Are Mahayana related concepts like Buddha's nature, luminous mind, non duality,etc corruptions of Buddha's teaching?

I know some of this concepts are in EBT but I am not a mahayanist so I don’t understand much of their doctrines hence this question

furthermore in nibbana do you still perceive ?

I don’t believe consciousness can be aware of itself, it just doesn’t make any sense like knife can’t cut itself, I can sense that the philosophy is too deep for me, I want to swim that depth, but my legs are not strong enough, hopefully you guys can help me

since I don’t monopolize the truth I am open minded, a Truth seeker and willing to change my mind

1 Like

I see these concepts as just different way of using Buddhas teachings to experience what it’s like to be buddha…or just a way to get confused unnecessarily.

They can be very beautiful obstacle in achieving nirvana.

Buddha taught liberation so that it will be easy for every one to achieve liberation from suffering. He became buddha so that we will be able to easily attain nibbana. So I think those are wiser who follow what he taught than those who want to be like him.

I think Bodhisattva is someone who scores 99.99% in exam(maybe deliberately) till he sees (out of compassion) everyone scoring 100%, while arhat is the one who scores 100%.
What matters is scoring 100% and clearing exam n ending all the problems! It’s just an imaginary comparison though.

1 Like

Yes it is a corruption because it implies it represents the whole path, which is contrary to the Buddha’s intention. Within Theravada there is provision for those who cannot follow the path of insight in the the brahma-viharas, however that is regarded as a lesser practice.

"And the Blessed One said to the monks, “Monks, Sariputta — when there was still more to be done, having established Dhanañjanin the brahman in the inferior Brahma world — has gotten up from his seat and left.”—MN 97

So there we have the Buddha’s opinion of Mahayana.

1 Like

It is development in Buddhist philosophy during its 2000 years run while being exposed and debating with many other philosophy, meet different culture, and so on.

Some of them are logical development from the concept that is already exist.
Buddha nature= every beings potential to become Buddha. This can’t be denied.
Luminous mind = the state of the mind where defilement not obscuring it. Argued to be the basic nature of the mind.
Non duality = when there is no “I”, there is no " You", there is no duality between subject and object.

It is true that this philosophy is largely useless, to be liberated what we need is actual practice.
But these philosophy develop because there is a need within academia / philosopher to convey dharma in conventional language
Either for the purpose of teaching, debate against other religion, writing, and also appeal to royal patron. (Because at that time Buddhism exist by relying on royal sponsor)

3 Likes

Buddha nature, didn’t say everyone must become Buddha, the sutta seems to affirm potential to be enlightened: SuttaCentral

“In the same way, the Tathagata isn’t concerned with whether all the cosmos or half of it or a third of it will be led to release by means of that [Dhamma]. But he does know this: ‘All those who have been led, are being led, or will be led [to release] from the cosmos have done so, are doing so, or will do so after having abandoned the five hindrances—those defilements of awareness that weaken discernment—having well-established their minds in the four frames of reference, and having developed, as they have come to be, the seven factors for Awakening.

Luminous mind: SuttaCentral

“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that—for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—there is development of the mind.”

Non duality: (From what I have seen in some facebook group), they put it as there’s no seer, there’s no form, only the seen. Thus no conception of two (seer + form), only direct experience of seen (consciousness experience). SuttaCentral

“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train like this: ‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’ That’s how you should train. When you have trained in this way, you won’t be ‘by that’. When you’re not ‘by that’, you won’t be ‘in that’. When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.”

2 Likes

Yes, I think you can trace many Mahayana teachings back to the EBT.
For example, shunyata seems like a logical development of the anatta doctrine.

The Phena Sutta always reminds me of the Heart Sutra.
Compare: “It (eg form) appears both hollow and void when one views it carefully” (Phena Sutta) with:
“Form is only emptiness” (Heart Sutra).

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/bodhi?reference=main&highlight=false

1 Like