text:
Is Theravada Buddhism the only modern representative of Hinayana Buddhism?
Apologies for the term Hinayana but this question is borne out of those discussions.
So - is Theravada Buddhism the only modern representative on Hinayana Buddhism or are there another current branches of Buddhism, no matter how minor, that could also be termed 'Hinayana'. Or in other words would Theravada be completely synonymous with 'currently existing Hinayana Buddhism'.

Non-mahayana might be a better word for it.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Theravada is not Hinayana. Some of Theravada practitioners are at Mahayana level, and some Tibetan buddhists are at Hinayana level.
When one's understanding of (and attitude towards) Buddha-Dharma is very simplistic and literal, we say such person is a Hinayana-level practitioner. On Hinayana level we get indoctrinated with basic concepts like Samsara and Nirvana, learn to follow basic discipline, like Five Precepts and overall minimalism, and establish basic meditation skills, like Samatha meditation on breathing. At this level everything is cut and dry, all instructions are well defined, there is no room for hesitation or sloppiness anywhere. One's focus is on one's practice, and on overcoming one's pathological habits, esp. the habit to give in to random impulses.
When one has established the foundation, one can either get stuck on this precise well-defined formulaic black-and-white level, and remain a (childish) Hinayana ascetic forever, or go onto more advanced aspects of Buddhism -- more subtle and fuzzy when you speak about them, but much more direct in terms of actual experience. Again I emphasize, this happens even in Theravada! At this level, one's focus shifts from self to others, and from overcoming impulses to overcoming aversions. At the same time, as one keeps on applying Dharma to one's daily life, one's realization slowly matures to the point when one no longer needs formulaic instructions and can handle issues with a sense of wisdom. This is so-called Mahayana attitude to Buddha-Dharma.

Hinayana is complicated philosophical term, sometimes it refer to lower motivation, sometimes to some misunderstanding of Teaching, sometimes to smaller knowledge, or restricted acceptance of Buddha's Teaching, and sometimes it's misnomer for early schools. I want to stress, that term is philosophical from just a few of Mahayana sutras. It is not a simple thing as school, (and Mahayana is not a school too).
Hinayana as type of motivation (lower than reaching Buddhahood) is acceptable lower motivation in Mahayana schools for some types of personalities. So, in that sense Hinayana is survived inside of any Mahayana school, which accepts such notion.
In the sense of non-Mahayana: many Mahayana schools accept and their canons contain non-Mahayana teachings. All traditional Mahayana schools actually have survived vinaya lineages of early schools, not related to Mahayana doctrines.
On the other hand, Theravada developed bodhisatta practices and philosophical concepts which thought by some to be distinctively mahayanistic. It just don't generally accepts Mahayana canon, but don't officially denies either. So it's personal choice to accept it or not. Some Theravada scholars studied Mahayana, for example famous Walpola Rahula, he even wrote dissertation on Abhidharmasmuccaya with parallels to Pali canon.

Theravada Buddhism is not a representative of Hinayana. Just because some choose to call a derogatory term to certain traditions, doesn't make them representatives of the term. ex: If someone calls you a peasant, does it make you a representative of the word? Even if one does not mean it as an insult anymore, it's technically incorrect to use the word as Theravada Buddhism clearly recognizes and supports attaining enlightenment through all three Bodhis.

Bhikku Bodhi, an ordained monk of the Theravada tradition wrote an essay titled "Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas". This essay describes his view on the relationship between these three and how the bodhisattva ideal emerged from the early Buddhist sects and how they are viewed within his tradition.
In summary, based on the earliest records of the the Buddha's teachings, he never discussed the bodhisattva path or the arahant path. But through considering the amount of karma that would be necessary to become someone as exalted as the Buddha, the bodhisattva path was envisioned. Although this path was never discussed in the early Buddhist scriptures, it was accepted as a logical extension of the teachings.

During the age of Sectarian Buddhism, the Early Buddhist schools came to admit three "vehicles" to enlightenment: the vehicle of the disciple arahant, the śrāvaka-yāna, to be taken by the greatest number of disciples; the vehicle of the "solitary enlightened one" who attains realization without a teacher but does not teach, the pratyekabuddha-yāna, which is still more difficult; and the vehicle of the aspirant to Buddhahood, the bodhisattva-yāna. Once it became widespread in mainstream Indian Buddhism, the idea of the three vehicles was not only taken up by the Mahāyāna but was eventually also absorbed into conservative Theravāda Buddhism.

However, although the bodhisattva-yana is recognized in the Theravada tradition, the sravaka-yana is still the path that they advocate for most in accordance with the Buddha's advice. In this sense, it could be called Hinayana, but when you talk about a "lesser" path it's important to realize what it is less than and what it is greater than.
The bodhisattva-yana is truly a difficult path. It's like running into a burning house over and over again to save as many people as can be saved even though you will be burned. Or guarding the mouth of a cave full of demons day and night so that you can warn people away from entering, even though you will get bitten. It's not something that most people are capable of.
The sravaka-yana is far greater than the path followed by an ordinary person, a foolish person, or an animal. It's like being in a burning house and helping as many people as possible to safety, before saving yourself as well. It's like guarding the mouth of a cave full of demons during the day to warn as many people as possible, but retreating to safety at night.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

Ven. Bodhi wrote another article, Dhamma and Non-duality, two years before the one you referenced. I asked about that article in this topic -- Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana -- and some people criticised it as having an imperfect understanding of Mahayana.

@ChrisW Thanks for the information. The way he describes the Mahayana does disagree with my (admittedly immature) understanding. I'll have to do some research and think about updating my answer.

I'm not saying your answer is wrong at all, only that he is maybe not the most reliable explainer of Mahayana. I guess it's an accurate explanation of the Theravada view of what the bodhisattva-yana is.


text:
Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?
I know it is very common these days to associate Chakras with Buddhist meditation, but I couldn't find anything that supports that in the suttas. (I haven't read all suttas)
Did the Buddha himself taught about Chakras or has it been incorporated later in some parts of the world?

There is nothing supernatural about chakras. They are psychosomatic phenomena; they exist only in the subjective world of a person. That's why you can't photograph a chakra, or measure its "field intensity" with some kind of device.
If you inspect your subtle tactile perceptions, you will surely notice feelings in and around your chest, stomach, forehead, eyes, hands, wrists, feet etc. Subjectively, these feelings are not located on the surface of, or inside the body, but rather "in the air" around it.  They are not produced by a contact with an external object, and they are not as sharp as itching or pain. What are they then?
Chakras are somatic projections of our emotional state onto the internal map of the body. They are indicators of what goes on inside our brains, below the threshold of awareness. Some of the emotions most often accompanied by chakra sensations are worry, urge, longing, resentment, irritation but also the positive ones e.g. love, fondness.
In Chinese Mahayana, Buddhism is often taught in combination with Tai-Chi, Qi-Gong, and other forms of "energy management" exercises focused on developing one's psychosomatic skills. The Chinese (also Korean, Vietnamese, etc.) recognize three main chakras: lower dantian (lower abdomen), middle dantian (chest) and upper dantian (head). The Indians  recognize more chakras, but if you think about it, these are just alternative ways to emphasize some of the most important locations in person's subjective space.
Even though Buddha did not mention chakras directly, his various mindfulness practices are essentially chakra exercises. Specifically, kayagata-sati (mindfulness rooted in the body) involves paying constant attention to feelings around throat, chest, solar plexus, lower abdomen, and feet. Similarly, anapana-sati (mindfulness of breathing) involves paying attention to the diaphragm, esp. the sensations experienced around the moment when the breath reverses its direction.
But to answer your question directly, no, Buddha of Pali Canon did not speak about chakras, these and other practices (yoga, tantra) were incorporated later, as people realized their affinity with Buddhism's goal and methods.

