My sense of Bhikkhu Bodhi is that he has enormous integrity, and is not bending to Mahayana or to the supposed needs of his supporters.
The Buddha’s life is an example of both the Arahant ideal and the Bodhisatta ideal. The Buddha clearly taught that the goal of the Path is the release into Nibbana. Bhikkhu Bodhi makes that point clear. Yet, there is still room for the practice on the Path of compassion and living a life that is ethical, and in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s comments, pragmatic and mindful that it is one’s intentions that infuse the brightness of the kamma that is created. The First Precept, for example, is a significant and meaningful training rule; it is not an absolute injunction or ordinance written on a stone tablet by a god, punishable by damnation. I feel Ven. B’s approach is entirely consistent with Dhamma.
You won’t ever see Ven. Bodhi endorsing the harm being done to the Rohingya in Burma. In fact, his Buddhist Global Relief has partnered with other NGOs around the world to support food security and safety to many peoples, irrespective of religion. Take a peek at this page for more information: https://buddhistglobalrelief.me/2015/05/27/buddhist-emergency-fund-for-rohingya-of-burma/
I admire Bhikkhu Bodhi tremendously. I feel he is an exemplar of what some aspects of Theravada or EBT Buddhism can be. He, like Ajahns Brahm, Sujato, and Brahmali, has courageously broken the mold a bit with Theravada, and all are examples of how informed Buddhists might engage in the world and help change the world for the better. These approaches, in my view, lead us not to Mahayana-ish approaches, but deliver us more closely to the life and example that the Buddha himself set.
There is just no contest. The Mahayanists have the best one-liners. Confronted with any line from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the one-cart Theravadins can only hang their heads in shame. Some random picks:
In no way does vision see itself. If vision does not see itself, how will it see what is other ?
There is no seer with vision or without. If the seer is nonexistent, how will there be what is to be seen and vision ?
If time exists dependent on an existent, how will time exist in the absence of an existent ? No existent whatsoever exists; how, then, will there be time ?
[quote=“Sujith, post:23, topic:4669, full:true”]
There is just no contest. The Mahayanists have the best one-liners. Confronted with any line from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the one-cart Theravadins can only hang their heads in shame. [/quote]My own mere experience is such that Theravadins usually can simply says “Nagarjuna was wrong”, “Nagarjuna was not a Buddhist”, or “Nagarjuna is teaching proto-Advaita/pseudo-Hinduism with high emphasis on neti neti,” or “Nagarjuna’s discourse is disapproved of by the Buddha and negated by the thicket-of-views discourse.”
Theravadins also have their share of comebacks, usually predicated on the apocryphal nature of most Mahayana literature, or, if they are familiar with late Indian Buddhist folklore, they might notice the eccentric belief that emerged which considered Nagarjuna a 1200-something year-old quasi-immortal alchemist who helped found Tibetan Buddhism and transcribed sutras, allegedly, dictated to him by Maitreya.
So the Theravadins are not without their own ammunition when attacked by sectarian Mahayanists.
