigorous. The Nastika(Atheistic) schools of Carvaka, Jainism and Buddhism made the scholars and sages pose arguements against Atheism and case for Hindu-Theism.

The same thing happening in the Western world today, a strife between Atheists and Theists, already did for us Hindus millenia ago giving us a head start.:D

Buddhism and Jainism meant Hinduism had to consider reformation regarding its rigid social codes of caste system, which it eventually did.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté upasaka (upāsaka उपासक )


Can you talk to us (me) a bit of karuṇā ( compassion ) and its central role in buddhism?

Also - would you care to give your option on this philosophical matter. It is thought by some that creation inspired by compassion made all living creatures including puruṣa (human beings). If this is so, why then do we find many in misery and the compassion of creation does not keep one on the 'straight and narrow' of dharma , a most compassionate act?
This is asked often in various circles and wondered if there is a bauddha point of view on this matter.


Last, I lived in Austin for some time and just and recall the new buddist temple that was just being finished on Captial of Texas Highway - is this the temple you frequent?


praṇām

[sm78]

The Buddha teaches that Nibbana is the cessation of suffering, change, becoming, birth, aging, sickness and death. It is a state that is reached only when all clinging and attachments have been completely eliminated. Deep and penetrating insight must be developed first, this is why vipassana meditation is essential to enlightenment. Theravada disagrees with the Mahayana idea that there is no difference between samsara and nibbana. We do not believe that the Buddha taught some sort of "original nature" that is inherently enlightened. There is no inherent nature to mind. Mind is conditioned by what it comes into contact with. Nibbana is unconditioned.

Ultimately, Nibbana must be experienced to be truly understood. I am not enlightened, I have no experience of Nibbana so I must rely on the words of the Buddha to understand it. He typically describes it by stating what it isn't. This goes back to the sentence I wrote up above that nibbana is the absence of suffering and change. It can be experienced while alive as the Buddha entered it upon enlightenment. When he passed away he went into final Nibbana without remainder. Where did he go? I cannot say, in one of the suttas the Buddha says that asking where the Tathagata (the word the Buddha used most frequently when referring to himself) goes after death is like asking where a fire goes when you put it out.

All buddhism I know is from 2nd hand books by monks or lamas (in case of vajrayana). I like Theravada because it was always easy to understand and I could appreaciate why Buddhism is different from what I believe and some of the Hindu philosophies.

Mahayana and Vajrayana has been very confusing, and perhaves it is with my lack of intelligence, but I find them (particularly vajrayana) force fitting a buddhism where it does not fit naturally.

This does not mean there is any logical problem with what these schools say, but somehow it does not seem very "natural" and "organic" in my understanding.

For example worshipping deities in mandalas and the concept of nirvana, dependent origination of samsara does not feel right to me. I have now been pointed out that their is not a serious contradiction, but for me, mandala automatically cononates with a vivartanavada philosophy where the universe (symbolically the mandala/yantra) emerges from the central unborn counciousness represented by shiva-shakti.

The bauddhas follow the same/similar schemes, but replace the center with Hevajra or a Buddha ... but then samsara cannot have anything to do with these enlightened beings, or does it? The layman arguments by lamas is that visualizing these mandalas we attain the same mind as these enlightened beings - which for me is very odd to digest, why so much drama to attain the same mental states as these enlightened beings? More importantly, these rituals are then just sort of mental gymnastics with no connonation with real universe? In that case meditating for silence is a much better option.

As I said, there is no contradiction if mental gymnastics and visualization mandalas of enlightened beings does lead to attaining the enlightened mind. But for me, it is too artificial. The simplicity and clarity of Theravada buddhism as well as its practices is much help at such points.

Advaita vedanta has same problem, but unlike bauddhas, they accept the vivartanvada as a lower philosophy and mode of upasana till the mind is ready to accept the complete truth of advaita. This is a more of a dirty trick to use what does not naturally fit into the philosophy, but atleast there is less confusion for the upasaka.

[MahaHrada]

Mahayana and Vajrayana has been very confusing, and perhaves it is with my lack of intelligence, but I find them (particularly vajrayana) force fitting a buddhism where it does not fit naturally..

Namaste SM

This is true, and i agree with you but i don´t think the situation in Hinduism is much different,both Religions have developed and assimilated elements from other traditions and changed, if one keeps in mind that Vajrayana is influenced or based on the tantric traditions, we find the same phenomena in Hinduism where tantra is force fitted on Vedanta and puranic Hinduism.

If we compare Theravada to Vajrayana it is hardly the same religion. If we compare Shrauta Dharma with Smarta or puranic Hinduism it is as well hardly the same religion.