Thanks for all details, just one point: "these and other practices (yoga, tantra) were incorporated later". Yes, but not by all Buddhists, I'm trying to do exactly that to improve my knowledge on Buddhism, separate the original Buddha's teachings from later practices or specifics from a contry. Thanks

You can measure and photograph a chakras with Kirlian photography and AuraCam.

I wouldn't take a strictly materialist view that Chakras don't exist because they can't be seen or photographed. Chakra centers can be hot or cold to the touch while the surrounding area is normal. Likewise the corporeal mortification practices of Indian yogis and Chinese Shaolin fighters relies heavily on chakras. The Indian martial art of Varma Kalai specifically targets chakra centers as points of attack.

Certainly the physical and the mental are not two.

"...The Chinese... recognize three main chakras: lower dantian (lower abdomen), middle dantian (chest) and upper dantian (head)..." No. dantian NOT= chakra. Dan (丹) - hard to translate, maybe temporarily call it Philosopher's Stone? Tian (田) - field. Thus "dantian" is not a point, as chakra is a point; but field is an area. The Chinese emphasized these 3 areas, there are more than 7, or 12 chakras the Chinese recognized, Chinese Acupuncture listed hundreds of this points of energies. So is the Tibetan taught about bindu(s).

Tibetan/Indian nida(s), Central Channel... so is the Chinese 任督脈, 黃道... 大小周天. Nothing is new. However, equate them won't help in doing self-cultivation. These are different systems on the same object, as painters do drawing for the same object their applications of colors and strokes can never be overlaid. Not sure if saying Chinese Mahayana taught Tai Chi/ Qi-Gong is valid. But of course meditation training is not just limited to those Insight Meditation, Samantha Meditation. Even Anapana can be potent if one learnt the entirety of it, however entirety is doubtful in the Suttas.

I'd say (tentatively) that chakras are a methodological device and not important otherwise. At this time I'm struggling to think of a top-notch teacher who mentions them. The Buddha. Osho, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramana, Sri Aurobindo, Alan Watts, Rupert Spira, Master Hongzhi, the writers of the Upanishads  and others of such realisation simply bypass this stage of thinking. Of course, saying something is a methodological device does not make it unimportant. Working with chakras may be very useful and effective. On this I cannot comment.   .

As far a I know only the Vajrayana school of Buddhism includes chakras within it's teaching. This being a school heavily influenced by Tantric/Yoga practises, so it's mostly practised in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Mongolia.
It's not a part of the other schools and doesn't feature in the suttas.

Tibetan Mahayana also inclusides Chakras in their teachings, but I don't if it came from the original Buddha's teachings or something they added later.

Doesn't Tibetan Mahayana tend to include Vajrayana?  I always thought Tibetan Buddhism as a whole didn't separate the two.

There are indirect references although this concept doesn't exist in Theravada Buddhism.
E.g. in Anapana many Theravada traditions teach to keep your attention around the mouth or base of the nose and upper lip (Ledi Sayadaw and student's interpretations). This area is pretty sensitive when you start looking deeply into the touch sensations. There is also some advice on other points like the chest, pallet, breast bone (Thai Forest tradition as taught by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo)  or stomach (Mahaisi Sayadaw Linage, Thai Forest Tradition).
Thai Forest Tradition (as taught by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo) focuses different nerve centers, much more than any other Theravada traditions. The interpretation here is not they are chakras put nerve centers which help anchor your concentration. May of these point bear physical proximity to where chakras are.

I believe you are referring to points used in meditation to sharp one's concentration, I'm not sure it is related to Chakras

Yes. May of them are actually sensitive nerve centers and seam to have some relationship to chakras (not necessarily through but around the same place or close to where chakras are supposed to be) like upper pallet, forehead, chest, stomach, nose, upper lip, etc. though it is not referred as such.

Yes. The Buddha mentions all these things as the "fire element."
He did not draw attention to these things because the kundalini phenomenon, which purifies your chakras is aggravated when the user's attention is drawn to it.
Also there is a tremendous amount of other cultivation and real-life concepts he had to discuss then go into these concepts all day.
Thus, the Buddha ignored the concept of chi channels because it is best for monks to do so.
Nowadays, you cannot ignore such a concept because our minds are more filled with information. You will subconsciously think about it one way or another and affect your experience.
Which is why you now need the information to ignore the concept.
I refer you to Master Huai-Chin Nan's book Tao & Longevity for a longer, fuller explanation of chi channels, chakras, longevity, and immortality (and then he tells you to ignore all of it if you want to achieve it).

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana?
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.

do the answers below address your question? Can you see that Jayarava below has made a widely acknowledged error of western interpretation?

@YesheTenley you can upvote or downvote according to what you think is right or wrong

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.

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.

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 ...

... 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

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.

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 ^^^^

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Yeshe's comment is very useful to me in getting an overview of this supposed point of controvetsy

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course they do! But they do all that to attain enlightenment in another Sasana or become Buddhas themselves.

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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").

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.

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?

That's by definition, that "Buddha" is one who got it without any help from previous Buddha, hence they can't overlap

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...

Well, it's a definition given by the Buddha himself in one of the suttas...

Ah, can you please link to it?

I'm driving at the moment... Maybe @SankhaKulathantille has it handy? Or you can always ask it as question and someone will find it

@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.

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".

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.

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

Apparently, some of us are more in agreement than others ;)

"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):

“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?

@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?

I guess I'm saying that comment to vow #14 does not resolve the seeming contradiction to my satisfaction.

@AndreiVolkov ok, i've tried to clarify. hope this helps!

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.
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.
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.

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.

It's great deed to achieve state of arahant, is it practice recommended by default? (No.) Acquiring merit does not lead to nibbana.

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.

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.

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. :)

Let agree first that what is not encouraged is not same as discouraged. Only bad deeds are discouraged.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd like to answer because I don't think other (existing) answers have completely covered the topic.
Unfortunately I know very little about the subject! So I hope if you know better you may help to correct mistakes or suggest improvements in this answer.

Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana?
No -- Mahayana wants people to be enlightened.
Wikipedia:

According to the teachings of Mahāyāna traditions, "Mahāyāna" also refers to the path of the Bodhisattva seeking complete enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, also called "Bodhisattvayāna", or the "Bodhisattva Vehicle". A bodhisattva who has accomplished this goal is called a samyaksaṃbuddha, or "fully enlightened Buddha". A samyaksaṃbuddha can establish the Dharma and lead disciples to enlightenment. Mahayana Buddhists teach that enlightenment can be attained in a single lifetime, and this can be accomplished even by a layperson.

In summary, enlightenment can be attained in one life (in this life), even by a layperson

I think there are various Mahayana doctrines which aren't the same as Theravada. If the Mahayana "Bodhisattvayāna" makes no sense to you, it might be because of some differences in the following doctrines (and so, if I'm right and if you're interested, it might make sense to ask more about these aspects of Mahayana doctrine).

Some forms of Mahayana teach "sudden enlightenment" -- see Subitism -- not all schools, though, I think it's more a feature of some Chan and Zen schools than Tibetan. I mention it as one example of a doctrine that enlightenment is possible.
IMO it might be better for everyone if the world contains Bodhisattvas than if it doesn't. If you say it's true that there's a conflict between being an Arhat and being a Bodhisattva, some Mahayana doctrines teach it's better to be a Bodhisattva -- see Arhat in Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana might also have a different definition of "enlightenment" or the enlightened state, enlightened views, enlightened behaviour, and so on. In particular, Nirvana is not the ultimate, best, or only form of enlightenment -- see Nirvana and Mahayana
Mahayana might also have a different doctrine of what happens after death. I think that parinibbana in Theravada is some kind of permanent extinction or dissolution -- whereas in Mahayana the consciousness (or something like that) of the enlightened being continues, and exist in some kind of Pure land.
This doctrine applies to Arhats too -- they too continue to exist after parinibbana in a pure land, in meditative equipoise (which is also known as samatha).
Buddhas and enlightened beings can return to this realm -- perhaps, I don't know, not in quite the same way as normal rebirth.

In summary:

Enlightenment is taught as a good (even a highest) aspiration, and as feasible not impossible
The Bodhisattvayāna aspiration might seem illogical given the Theravada definitions, but Mahayana has several distinct doctrines e.g. about what enlightenment is, what parinibbana is, whether an enlightened being can remanifest, so it's not illogical according to those doctrines.

I might add that Mahayana includes relying on or benefiting from the Buddha. That's not part of the question, but I wanted to mention it because it's important.

I'd like to see a canonical(Mahayana) reference to the view that enlightened beings continue after death.
Here are some Wikipedia references which suggest that's so.

Pure land

A pure land is the celestial realm or pure abode of a buddha or bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism. The term "pure land" is particular to East Asian Buddhism (Chinese: 淨土, Jìngtǔ) and related traditions; in Sanskrit the equivalent concept is called a "buddha-field" (Sanskrit buddhakṣetra).
In the Mahayana sutras, there are many pure lands. Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteśvara and Manjusri would obtain pure lands after they attained buddhahood.
The Śuddhāvāsa (Pāli: Suddhāvāsa; Tib: gnas gtsang.ma) worlds, or "Pure Abodes", are distinct from the other worlds of the Rūpadhātu in that they do not house beings who have been born there through ordinary merit or meditative attainments, but only those Anāgāmins ("Non-returners") who are already on the path to Arhat-hood and who will attain enlightenment directly from the Śuddhāvāsa worlds without being reborn in a lower plane (Anāgāmins can also be born on lower planes). Every Śuddhāvāsa deva is therefore a protector of Buddhism. (Brahma Sahampati, who appealed to the newly enlightened Buddha to teach, was an Anagami from a previous Buddha). Because a Śuddhāvāsa deva will never be reborn outside the Śuddhāvāsa worlds, no Bodhisattva is ever born in these worlds, as a Bodhisattva must ultimately be reborn as a human being through their 'compassion' (Sanskrit: Karuṇā) and bodhisattva vows.

Saṃbhogakāya

The Sambhogakaya is a "subtle body of limitless form". Both "celestial" Buddhas such as Bhaisajyaguru and Amitābha, as well as advanced bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteśvara and Manjusri can appear in an "enjoyment-body."[citation needed] A Buddha can appear in an "enjoyment-body" to teach bodhisattvas through visionary experiences.
  Those Buddhas and Bodhisattvas manifest themselves in their specific pure lands. These worlds are created for the benefits of others. In those lands it is easy to hear and practice the Dharma. A person can be reborn in such a pure land by "the transfer of some of the huge stock of 'merit' of a Land's presiding Buddha, stimulated by devout prayer.
  One of the places where the Sambhogakāya body appears is the extra-cosmic realm or pure land called Akaniṣṭha. This is one of the highest realms of the Śuddhāvāsa devas.
  Absolutely seen, only the Dharmakāya is real; the Sambhogakāya and Nirmanakaya are "provisional ways of talking about and apprehending it".

Buddhology -- Eternal Buddha

An important doctrine that flourished during the middle period of the unfolding of the Mahayana - and is still important today amongst certain Mahayana schools of Buddhism - is that of the Buddha's immortality and eternity. The idea of an eternal Buddha is a notion popularly associated with the Mahayana scripture, the Lotus Sutra, which was written down about 500 years after Shakyamuni`s preaching of it.. The Lotus Sutra has the Buddha indicating that he became awakened countless, immeasurable, inconceivable trillions of aeons ("kalpas") ago and that his lifetime is "forever existing and immortal". The sutra itself, however, does not directly employ the phrase "eternal Buddha"; yet similar notions are found in other Mahayana scriptures, notably the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which presents the Buddha as the ultimately real, eternal ("nitya"/ "śāśvata"), unchanging, blissful, pure Self (Atman) who, as the Dharmakaya, knows of no beginning or end. The notion of an eternal Buddha perhaps finds resonance with the earlier idea of eternal Dharma/Nirvana, of which the Buddha is said to be an embodiment.
While Theravada Buddhism holds back from stating that the Buddha is eternal and emphasises all-round impermanence, some expressions of Mahayana Buddhism, however, regard such an understanding as incomplete. The Tathagatagarbha sutras provide an allegedly culminational doctrine of a pure Selfhood (the eternal yet ungraspable hypostasis of the Buddha) which no longer generates karma and which subsists eternally in the realm of Nirvana, from which sphere help to suffering worldly beings can be sent forth in the forms of various transitory physical Buddhas ("nirmānakāyas"). While the bodies of these corporeal Buddhas are subject to disease, decline and death - like all impermanent things - the salvational Tathagata or Dharmakaya behind them is forever free from impairment, impermanence and mortality. It is this transcendent yet immanent Dharmakaya-Buddha which is taught in certain major Mahayana sutras to be immutable and eternal and is intimately linked with Dharma itself. According to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, worldly beings fail to see this eternality of the Buddha and his Dharma. The Buddha declares in that latter Mahayana sutra, which presents itself as the last and most definitive of all sutras: "I say that those who do not know that the Tathagata [Buddha] is eternal are the foremost of the congenitally blind."

This might be relevant too, if only as a description of a relevant or related practice:

Deity yoga

Deity yoga (Tibetan: lha'i rnal 'byor; Sanskrit: Devata-yoga) is a practice of Vajrayana Buddhism involving identification with a chosen deity through visualisations and rituals, and the realisation of emptiness.
The purpose of Deity yoga is to bring the meditator to the realization that the yidam or meditation deity and the practitioner are in essence the same, that they are non-dual (advaya). According to John Powers. "Deity yoga is a technique for becoming progressively more familiar with the thoughts and deeds of a buddha, until the state of buddhahood is actualized through repeated practice."
According to Gyatrul Rinpoche, the point of this practice is to "understand your buddha nature, which is the very essence of your being" and is "intrinsically present" in all beings.