Just take the example of the worship of Indra, in modern Hinduism you don´t find worship of Indra anymore, he was the greatest of the devas in vedic times now he is only mentioned or worshipped as a lokapala. In Vajrayana and Mahayana he is very important and widely honoured and worshipped as one of the greatest supporters and protectors, (vajrapani) of the Buddha. In this respect Vajrayana carries on a most important practical aspect of early vedic tradition, that has been wiped out in Hinduism.

With regard to Mandalas or Yantras one may ask why does a deity that has an atman choose to appear surrounded by a cloud of lesser forms in a mandala or yantra? You won´t find such an idea in the Vedas or Upanishads, at least i don´t remember having ever read something like this. A Buddha without an idea of an individual self, naturally may be conceived to assume as many forms as one can imagine and indeed very early in Buddhism, the enlightened yogi has the siddhi to appear in, and emanate a multitude of bodies at the same time.
The devas may appear in all the multiple forms of the universe like the Vishvarupa of Krishna or the Devi can be conceived as the complete universe as Jagadamba, but the diverse Yantras or Mandalas are a little different with their multitudes of avarana devatas where most of them are different aspects of the central being. For example among the Siddhis of a Buddha described in Avatamsaka Sutra (ca.first century bce) appear the following:

The ability to appear in one hundred incarnations, and each incarnation is able to appear with one hundred families around him.

But there are other things that feel more force fitted, like the use of sound, letters, mantra or japa a topic where Vajrayana is unable to provide an adequate explanation and background and Hindu Tantra does.

[sm78]

Namaste SM

This is true, and i agree with you but i don´t think the situation in Hinduism is much different,

Well ofcourse not, except that, Hinduism (at least till sometime back) was not claimed to represent one ideology and system propagated by or even based on one personality. Buddhism is afterall following buddha and a no-self dogma...hinduism is could be following shruti, agama, smriti etc etc.

Regarding your other points I agree...yantra /mandala may have little basis in shrauta hinduism, but then it is vivartanavada is what I was talking about in which it makes perfect sense along with use of sound, mantra, chakra etc.

[MahaHrada]

Well ofcourse not, except that, Hinduism (at least till sometime back) was not claimed to represent one ideology and system propagated by or even based on one personality. Buddhism is afterall following buddha and a no-self dogma...hinduism is could be following shruti, agama, smriti etc etc.

Regarding your other points I agree...yantra /mandala may have little basis in shrauta hinduism, but then it is vivartanavada is what I was talking about in which it makes perfect sense along with use of sound, mantra, chakra etc.

Hinduism is claiming to follow the vedas and it rarely truly does do so, in my opinion except for the shrauta dharma. Buddhism says it follows the Buddha but rarely does so :) . Thats why i like to talk about Bharata Dharma rather than Hinduism to include also the nastika dharmas like the Bauddhas in one whole.

Look at Samkhya for instance, Buddhism is much closer in many respects to Samkhya than any of the later astika darshana, except Yoga probably, but Yoga is theistic and Samkhya and the Bauddha Dharma don´t need a creator to achieve Kaivalya or Nirvana. Both eradicate individual self awareness by meditation.

I think it can be misleading to focus too much on the acceptance of the Veda as pramana when comparing darshanas, often it is only lip service, when in reality most of the astika darshanas are as strongly opposed to shrauta dharma than the bauddhas.

Vajrayana Mahayana Chan and Dzog chen pay lip service to Anatma doctrine, but have watered it down so much that shunya almost has become the equivalent of advaitam or samarasya like in Nath panth and tantra, of course they won´t allow their sects to become "heretics" and in tibet and china some sects have been eradicated the monks killed, and their monasteries destroyed, because they strayed to far from the anatman doctrine, like the jonangpa sect practising the Kalachakra tantra.

[upasaka]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté upasaka (upāsaka उपासक )


Can you talk to us (me) a bit of karuṇā ( compassion ) and its central role in buddhism?

Also - would you care to give your option on this philosophical matter. It is thought by some that creation inspired by compassion made all living creatures including puruṣa (human beings). If this is so, why then do we find many in misery and the compassion of creation does not keep one on the 'straight and narrow' of dharma , a most compassionate act?
This is asked often in various circles and wondered if there is a bauddha point of view on this matter.


Last, I lived in Austin for some time and just and recall the new buddist temple that was just being finished on Captial of Texas Highway - is this the temple you frequent?


praṇām

Namaste,

Compassion is very important in all forms of Buddhism. It was compassion that led the Buddha to share what he learned by teaching for over 50 years. Frequently, in the suttas, the Buddha talks of the importance of compassion and developing metta for all beings throughout the universe.

In regards to misery, the Buddha teaches that suffering is one of the Three Marks of Existence. It is built in to our experience of the world. What is, will one day not be. We crave what is impermanent, conditioned by suffering, and void of self-nature. Because we crave what is impermanent, at best we can only achieve impermanent happiness. This is why the Buddha teaches the way to Nibbana, only in Nibbana does suffering completely cease. In regards to what makes beings take birth, desire is the underlying cause.