Here's a description of Bodhicitta (the motive or intention or state of mind). I think this does imply (accepting or aspiring to) rebirths, but doesn't imply a desire (nor need) to remain unenlightened:

Bodhicitta

In Buddhism, bodhicitta, "enlightenment-mind", is the mind that strives toward awakening, empathy, and compassion for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Bodhicitta is a spontaneous wish to attain enlightenment motivated by great compassion for all sentient beings, accompanied by a falling away of the attachment to the illusion of an inherently existing self.
The mind of great compassion and bodhicitta motivates one to attain enlightenment Buddhahood, as quickly as possible and benefit infinite sentient beings through their emanations and other skillful means. Bodhicitta is a felt need to replace others' suffering with bliss. Since the ultimate end of suffering is nirvana, bodhicitta necessarily involves a motivation to help others to awaken (to find bodhi).
A person who has a spontaneous realization or motivation of bodhicitta is called a bodhisattva.

And here are quotes from The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation which describe the attainments of the non-Mahayana (non-Bodhisattva) families as not final -- and, in contrast, its description of the Mahayana family -- and finally its describing Buddhahood as the aspiration:

BUDDHA-NATURE
We need to attain unsurpassable enlightenment by freeing ourselves from the confused state of samsara. But,
  is it possible for inferior persons like ourselves to achieve enlightenment even if we make the effort? Why
  wouldn’t we attain enlightenment if we made the effort! All sentient beings, including ourselves, already
  possess the primary cause for enlightenment, the Essence of the Well-gone One.
HEARER FAMILY and SOLITARY REALIZER FAMILY
The family of Hearers consists of those who fear samsara and yearn to achieve nirvana, but who have little
  compassion. It has been said:

One who is afraid upon seeing the suffering of samsara
    And yearns to achieve nirvana
    But has little interest in benefitting sentient beings—
    These three are the marks of the Hearer family

The Solitary Realizer family includes those who possess the above three attributes and in addition are
  arrogant, keep their masters’ identities secret, and prefer to stay in solitary places. It has been said:

Fear at the thought of samsara, yearning for nirvana,
    Little compassion, arrogance,
    Secretive about their teachers, and enjoying solitude—
    A wise one should understand that these are the marks of the Solitary Realizer family

So these two families, the Hearers and the Solitary Realizers, engage in their respective vehicles and even
  though they achieve the results of their practices, these results are not the final nirvana. How do they abide
  when they achieve their fruits? They maintain unafflicted states of meditative concentration,
   but those states
  are based on the psychic imprint of ignorance. Since their meditative concentrations are unafflicted, they
  believe that they have achieved nirvana and remain that way.
If their states are not the final nirvana, then one might argue that the Buddha should not have taught these
  two paths. Is there a reason the Buddha should teach such paths?
   Yes. For example, suppose great merchants
  from this Jambudvipa are traveling the ocean searching for jewels. After many months at sea, in some
  desolate place, they become completely tired and exhausted and think, “There is no way to get the jewels
  now”. When they feel discouraged and prepare to turn back, the merchant captain manifests a huge island
  through his miracle power and lets all his followers rest there. After a few days, when they are fully rested and
  relaxed, the captain says, “We have not achieved our goal. Now we should go farther to get our jewels.”
Similarly, sentient beings without courage are frightened when they hear about the Buddha’s wisdom. They
  believe attaining Buddhahood is a great hardship, and think, “I have no ability to do this.” There are other
  people who are not interested in entering the path, or who enter the path but turn back. To counter these
  problems, Buddha presented these two paths, and allows them to rest in these states.
As said in the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra:

Likewise, all the Hearers
    Think that they achieved nirvana,
    But they have not achieved the final nirvana
    Revealed by the Buddha
    They are only resting

When these Hearers and Solitary Realizers are well rested in those states, Buddha understands this and
  encourages them to attain Buddhahood. How does Buddha encourage them? He awakens them through his
  body, speech, and wisdom mind.
  “Through wisdom mind” means that light radiates through the Buddha’s wisdom and touches the mental
  bodies of the Hearers and Solitary Realizers. As soon as the light reaches them, they arise from their
  unafflicted meditations. Then the Buddha appears physically in front of them. With his speech he says:

O you monks
     You have not finished your deeds, you have not finished all that you are supposed to do
    Your experience of nirvana is not the final nirvana
    Now all you monks have to work toward enlightenment
    You should attain the realization of the Buddha

From the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra, in verse form:

You, monks, today I declare
    You have not achieved the final nirvana
    In order to achieve the primordial wisdom of the Omniscient One,
    You must cultivate great perseverance
    Through that, you will achieve the wisdom of the Omniscient One

Being motivated by the Buddha in this way, these Hearers and Solitary Realizers cultivate bodhicitta. They
  practice the bodhisattva’s path for many limitless kalpas and eventually achieve enlightenment. The Gone to
  Lanka Sutra relates the same thing. Also, the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra says:

These Hearers have not achieved nirvana
    By thoroughly practicing the bodhisattva’s path,
    They will achieve Buddhahood

MAHAYANA FAMILY
The Hearer and Solitary Realizer families are inferior by virtue of the fact that they fully purify their families
  by dispelling only the obscuration of afflicting emotions. The Mahayana is superior because it fully purifies
  its family by dispelling two obscurations—afflicting emotions and the subtle obscurations to enlightenment.
  Therefore, the Mahayana family is superior and unsurpassed.
[...]
The marks of this family are the signs which indicate the bodhisattva family.

The Ten Noble Bhumis Sutra says
    The family of wise bodhisattvas
    Can be recognized by its signs
    Just as fire is known by its smoke
    And water is known by water birds

In that case, what kinds of marks are there? Their bodies and speech are naturally gentle without
  dependence on a remedy. Their minds are less deceitful, and have loving-kindness and clarity toward sentient
  beings. Thus, the Ten Noble Bhumis Sutra says:

No harshness or arrogance,
    Avoiding all deceit and cunning,
    Having a clear, lovmg attitude toward all sentient beings—
    This is a bodhisattva

In other words, in whatever preparatory actions a bodhisattva undertakes, he always cultivates compassion
  for all sentient beings, has a great inclination toward the Mahayana teachings, has no hesitation to endure
  hardships, and perfectly performs the root virtue of the perfections. Thus, the Ornament of Mahayana Sutra says:

Developing compassion at the preparation stage,
    Devoted interest, patience,
    Perfectly performing the virtues—
    These are the signs of the Mahayana family

Thus, of these five families, those who are the Mahayana family are very close to the cause of enlightenment.
  The Hearer and Solitary Realizer families will eventually lead to Buddhahood, but the cause is farther away
  and it will take a long time. In the indefinite family, some are close and some will take a long time. The
  disconnected family is known by Buddha to wander in samsara for a long time, but this does not mean that
  they absolutely will not attain Buddhahood. They can attain Buddhahood, but it will take a very long time.
  Therefore, since all sentient beings belong to one of these families, all sentient beings are of the Buddha-nature.
  Thus, by the above three reasons, it has been demonstrated that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature.
  Furthermore, consider these examples: silver abiding in its ore, oil abiding in a mustard seed, and butter
  abiding in milk. From silver ore, we can produce silver, from mustard seed, we can produce oil, and from
  milk, we can produce butter. Likewise, sentient beings can become Buddhas.

I hope that helps to clarify the Mahayana motivation. In any case I think that motivation isn't to discourage attaining enlightenment, but is instead to try to practice, to learn, to teach enlightenment (in this sasana).

this is good! although strictly speaking the Bodhisattva path and the Mahayana are synonymous. What you mean to say I think is that the Sanskrit tradition contains the other yana’s as well and not just the Mahayana?

I'd like to see a canonical(Mahayana) reference to the view that enlightened beings continue after death.

@SankhaKulathantille I added some quotes.

There's no "canonical" Mahayana, in the same sense as "canonical" Theravada. Mahayana, by its nature of being adaptive and not conservative school, is a vehicle of (many) skillful means, so it has multiple alternative presentations, which do not have to be logically consistent with each other.

These teachings go against paticca-samuppada. It's basically saying that there can be becoming even if craving is uprooted. I wouldn't call such teachings adaptive. Adaptive is when you take the local customs of a country and give them a Buddhist outlook. But this is simply turning Buddhism on it's head.

@SankhaKulathantille I guess the motive is "compassion" rather than "craving" -- or, that it's not "becoming" but is "abiding in suchness", or something like that. Anyway I think it's missing the point to focus on what happens and continues after death (although that is a central concern of Tibetan, e.g. Nyingma school). Instead I suppose the central point is to aspire to be like the Buddha, to learn from the Buddha: i.e. awake (to the world), above suffering (like a lotus), without afflictive and cognitive obscurations, and compassionate.

Compassion does not lead to becoming. You can call it 'ABC', but as long as there's seeing, hearing...thinking, it is Panchaskhanda(five aggregates).

I think that Mahayana is also about the continuing effectiveness and power (abilities) of the Buddha[s] and Bodhisattvas, to help people.

Buddha is not an almighty God to change universal laws. If craving is eradicated, there's no more continuation. But the disciples of the Buddha continue the dispensation by practicing Dhamma to attain enlightenment and teaching others how to do so.

No one is positing the Buddha as an almighty god who can change universal laws I don’t think ;)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Buddhist Centres in Paris?
I moved to France, Paris recently. I am seeking any meditation centres vipasana, zen, Insight etc., where I can also communicate in English, since I don't speak much French.
Can anyone here who knows about any such places or websites please let me know?

I had success with http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ when looking for local communities. In fact, this is how I found my last Zen Master.
Here is a direct link to Paris page, there are 13 centers registered: http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/province.php?province_id=761

If you've gone through a 10-day Vipassana course (available in France, but not in Paris), you can take a 1-day Vipassana course for old students in Paris. They're both in French and English.

I had the best retreat experience of my life at plumvillage.org - near Bordeaux. I think there's more than one Paris sangha of the Plum Village order. I don't want to sound like a proselytizer, but in my opinion, any serious practitioner must spend some time if possible with Thay.
Speaking English should not be a problem.

There's a Triratna centre in Paris. The people that I know who are running it speak English, but their website is in French and I'm not sure about what language is used in teachings etc. (never been there myself unfortunately).
Regards, Kusalananda


text:
Buddhist path X Romantic Relationships and Sons
First of all I will apologize because it will be hard to put that as a clear and simple question.
Once a person decides to enter the Buddhist path, it becomes clear that one should avoid engaging in romantic relationships as impermanence will definitly create suffering for this person (either by changing or ending the relationship), also a relationship can reduce time for meditation and dhamma study. We can understand why monks are not married.
Using the same logic a person should avoid having a child, as it will create strong attachments and dramaticaly reduce the time for other activities.
That said, we still find lots of Buddhists that decide to have this "normal life", marriage, sons, career, etc... even though they practice the Buddha's teachings, meditate and understand anicca and emptiness. They believe in Samsara, rebirth and Nibbana, but they still make choices that will probably keep their minds tied to this plane. It must be a very hard moment in life, to decide what to do when there is a "conflict" like this.
I'm facing such challenges in my life, because soon I will have to decide about marriage, sons etc. I will create strong bonds and attachments, anyone that passed thought the same thing could help?

Hi konrad01. I believe in Zen Buddhism the monks can marry as can the ordained Reverends of Shin Buddhism. Are you looking for an answer from the Theravada tradition? If so, consider adding Theravada as a tag to your question to clarify. :)

Thanks Robin, good point on the Zen monks, I do follow Theravada, however I appreciate answers from all different traditions

You are mixing up the monk's life with lay life. Lay people are only expected to follow the five precepts on regular days and the eight precepts on Poya days. So they can still get married and have children. You can still attain enlightenment while being a lay person. Visaka was a Sothapanna. But she married and had many children. A monk's life is more congenial to the practice. But the choice is up to you. Buddha never said that all should become monks. Not everyone has the mental fortitude to leave the lay life.

I understand that point, sure we can follow the lay person's path, that is very clear, but the point is: As a lay person it is much harder to follow the path due to strong attachments we create, so what should one think about before making one's mind? If one believes in Samsara, Rebirth and Nibbana, why should one dedicate a great part of his life to wordly things, attachments and sensual pleasure?

You are not duty bound to get married and make kids in life. If you think you can do without those and dedicate that time to meditation, it's perfectly ok. But thinking is one thing and actually doing it is another.

The answer boils down to difference between Hinayana (~beginner's) and Mahayana (~advanced practitioner's) attitude.
In beginner's mind, there is a strong conflict between Samsara of day-to-day life, and the peace of Nirvana. Buddhist practice is seen as a mean of cutting the fetters that keep reengaging one in the endless cycle of Samsara with its pointless activities and endless frustration. The challenges of day-to-day life are taken as nuisances or obstacles distracting one from study and practice.
In an advanced practitioner's mind though, Samsara is seen as an inverse projection of attachments, and Nirvana is understood as a fully integrated experience free from conflict between desirable and undesirable, not a place apart of Samsara. For such practitioner, all activity becomes dharmic practice, with glimpses of Nirvana hiding in the here and now, behind the curtain of dualistic mind.
As someone who's been married for 19 years, and a practicing Buddhist for about the same time, I can say that married life provides endless possibilities for overcoming one's pathological habits, dropping one's hang-ups, surrendering one's egoistic facades, and sacrificing one's petty personal goals in the name of the higher good. As long as one operates in the right context, basically that growth requires overcoming the ego, married life becomes the best dharma school one could ask for.
To answer your question, whether romantic relationship is a form of attachment, it again depends on one's attitude. One can take romantic relationship as a candy designed to satisfy one's urge for the sweet, and cry when it is taken away. This is the egoistic perspective. Or one can take romantic relationship as a learning opportunity: to expand and enrich one's relationships with the world, to learn to improvise the dance of life beautifully, to be open and impartial, unfettered by petty desires and hangups like jealousy etc., to stay ever joyful despite the normal challenges. And when impermanence takes over, one can take that as a learning moment as well, and accept it with sobriety and detachment. This is a perspective of the warrior. Or one can take romantic relationship as a chance to enrich the other's life, help the other overcome their wounds and neuroses, and to grow. This is a perspective of Bodhisattva.
The same applies to other forms of engagement with the world. As long as we take them as exercises helping us grow, transcend our ego, and achieve harmony and enlightenment, they are dharmic tools. The moment we make any one of them as all-important in and of itself, and place above the fundamental value of universal existence, we are in for trouble and suffering.