Very cool to hear you spent some time in Austin! I actually attend a monastery that lies in southwest Austin. This particular lineage is from Burma.

[upasaka]

Namaste MahaHrada and sm78,

Both of you made some really good points and asked some good questions. I have to leave soon for work and plan on addressing the points you both made this evening when I get back home. Forgive me for the delay. :)

[upasaka]

All buddhism I know is from 2nd hand books by monks or lamas (in case of vajrayana). I like Theravada because it was always easy to understand and I could appreaciate why Buddhism is different from what I believe and some of the Hindu philosophies.

Mahayana and Vajrayana has been very confusing, and perhaves it is with my lack of intelligence, but I find them (particularly vajrayana) force fitting a buddhism where it does not fit naturally.

You have no lack of intelligence, my friend. Vajrayana is quite a departure from Theravada. Having said that, I do not deny that it is Buddhist. If a tradition holds to the Buddha's Four Noble Truths they should be considered Buddhist, in my opinion. Mahayana and Vajrayana have introduced many innovations to the original dhamma taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught that an individual must do the work of realizing Nibbana, no divinity can help. You want good weather? A god can help you there. Want a child? Want a successful marriage or business venture? These are the types of things you would pray to a divinity for. You want to abandon craving and transcend suffering and rebirth? The Buddha taught that only you can accomplish that work because it requires a personal commitment to transformation that cannot be imposed on you by an external force. We have to reckon with the kamma we generate, be it good or bad.


This does not mean there is any logical problem with what these schools say, but somehow it does not seem very "natural" and "organic" in my understanding.

For example worshipping deities in mandalas and the concept of nirvana, dependent origination of samsara does not feel right to me. I have now been pointed out that their is not a serious contradiction, but for me, mandala automatically cononates with a vivartanavada philosophy where the universe (symbolically the mandala/yantra) emerges from the central unborn counciousness represented by shiva-shakti.

Some Mahayana schools teach the idea of trikaya, or the triple body of the Buddha. They are the dharmakaya, samboghakaya, and the nirmanakaya. The dharmakaya is taught to be the non-dual base of reality that comprises the "actual" body of the Buddha. Since Mahayana teaches that all beings will become fully-enlightened Buddhas, the dharmakaya can be said to be our actual body as well. The sambhogakaya is the Buddha's "reward body" that is attained upon realizing full enlightenment. All Buddhas possess this reward body that exists in a Pure Realm and displays the full 32 marks of the Tathagata. (For instance, think of the Buddha Amitabha who dwells in the western Pure Land, Sukhavati.) The nirmanakaya is the apparition body, or the form that the Buddha assumes while on earth, (or whatever material world is in question.) So, the historical Buddha Siddhatha Gautama was merely a nirmanakaya in this teaching.

Theravada does not teach the doctrine of Trikaya. As I understand it, there are references in the Pali suttas to the Buddha's dhammakaya, but here the idea simply reflects that the Buddha's teachings comprise the actuality of what the Buddha "is." In other words, if you see the Buddha you see his dhamma, and when you see the dhamma you see the Buddha himself.


Advaita vedanta has same problem, but unlike bauddhas, they accept the vivartanvada as a lower philosophy and mode of upasana till the mind is ready to accept the complete truth of advaita. This is a more of a dirty trick to use what does not naturally fit into the philosophy, but atleast there is less confusion for the upasaka.

Very interesting. I am familiar with Advaita, but I fear I am not too certain about what "vivartanvada" is.

[upasaka]

If we compare Theravada to Vajrayana it is hardly the same religion. If we compare Shrauta Dharma with Smarta or puranic Hinduism it is as well hardly the same religion.

Just take the example of the worship of Indra, in modern Hinduism you don´t find worship of Indra anymore, he was the greatest of the devas in vedic times now he is only mentioned or worshipped as a lokapala. In Vajrayana and Mahayana he is very important and widely honoured and worshipped as one of the greatest supporters and protectors, (vajrapani) of the Buddha. In this respect Vajrayana carries on a most important practical aspect of early vedic tradition, that has been wiped out in Hinduism.

Interesting point. There are frequent references in the Pali suttas to the devas. The two most mentioned, and consequently the most important, are Indra and Brahma. The Buddha teaches that when a new universe comes into existence, the first being to be reborn in it is Brahma, who begins the process of creation. He obviously is not a first cause as his station as a Brahma is due to the very good kamma that was cultivated in past lives. Furthermore, there are also references in the texts to multiple Brahmas. There are stories in the suttas of the Buddha and some of his monks having personal encounters with the Brahma-kings.

As you mentioned, Indra is a protector of the Buddha-dhamma. As such, he is rightfully honored by Buddhists. Indra also makes frequent appearances in the Pali texts. He is referred to as Sakka, typically.