Similar to Andrei Volkov, the opportunities for learning from my wife and daughter have been endless. For that i am grateful and appreciative. My motivation to understand the path is supported and we regularly have conversations. My view is that having a partner, wife, husband, children, etc often bring the balance that is needed and that's what happened to me.

Even though it's a later answer I can't resist putting in something.
I think it's fair to say that if you have children then you won't be able to meditate as much as you once did. Maybe not at all. Also you know that big shelf of Dharma books that you have, well you might not be reading many of those. That 10 day vipassana retreat you wanted to go on, well unless you have a very sympathetic partner you probably won't be going this year. Or the next.
However (in my experience) when you look at your children you know what it means to felt compassion, to feel metta, to feel sympathetic joy and to feel a profound connection with something that isn't you. When you meet other people with children you will feel that again. People generally open up. What seemed like a cold hard world might start to seem more soft and open. You might realise that you have been very wrapped up in yourself and this is an opportunity (a necessity) to leave yourself behind a little.
I guess what my point is that on the face of it having children might seem the absolutely last thing a serious spiritual practitioner would want to do. The foundational story (myth??) of Buddhism has the Buddha to be upping sticks and leaving his wife and son. But the actual experience might be very different and your experience of it surprising. It might not be and you might regret doing it but practice in the midst of the everyday is a powerful thing. If you want a lesson in lack of attachment - just wait to see the things that you are giving up and your response to that.
As an aside - I was just talking to an order member in my tradition and he said that he could only commit properly to the Dharma (and then subsequently become ordained) after he got married. Before that he couldn't commit - to anything, a relationship, children, the Dharma, nothing. He needed the experience of commitment before he could commit to Buddhist practice in a real way.

I'd like to add to the answers you've received by addressing your comment that having a child will dramatically reduce your time for other activities; presumably Buddhist practice. I answer this from the perspective of having raised four sons. :)
When I was younger and had far fewer responsibilities, I had lots of time but there was no urgency to use that time wisely. I chatted with friends for hours, watched tv, went shopping just for the fun of it, and had a purist attitude about lots of mundane things that they should only be done this way or that way regardless of how much time was wasted in the process. The books about serious subjects that I always meant to read sat there, unread.
Fast forward to my years raising four sons and working a full time job (40+ hours per week in this part of the world). This was when I learned that in order to do anything worthwhile you must narrow your focus to what is truly important and discard anything that doesn't bring you closer to your truly important goals. So it's an interesting practice in humility and allowing your own ego to begin to melt to realize you cannot keep up. You cannot keep up with anything trendy, music, politics, the news, what the experts are saying, or any sense of purist ideals that mundane things should be done this way or that way regardless of how much time is wasted. You can make sticky rice by soaking it for 24 hours and steaming it to perfection or by soaking it for 30 minutes and putting in the microwave for 10 minutes. Either way, it's good. :)
My priorities changed a lot too as I realized the better job I had previously wanted would leave me with even less time; the bigger house, the nicer clothes, and all the rest of the material "wants" would also only serve to take time away from important things and I gave up that way of thinking.
To be accurate, I was not Buddhist during this time. Buddhism simply hadn't entered my life yet. But I found time for everything that was important to me at that time and if I had known enough to have had a meditation practice during that time; I would have meditated probably after everyone was asleep or before everyone was awake. (Which is actually what I do these days anyway so I can have more time.)
So the point is, not to get married or have a child because you think you are supposed to or because your family or society expects it of you. But if you have good reasons for wanting to get married or have a child or adopt a child (I'm both a biological and adoptive mom and it's been a very enriching experience both ways.) don't be concerned that the fact that you have less time will mean that you won't have time for meditation or Buddhist study. You will if you make the time; especially if you are willing to give up some sleep. :)
Good luck with your decision.

Thanks for that!! Could you also try to describe your experience in terms of creating attachments with children? It must be the biggest attachment ever, therefore a potential source of great Dukkha, how did you manage that? Do you have a sort of dettached approach?

@Konrad: hmm... having children without wanting and loving them should put muchmuchmuch dukkha in someones life. Buddhism is never a "must"; even the Buddha had told some young people that it were not (yet?) the best time for them to follow him to the forests. And look at the story about the general Siha, to whom the Buddha said: be careful! Are you really ready to follow me in mind and in practice? If someone wants to become a master in marathon - then he must take care to have enough time for training. If he cannot - then... well, then he still can do sports as is appropriate :-)

...(cont) For me, I really looked into myself to know whether I wanted a child: and then I found I wanted. So only after it has been grown up now I'm only bounded with one other human being and have to share decisions between only us two.

@konrad01, I found attachment to my children was very strong and all encompassing when they were very young and dependent upon me. But as they grow, it's entirely possible to step back a bit, step by step and let them be more independent. By the time kids are in their teens, you welcome time away from them sometimes! It's not a detachment in an uncaring way. I actually like Sankha's answer to this question a lot. It mirrors my feelings well. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2170/how-to-combine-buddhism-with-being-a-parent/2174#2174

My point with Dukkha is that many Buddhists avoid clinging to anything because as everything is impermanent, so for instance, a child can get seriously sick, die, suffer a terrible accident etc... we cannot avoid those things, we can only avoid the clinging (not have children for instance), it is a risk all parents are subject to, so I was wondering how it affects one's mind? How can someone meditate or focus on Dhamna with such adversities, it must be very hard. I agree with you Robin, it can be a wonderful experience, no questions about it.

@konrad01, finding the sweet spot between greed, aversion, and delusion is tricky indeed. A very personal decision. Good luck with it. :)

I follow your logic and I agree with you 100% on this. Don't develop romantic relationship. Don't have kids. Let go of as much attachments as possible. Also, creating new human beings when this world is clearly have more than enough human, and a lot of them are in poverty, feels like the wrong priority as a whole.


text:
Right understanding of Dāna
I'd like to understand the Buddhist view of Dāna better. I've read the Vaccha Sutta and it seems to say that gifts are best given to the most worthy. By comparison, in Christianity, the idea seems to be that one should do "for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" source
Am I understanding correctly that the Buddhist view and Christian view of giving are very different? Is there a general concern for the (unworthy) poor in Buddhism? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

First, it's important to understand, that it is not logically follows that if something is more worthwhile than lesser goal is discouraged. Acquiring lesser merits is not discouraged. Only bad deeds are discouraged.
Second, motivation is also play very important role, see AN 7.49.
And yes, merit (positive karmic fruits) of the action is also dependent on its nature, and merit of giving depend on the object of that giving, see AN 9.20.
Giving is meritorious deed, so helping poors is still meritorious deed.

In the same way bad Kamma is different, it is much worse to harm an enlighted being than an ordinary person for example!

Thank you for the sutta references catpnosis. They were helpful also in further understanding a question I had asked a while ago, http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/253/how-does-merit-affect-karma.

@catpnosis looking forward to more participation on the site. Your answers and questions were wonderful. Looking to see more of them.

In Buddhism the merit created is greater if you give food to a monk when compared with giving to a prisoner for example, it doesn't mean you should not help the prisoner, it means that you create more merits by helping pure and enlighted beings to survive, there are many stories on the dhammapada about it.
Think as if you are helping the Sangha to survive, so they can benefit inumerous beings, the impact in the world is bigger and so the merit earned.

Karma in giving is the product of the state of the mind of the giver and the recipients. If we give something in earnest and the recipient is not then the merit is diminished similarly when we do not have a strong volition but the recipient is overjoyed. The most merit results when the giver has strong volition and the recipient also has great appreciation.
Also pure and focused the mind greater the volition and appreciation.
So people in need getting something they need is means the recipient will appreciate it more and would result in better results. Rich or poor you should help at the hour of need.
Also helping people with pure mind like meditators will give better results.
The Buddha spent was amount of time to set establish the Sasana so anything inline with the Buddhas efforts and will brings great merit hence that is why donation to the Sangha is more meritorious than the personal donation to a Buddha.

Householder Robin, interested,
aside of the already given answers, in relation to "Is there a general concern for the (unworthy) poor in Buddhism?"
Giving as part of training upwardly and beyond has release and freedom as it's purpose and only dependency and indebting toward liberation. Where ever one gives into, nourishes it, by deeds, word and thoughts, grows for one, inwardly and outwardly. Where ever one does not give into, dies for one, inwardly and outwardly. Now would a wise person like Sublime or lower growing for him?
There are five proper occasions for placing ones generosity, outside of giving that is a duty in ones relationship one nourishes on (which falls under Sila, virtue, and its violation, actually):

"There are these five seasonable gifts. Which five? One gives to a newcomer. One gives to one going away. One gives to one who is ill. One gives in time of famine. One sets the first fruits of field & orchard in front of those who are virtuous. These are the five seasonable gifts." Kaladana Sutta: Seasonable Gifts

What ever gifts are given outside this proper seasons, and not really related to duty, naturally increase attachments, bounds and problems.
The Buddha and wise generally encourage to give into better, higher and more Sublime at first place for fast growing. Maintain ones duties within equal one dwells and to place out of compassion and in proper situations, if possible also toward those behind.
Giving downward is very popular and modern (actually mostly business and trade for livelihoods, what is sold as de-velopment, for the most is actually en-velopment, making dependend, mostly even with strategies to win over), since one easier gains a state of feeling good and superior and such giving also makes receiver easy bond to one. So for the most such giving seeks interest and amassing in the world, makes others depended on one and in debts. As for those in lower positions it's better if guiding and giving toward doing merits and conduct causes for own future well-being as to serve possible useless desires aside of needed. That is also why the gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts. Maybe good to note here that every being, even the most bad, is worthy of being supplied to live on, with food, medicine and space for such.
See also Vaccha Sutta: To Vaccha and Dana, Caga - Generosity
Possible also important to note is, that it's usual and good, if one likes to help others bond in relations, to always give first the leaders, parents, preceptors of those "poor" are bond to, since if the relations are broken and disturbed by improper giving (causing unwise to think that they now can do as they wish), such destroys not only families but even nations, which is also often very systematical used for the sake of causing degeneration and by all unwise actions on wrong view, causes may troubles in this world and imbalance in relations, wars and detaching from any way upwardly for many.
(Note that this Dhamma gift is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainments to bind or conduct demerits with it, but for release from this wheel)

Thank you for the answer. I didn't understand the second half of this sentence --"Giving as part of training upwardly and beyond has release and freedom as it's purpose and only dependency and indebting toward liberation" -- i.e. "and only dependency and indebting toward liberation".

It's not so that giving does not increase relations, Nyom Chris. If giving into what is headed toward release, for release or even tp released, maintains such relations, nourishes such, such binds toward release. That is why a stream enter is bound to release and no more "free" downwardly and gifts of pure headed toward Nibbana. By giving (into) one nourishes releations, upanissaya.

Dana Sutta: Giving might be of use here.

Modern "hierarchy" and devotion - obstacles: āgati & agati might also give some ideas, related to the topic.

That's why proper association is so important, with people rejoicing in doing generosity and other merits and share them.

Thank you. I understand that now, better than I would have, because (before you deleted them) I saw the comments including the link which you later deleted. Sometimes I understand better if I see a good example.


text:
Is a Mahayana Buddhist *required* to take a Bodhisattva vow?
Is the taking of a Bodhisattva vow a requirement(1) in Mahayana, or is it merely an option (or maybe at most a recommendation)?
And if it's not a requirement, then for someone who decides not to take it, what if anything is the difference, in terms of the overall aim(2), between the Mahayana approach and the Theravada approach?
--
(1) By "requirement" I'm invoking the usual idiomatic use of that word -- i.e. pointing to an action and its consequences. For example, "if you want to build muscle, you are required to lift weights" or "if you want to avoid rebirth in a hell realm you are required to refrain from murdering your parents"
(2) Clearly there are differences in practice formats, but I'm thinking more of the end point. In that context, without the vow to continue as a Bodhisattva, Theravada and Mahayana seem like one and the same.

As per my understanding, formal taking of Bodhisattva vow (with ceremony and all) is not a hard requirement, as long as one eventually internalizes the core message of the vow: that one must surrender the hope of ever attaining Nirvana and get very comfortable with the idea of staying in Samsara for a long, long time.
Here is a version of the vow we chanted, after every meditation session:

Sentient beings are numberless; we vow to save them.
  Desires are inexhaustible; we vow to end them.
  The Dharmas are boundless; we vow to master them.
  The Buddha's Way is incomparable; we vow to attain it.

See those adjectives -- numberless, inexhaustible and so on? Reciting them again and again makes you question what you're really up to ;)
Of course this trick only works in conjunction with perfectly realizing the rest of six paramitas. Staying in Samsara is an act of murdering the ego, not of easing into worldly pleasures. Murdering the ego is the main prerequisite for Enlightenment, from Mahayana perspective.

So did you choose Mahayana because of the whole Bodhisattva thing, or in spite of it, or what?

It was the other way around, Mahayana chose me :)
Seriously, the Hinayana approach has an internal inconsistency which makes it counterproductive for achieving Bodhi. Since Bodhi requires existential realization of Three Marks of Existence, and since one of those marks is Anatta, Bodhi requires dropping the illusion of ego. However, striving for Bodhi solely in order to personally escape from suffering of Samsara is an egoistic goal. Therefore, striving for Bodhi makes Bodhi impossible. It is only when we surrender the ego with its goals that Bodhi becomes possible. Hence Mahayana is the way.

That's an interesting take on it. I was aware of the issue, but I'd always seen it explained as just one of those apparent contradictions that go away on reaching enlightenment. I hadn't seen it as a criterion for choosing. Overall, I'd really like to hear more about that -- about how people chose (or got chosen by :-) their tradition. Not sure if SE is the right place for that kind of thing though.

you're right making that an SE question may angry the moderators :) but you can keep coaxing it out in the comments.

Cultivating bodhicitta (both ultimate and relative) is absolutely indispensable on the Mahayana path; and one who has vowed to do so is called a bodhisattva. From my understanding, this vow can be made with as little or as much pomp and circumstance as befits one's mind - the key is to inspire confidence and commitment. Check out Shantideva's 'Way of the Bodhisattva' for a truly awesome and beautiful way to undertake this path.  Also see Patrul Rinpoche's 'Words of My Perfect Teacher' and his discussion of the vow of bodicitta starting at p. 220. He says:
"True absolute bodhicitta is attained by the power of meditation and does not depend on rituals. To generate relative bodhicitta, however, as beginners we need some procedure to follow, a ritual through which we can take the vow in the presence of a spiritual teacher. We then need to constantly renew that vow, in the same way, over and over again, so that the bodhicitta we have aroused does not decline but becomes more and more powerful."
The "presence of a spiritual teacher" can be either physical or visualized, based on the various presentations I've encountered.
Based on commitment to bodhichitta, one trains in the precepts of aspiration and application. The final fruit is perfect Buddhahood expressed in perfect wisdom and effortless compassion toward all sentient beings - nothing at all limited or 'private' about it!

One thing that is very particular in Buddhist, is its approach regarding what should one do. In Buddhism, we don't say: You must do A, B or C, instead we say: If you do A the consequences will be X.
Take the preceps for example, you should "refraing from killing", this is different from: You shall not kill. The difference may be subtle, but is there.
So, to answer your question I think you don't need to take any vows in order to practice the Dhamma, the bodhisattva vow is something that you do if you wish to become a Buddha (most likely a private Buddha) in a future life, if you seek liberation, if you wish to become an arahant, there is no need for such vows.

The normal everyday use of "requirement" is exactly the one you mean by "if you A the consequences will be X". In fact, I don't think there's really much of a difference between the two meanings you present. (Someone can always ask '"Must do" or else what?'). But I've added to the question to make that clearer.

Hi, the difference is subtle, but is there, it is less impositive, less "top down", it looks like a scientific statement "if you do A, then B will happen", that approach makes a lot of difference. Regarding the vow, there is nothing that says you should take them, they are more present in the Mahayana tradition, if you follow Mahayana, take the vows and make effort, you will be on your way to attain Buddhahood. Such vows are not so encouraged in Theravada tradition.

To clarify: a "private Buddha' refers to the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha's path, which is quite distinct from the bodhisattva's path to full and complete buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings.

Some traditions, schools, teachers, could incite you to take bodhisattva vow(s) as sort of basic thing. But this is their particular teaching and not general Mahayana requirement. Because Mahayana suppose diversity of teaching for different types of personalities. Mahayana, I repeat, is not some unified school, but very very broad notion including any and all types of Buddha's teaching for any types of beings. Some personality may not have courage to have bodhicitta intent and of course she/he will not be pushed out from vehicle of maha-yana.


text:
Is a Theravada Buddhist permitted/able to take a Bodhisattva vow?
This is a sister question to this one.
Suppose a Theravada practitioner decided they wanted to take a Bodhisattva vow, could they (and remain Theravadin)? I guess there are a few of components to this question:

Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?
Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?
Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

The term theravāda means "doctrine" (vāda) of the elders (thera). It generally refers to the teachings found in the Pali Canon, commentaries, and sub-commentaries. Anything laid down as doctrine in this large body of literature should be considered as theravada.
Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?
The Buddha did not, as far as the theravada goes (and as far as I'm aware), teach his followers to become Buddhas, since his focus was on leading beings to freedom from suffering as soon as possible. It is acknowledged as a valid path, however, since that is obviously the only way a Buddha can arise. In many places the Buddha talked about how great was the arising of a Buddha in the world, for the benefit of many.
Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?
Again, there is no doctrinal teaching on the matter; the closest you'll get is in the Jataka commentary, translated in Buddhism in Translations, which talks about the perfections and characteristics of a Bodhisatta.
Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?
The theravada doesn't recognize the term "Mahayana"; it recognizes three paths:

sammā-sambuddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves and is able to teach others to become enlightened due to their limitless knowledge.
pacceka-buddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves but is unable to teach others to become enlightened due to their limited knowledge.
sāvaka-buddha one who becomes enlightened through the teaching of a sammā-sambuddha.

While thus I lay upon the ground, Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire, I my corruptions might
  consume.
"But why thus in an unknown guise Should I the Doctrine's fruit
  secure? Omniscience first will I achieve, And be a Buddha in
  the world.
"Or why should I, a valorous man, The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve, And men and gods convey
  across.
"Since now I make this earnest wish, In presence of this Best of
  Men, Omniscience sometime I'll achieve, And multitudes
  convey across.
"I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest, Destroy existence's three
  modes; I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship, And men and
  gods convey across.
-- The Story of Sumedha

My first retreat was in a Mahayana monastery, it was common for us to repeat "may I quickly become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings" which is beautiful and touching. Many months after that, studying, I understood that the next samma-sambuddha Maytrea is already a Buddha, therefore the maximum one can achieve is being a private Buddha, but that would not help sentient beings as much as a full enlighted Buddha, so I inclined towards Theravada, we can and we should display loving kindness as practicioners to other beings, even without being an Arahant , bodhisattva or a Buddha.

The bodhisattva vow came from the Shakyamuni Buddha, he made the vow to become a Buddha under the Buddha Kassapa. therefore no school of Buddhism should decline a student just because he/she wants to make such vow, the point with Mahayana is that the main goal in that school is to attain Buddhahood, therefore the vow is very important.
For Theravadins the main goal is to become an Arahant, therefore the vow is not crucial. Don't forget that the next Buddha to teach the Dhamma (Maytrea) will only come after 2.500 years once the current Sasana ends, so we are talking about a Paccekabuddha (Private Buddha), a lone Buddha that does not teach the Dhamma.

I am not sure the 2500 years is accurate in a Theravada stand point. This can happen any time after 2500 years but presumably much longer as humans have to evolve into primate like creatures with a life span of 10 years and then back again where the average life span is 80,000 years.

Yes, good point, but what if the 10 years life span is not to be taken literally? Just like the dhammapada stories, there is always this kind of question, could it be just a way if telling a story?

I think it is to be taken literally. How do you know the next Buddha will come after 2500 years after the current. I think the next Buddha will come when the world is back to the age of kings and after all this technology will be destroyed.

The Buddha did NOT take the Bodhisattva vow. His vow was to both reach enlightenment and provide a way for any other being who wants it to also reach it. He did both things. These thing are not the Bodhisattva vow by any means.
The Bodhisattva vow is contrary to it, one takes a vow NOT TO REACH ENLIGHTENMENT until one has helped all other beings to be liberated. This is mere attachment to becoming and to rebirth. First of all, beings are infinite, and vowing to liberate them all is non-sensical. Secondly, as stated by the Buddha, no one can liberate other beings. The Buddha provided the path, but cannot walk it for anyone. Thirdly, the vow would want for you to give others what you yourself do not have, have not realized and experienced. So even if it were possible to liberate others, which it isn't, you would still be unable to do it unless you yourself become enlightened. A Bodhisattva is by definition unenlightened, and so does not stand a chance.
Because of this Bodhisattva doctrine, which is contrary to Dhamma, no one from the Mahayana is ever liberated, and instead clings to becoming and rebirth, out of fear of letting go.

I think you are confusing Enlightenment with Nirvana.

"The Bodhisattva vow is the vow taken by Mahayana Buddhists to attain complete enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings."