Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The impression I get, having been a student in TB for several years now (5-6, I kind of lose track) isn't that Buddha's words come second hand, but that it is understood that his core teachings weave throughout everything. There isn't a focus on them because they are always present in all of the teachings. There is also (IMO) an underlying assumption that you already know the foundation of Buddhism and are "moving on" to Mahayana and/or Vajrayana, as that is much of with TB is. "Why would you stick with addition once you learned multiplication" kind of thing. Not to be insulting whatsoever. My teacher, and no one else i've studied with, has ever, ever put down any branch of Buddhism. Just that it's different strokes for different folks. You still get the same answer whether you add or multiply, one is just a bit more efficient and faster. That's kind of the impression I get as to how Mahayana and Vajrayana view their teachings. They are expansions of what Buddha taught and thus contain all of what he taught.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
There are various ways you can talk about it and justify it, and I've heard similar things from Tibetan Buddhist teachers. But they also talk about things like the "lesser vehicle" and the "great vehicle", and the "fast path", "full enlightenment" for a Buddha as opposed to mere "Arhat-ship" and so on. Some of it is (ancient) terminology used to sell the tradition to new seekers, which is still in use today.
But the fact remains that if you decide to study Mahayana Buddhism you are in fact deciding to trust a whole array of teachers who spanned many centuries, for many of whom you have very little proof of their enlightenment or personal level of realisation. The teachings are not clearly sourced, whereas with Gautama the Buddha there is a lot of lore surrounding his enlightenment.
The impression I get is that a lot of these other teachers wanted to leave things behind, but kind of hung things on the fame of the Buddha and Buddhism. I guess I have a lot of respect for the Theravadan approach of staying close to the words of the Buddha.
@karasti said: There is also (IMO) an underlying assumption that you already know the foundation of Buddhism and are "moving on" to Mahayana and/or Vajrayana, as that is much of with TB is. "Why would you stick with addition once you learned multiplication" kind of thing. Not to be insulting whatsoever.
I don't find this view insulting, though it does seem rather patronising.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
It implies that Theravada is "basic" and Mahayana/Vajrayana is "advanced" and therefore superior. I have heard this kind of view expressed many times, also the view that people of limited ability should stick to Theravada ( "Hinayana" ) because they wouldn't get the "advanced" stuff. It's all nonsense of course, just self-promotion and spin, but some people actually seem to believe it.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2017
I think from a perspective of "what works" the words of the Buddha are the ultimate guide. He got enlightened with these methods, they are what he choose to preach. Many people in his time chose to follow.
I think all the Mahayana sales talk and slanting towards bodhisattvas and bodhicitta is merely muddying the water. I'm not so sure all the later teachers added so much "improvement"
That said, my TB teacher did apologise for the use of ancient terms, and thought the Theravadan tradition, "of the old ones", deserved considerable respect.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I personally think you're reading too much into it. I don't see that implication, myself. Perception is often deception.
Mod Note:
If anyone has any misgivings or doubts regarding post content, there is a 'flag' facility they should utilise.
Keep personal remarks off the thread to avoid diversion and off-topic discussion.
@SpinyNorman Which is why I hesitated to say anything and put the insult comment in. Because I knew someone would take it exactly that way, lol. That isn't at all how it is viewed, or intended to be viewed. No path is better or more superior. They just offer different routes to the same endpoint. It has never, ever been explained to be that any of the paths are superior. But humans like to compare everything so that is what they arrive at. It is a human mistake, not a mistake of the teachings. And you'll see the same thing from Theravadan Buddhists, too, who believe their path is the right and superior path because it's the most basic and sticks to Buddhas true teachings. But that doesn't make either of those perceptions true.
@Kerome My point is, just because a foundation is added to doesn't make the added floors invalid. It has nothing to do with being better. It just adds different options. There are a million things in the world that had a basis, and as we've understood more, we've added to that. Doesn't mean the foundation isn't there and just as important as ever. But I don't think that adding on to something negates the rest of it. Having electric stoves doesn't erase the fact that humans discovered fire.
Edited to add: It's kind of funny because the only place you run into the whole "you think theravadans are simpletons!" argument is online. It is almost always purely a result of human failure to understand the differences in the traditions and reading more into things than is really there. The other part, of course, is poor translation that results in chosen words that imply "better" when that isn't intended at all. Every retreat I've ever been at, the question has been asked about the naming of "vehicles" and every teacher has said the same : it has nothing to do with being better or greater or more superior. It is simply a different path. Just like Mystical versions of Judaism or Christianity or Islam are just different. Not better.
@Karasti is right no path is superior, I practice Theravada because I can get by in the basics without a teacher but I am heavily influenced by Zen thought from my time studying at Treeleaf Zendo. I am currently reading the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying and find the awareness trainings in it correlate perfectly with my practices I've learned from studying Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Sumedho. All turnings of the wheel of Dharma are as inherently empty as everything else as someone once told me.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@karasti said:
My point is, just because a foundation is added to doesn't make the added floors invalid. It has nothing to do with being better.
Perhaps, and I'm not disputing that the added floors have value. But you wouldn't buy the house without examine the ground floor... similarly I think a solid familiarity with the actual words of the Buddha is important.
But his actual words are, to me, not somehow more valid. He was still just a man with extraordinary insight. There are many such humans, TNH comes to mind. Buddha's teachings were still translated by others, written down by people with their own perceptions and biases and fallible humanness. Buddha didn't write his own stuff down, so they aren't his words exactly. Valid and important, of course. But I don't see what he taught as super extra more valid than what TNH teaches, for example.
I think you're (Kerome and Karasti) both right. Buddha was the foundation. Everything that has been added by others is either interpretation or "new ground". Here's the problem -- figuring out which teachings (whether Buddha or "new ground") are valid.
I don't see Buddhism as a book which ends with that last period. There are always addenda and new chapters. And sometimes those new addenda and new chapters may not even be within Buddhism. Since we are encouraged to test Buddhism's ideas, should we not also test ideas from outside Buddhism if they appear to be wise?
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Well that kind of comes back to your views on enlightenment. My admittedly limited view is that the Buddha was a rare phenomenon, that his attainment and illumination were extraordinary and equalled by no more than a handful of others over the thousands of years since. I suspect his teachings have produced many beautiful people, but not too many enlightened ones on this world.
TNH on the other hand is a wonderful teacher and communicator and has a great grasp of mindfulness and interbeing, as well as having great peace, but whether he is enlightened as was Gautama seems doubtful. It's not often he goes outside areas where he has experience, while with the Buddha there are many sutras where he displays an immediate and wide ranging insight.
It's certainly a difficult area to come to a decision, and the only way to judge is by comparing what we know of the Buddha's work to that of modern teachers.
@karasti said: @SpinyNorman No path is better or more superior. They just offer different routes to the same endpoint.
That is perhaps how we would like it to be, but unfortunately it isn't, and I have come across an attitude of superiority on many occasions over the years, in the real world. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's blatant, but Buddhism is certainly not immune from sectarianism. And of course the very name "Mahayana" has the implication of superiority - large vehicle, as opposed to small vehicle. I experienced a lot of this superior attitude in Rigpa, which is a Vajryana school - possibly a contributing factor to the abuse issues we've been discussing recently? To be fair though, this isn't just a Mahayana/Vajryana problem, I have also experienced it with some gung-ho adherents of the Thai Forest sect.
@Kerome said:> It's certainly a difficult area to come to a decision, and the only way to judge is by comparing what we know of the Buddha's work to that of modern teachers.
Sure, experience is key. But I don't think it's enough to just read what different teachers have to say, you actually need to immerse yourself in their approach to practice for a period of time, be involved in a sangha, get to know teachers personally, etc. Some schools are very different "in the flesh" to the way they are presented in books or on the internet.
@karasti said:> Edited to add: It's kind of funny because the only place you run into the whole "you think theravadans are simpletons!" argument is online.
I don't agree, and I have experienced this attitude regularly both online and in the real world, mostly when when I was practising in Mahayana and Vajryana schools. In my experience this kind of sectarianism is usually down to ignorance and lack of experience, typically people who have mainly practised in one school and who have little interest in, or understanding of, the many other schools and approaches.
@vinlyn said:> Here's the problem -- figuring out which teachings (whether Buddha or "new ground") are valid.
You can really only assess that by doing some serious practice.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2017
When somebody claims their path is more authentic or superior it says more about their path than mine.
@SpinyNorman I'm not suggesting you didn't experience what you did. Only saying that I have not, in any situation or with any teacher. Like I said, it is somewhat an issue with translation into English as well, as my understanding is that the English versions that are best translated into "small" "great" and "diamond" are not, in their original language, meant to imply superiority. Just my understanding. I do tend to believe the old quote, Eleanor Roosevelt I believe, who said "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Assuming that our beliefs/path are being talked down to is often just that - an assumption and is a result of our clinging to our own view as correct, it would seem.
@karasti said: Assuming that our beliefs/path are being talked down to is often just that - an assumption and is a result of our clinging to our own view as correct, it would seem.
But sometimes the assumption is correct, there are people who adopt a position of superiority. And in some Buddhist schools this attitude is encouraged. I think it's also partly the human need to feel we have made the right choice, chosen the best one, whether it's a partner, house, car, ice-cream brand or Buddhist group.
@David said:
When somebody claims their path is more authentic or superior it says more about their path than mine.
Probably, since such a person probably wouldn't know much about your path anyway. On the other hand if you haven't tried their path, you can't say for sure that they are wrong.
So I think it's a lot to do with personal experience, and a willingness to explore new approaches. But I think it's also about the tendency to project, to assume that what works best for us will work for everyone, that can lead to proselytizing. Sometimes people say "this path is better", when what they actually mean is "this path is better for me."
@David does it say something about their path? or the way that person is interpreting that path? Many times people find ways to twist words to justify their beliefs, that doesn't make the problem with the path they are on. They have turned it into something else entirely. If someone thinks their path is superior, that is a problem with that person.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@karasti said: @David does it say something about their path? or the way that person is interpreting that path? Many times people find ways to twist words to justify their beliefs, that doesn't make the problem with the path they are on. They have turned it into something else entirely. If someone thinks their path is superior, that is a problem with that person.
If somebody says a specific sect, tradition or religion is superior for whatever reason, it does not speak to the actual sect, tradition or religion. It speaks to their path exclusively.
I'd reckon there are at least as many paths as there are people. No two of us are going to see it all the same way exactly.
@karasti said: If someone thinks their path is superior, that is a problem with that person.
Not necessarily, it could also be a problem with the tradition they are practising in. If people are continually told they are practising in a superior or more authentic tradition, then they are likely to end up believing it. It seems like you are in denial about the sectarianism which exists in Buddhism, wanting to blame it all on the individuals involved.
@David said:> If somebody says a specific sect, tradition or religion is superior for whatever reason, it does not speak to the actual sect, tradition or religion.
"Whatever reason" could include an assumption of superiority within that particular sect, tradition or religion.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti said: If someone thinks their path is superior, that is a problem with that person.
Not necessarily, it could also be a problem with the tradition they are practising in. If people are continually told they are practising in a superior or more authentic tradition, then they are likely to end up believing it. It seems like you are in denial about the sectarianism which exists in Buddhism, wanting to blame it all on the individuals involved.
Don't split hairs, @SpinyNorman. Sectarianism only exists because misguided people make it so.
It's a 'man-made' construct, not a religious one.
@SpinyNorman I'm not in denial, but you put your opinion across as it "this is the belief of a tradition, and that's the way it is" while I'm more willing to allow for the differences within any tradition. I've never been taught that. It's never been insinuated, suggested or out right stated even once with the teachers I've studied with. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that I don't know it happens. I'm just always looking at the other angle, and using my experience to share something else. It is not in any way a denial of the other things that happen or exist. I don't think it's fair to label an entire tradition as one that thinks it's superior, basically, because you have zero way to poll every teacher and every member in that tradition to ask if that is what they think/are taught.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Like so many things I think this comes down to probability. Some traditions do teach their own inherent superiority - like Vajrayana being the "fast path" to enlightenment. Then perhaps 80% of them will believe that, others will have a more nuanced view. Which means that when you come across a practitioner of that school, you can have a certain expectation with a good chance of being right.
@karasti said: If someone thinks their path is superior, that is a problem with that person.
Not necessarily, it could also be a problem with the tradition they are practising in. If people are continually told they are practising in a superior or more authentic tradition, then they are likely to end up believing it. It seems like you are in denial about the sectarianism which exists in Buddhism, wanting to blame it all on the individuals involved.
Don't split hairs, @SpinyNorman. Sectarianism only exists because misguided people make it so.
It's a 'man-made' construct, not a religious one.
I'm not "splitting hairs". Religion is a man-made construct, and sectarianism is common, including in Buddhist groups.
I am talking from extensive hands-on experience of different Buddhist groups, something which you lack.
@Kerome I am a Vajrayana student, and it has never once been said, or even insinuated that there is superiority. It is simply a different path, none of them being right or better than the other. For the millionth time I am not suggesting it doesn't happen or negating someone else's experience but it doesn't always happen and suggesting otherwise doesn't do anyone any good. People say other things about Theravadans, too, that they think their system is the best because it's the only TRUE system that is based on Buddha's REAL words. That is an aire of superiority as well.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2017
That's true, I think all the schools talk up their selling points at times, and to be fair the Tibetan monk I studied with did apologise when talking about the meaning of Hinayana and Mahayana, and so on.
It implies that Theravada is "basic" and Mahayana/Vajrayana is "advanced" and therefore superior. I have heard this kind of view expressed many times, also the view that people of limited ability should stick to Theravada ( "Hinayana" ) because they wouldn't get the "advanced" stuff. It's all nonsense of course, just self-promotion and spin, but some people actually seem to believe it.
From that I make the guess that Theravada DOES talk about the advanced. My teacher says the same about the view of the self. If you know it thoroughly from a canonical viewpoint that touches on the same places the Mahayana scriptures talk about.
Comments
The impression I get, having been a student in TB for several years now (5-6, I kind of lose track) isn't that Buddha's words come second hand, but that it is understood that his core teachings weave throughout everything. There isn't a focus on them because they are always present in all of the teachings. There is also (IMO) an underlying assumption that you already know the foundation of Buddhism and are "moving on" to Mahayana and/or Vajrayana, as that is much of with TB is. "Why would you stick with addition once you learned multiplication" kind of thing. Not to be insulting whatsoever. My teacher, and no one else i've studied with, has ever, ever put down any branch of Buddhism. Just that it's different strokes for different folks. You still get the same answer whether you add or multiply, one is just a bit more efficient and faster. That's kind of the impression I get as to how Mahayana and Vajrayana view their teachings. They are expansions of what Buddha taught and thus contain all of what he taught.
There are various ways you can talk about it and justify it, and I've heard similar things from Tibetan Buddhist teachers. But they also talk about things like the "lesser vehicle" and the "great vehicle", and the "fast path", "full enlightenment" for a Buddha as opposed to mere "Arhat-ship" and so on. Some of it is (ancient) terminology used to sell the tradition to new seekers, which is still in use today.
But the fact remains that if you decide to study Mahayana Buddhism you are in fact deciding to trust a whole array of teachers who spanned many centuries, for many of whom you have very little proof of their enlightenment or personal level of realisation. The teachings are not clearly sourced, whereas with Gautama the Buddha there is a lot of lore surrounding his enlightenment.
The impression I get is that a lot of these other teachers wanted to leave things behind, but kind of hung things on the fame of the Buddha and Buddhism. I guess I have a lot of respect for the Theravadan approach of staying close to the words of the Buddha.
Thus have I heard....
"The proof of the curry (Dharma) is in the eating(Practice)" ....just eating the label/menu will never satisfy
I don't find this view insulting, though it does seem rather patronising.
I don't see it as such.....
It implies that Theravada is "basic" and Mahayana/Vajrayana is "advanced" and therefore superior. I have heard this kind of view expressed many times, also the view that people of limited ability should stick to Theravada ( "Hinayana" ) because they wouldn't get the "advanced" stuff. It's all nonsense of course, just self-promotion and spin, but some people actually seem to believe it.
I think from a perspective of "what works" the words of the Buddha are the ultimate guide. He got enlightened with these methods, they are what he choose to preach. Many people in his time chose to follow.
I think all the Mahayana sales talk and slanting towards bodhisattvas and bodhicitta is merely muddying the water. I'm not so sure all the later teachers added so much "improvement"
That said, my TB teacher did apologise for the use of ancient terms, and thought the Theravadan tradition, "of the old ones", deserved considerable respect.
I personally think you're reading too much into it. I don't see that implication, myself. Perception is often deception.
Mod Note:
If anyone has any misgivings or doubts regarding post content, there is a 'flag' facility they should utilise.
Keep personal remarks off the thread to avoid diversion and off-topic discussion.
Thanks.
@SpinyNorman Which is why I hesitated to say anything and put the insult comment in. Because I knew someone would take it exactly that way, lol. That isn't at all how it is viewed, or intended to be viewed. No path is better or more superior. They just offer different routes to the same endpoint. It has never, ever been explained to be that any of the paths are superior. But humans like to compare everything so that is what they arrive at. It is a human mistake, not a mistake of the teachings. And you'll see the same thing from Theravadan Buddhists, too, who believe their path is the right and superior path because it's the most basic and sticks to Buddhas true teachings. But that doesn't make either of those perceptions true.
@Kerome My point is, just because a foundation is added to doesn't make the added floors invalid. It has nothing to do with being better. It just adds different options. There are a million things in the world that had a basis, and as we've understood more, we've added to that. Doesn't mean the foundation isn't there and just as important as ever. But I don't think that adding on to something negates the rest of it. Having electric stoves doesn't erase the fact that humans discovered fire.
Edited to add: It's kind of funny because the only place you run into the whole "you think theravadans are simpletons!" argument is online. It is almost always purely a result of human failure to understand the differences in the traditions and reading more into things than is really there. The other part, of course, is poor translation that results in chosen words that imply "better" when that isn't intended at all. Every retreat I've ever been at, the question has been asked about the naming of "vehicles" and every teacher has said the same : it has nothing to do with being better or greater or more superior. It is simply a different path. Just like Mystical versions of Judaism or Christianity or Islam are just different. Not better.
@Karasti is right no path is superior, I practice Theravada because I can get by in the basics without a teacher but I am heavily influenced by Zen thought from my time studying at Treeleaf Zendo. I am currently reading the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying and find the awareness trainings in it correlate perfectly with my practices I've learned from studying Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Sumedho. All turnings of the wheel of Dharma are as inherently empty as everything else as someone once told me.
Perhaps, and I'm not disputing that the added floors have value. But you wouldn't buy the house without examine the ground floor... similarly I think a solid familiarity with the actual words of the Buddha is important.
But his actual words are, to me, not somehow more valid. He was still just a man with extraordinary insight. There are many such humans, TNH comes to mind. Buddha's teachings were still translated by others, written down by people with their own perceptions and biases and fallible humanness. Buddha didn't write his own stuff down, so they aren't his words exactly. Valid and important, of course. But I don't see what he taught as super extra more valid than what TNH teaches, for example.
I think you're (Kerome and Karasti) both right. Buddha was the foundation. Everything that has been added by others is either interpretation or "new ground". Here's the problem -- figuring out which teachings (whether Buddha or "new ground") are valid.
I don't see Buddhism as a book which ends with that last period. There are always addenda and new chapters. And sometimes those new addenda and new chapters may not even be within Buddhism. Since we are encouraged to test Buddhism's ideas, should we not also test ideas from outside Buddhism if they appear to be wise?
Well that kind of comes back to your views on enlightenment. My admittedly limited view is that the Buddha was a rare phenomenon, that his attainment and illumination were extraordinary and equalled by no more than a handful of others over the thousands of years since. I suspect his teachings have produced many beautiful people, but not too many enlightened ones on this world.
TNH on the other hand is a wonderful teacher and communicator and has a great grasp of mindfulness and interbeing, as well as having great peace, but whether he is enlightened as was Gautama seems doubtful. It's not often he goes outside areas where he has experience, while with the Buddha there are many sutras where he displays an immediate and wide ranging insight.
It's certainly a difficult area to come to a decision, and the only way to judge is by comparing what we know of the Buddha's work to that of modern teachers.
That is perhaps how we would like it to be, but unfortunately it isn't, and I have come across an attitude of superiority on many occasions over the years, in the real world. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's blatant, but Buddhism is certainly not immune from sectarianism. And of course the very name "Mahayana" has the implication of superiority - large vehicle, as opposed to small vehicle. I experienced a lot of this superior attitude in Rigpa, which is a Vajryana school - possibly a contributing factor to the abuse issues we've been discussing recently? To be fair though, this isn't just a Mahayana/Vajryana problem, I have also experienced it with some gung-ho adherents of the Thai Forest sect.
You're entitled to your "perception", but I was actually responding to @karasti.
Sure, experience is key. But I don't think it's enough to just read what different teachers have to say, you actually need to immerse yourself in their approach to practice for a period of time, be involved in a sangha, get to know teachers personally, etc. Some schools are very different "in the flesh" to the way they are presented in books or on the internet.
I don't agree, and I have experienced this attitude regularly both online and in the real world, mostly when when I was practising in Mahayana and Vajryana schools. In my experience this kind of sectarianism is usually down to ignorance and lack of experience, typically people who have mainly practised in one school and who have little interest in, or understanding of, the many other schools and approaches.
You can really only assess that by doing some serious practice.
When somebody claims their path is more authentic or superior it says more about their path than mine.
Every branch of the tree is going to have some books and teachers that feel theirs is the one true dharma but they are all fingers and no moon.
@SpinyNorman I'm not suggesting you didn't experience what you did. Only saying that I have not, in any situation or with any teacher. Like I said, it is somewhat an issue with translation into English as well, as my understanding is that the English versions that are best translated into "small" "great" and "diamond" are not, in their original language, meant to imply superiority. Just my understanding. I do tend to believe the old quote, Eleanor Roosevelt I believe, who said "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Assuming that our beliefs/path are being talked down to is often just that - an assumption and is a result of our clinging to our own view as correct, it would seem.
But sometimes the assumption is correct, there are people who adopt a position of superiority. And in some Buddhist schools this attitude is encouraged. I think it's also partly the human need to feel we have made the right choice, chosen the best one, whether it's a partner, house, car, ice-cream brand or Buddhist group.
Probably, since such a person probably wouldn't know much about your path anyway. On the other hand if you haven't tried their path, you can't say for sure that they are wrong.
So I think it's a lot to do with personal experience, and a willingness to explore new approaches. But I think it's also about the tendency to project, to assume that what works best for us will work for everyone, that can lead to proselytizing. Sometimes people say "this path is better", when what they actually mean is "this path is better for me."
@David does it say something about their path? or the way that person is interpreting that path? Many times people find ways to twist words to justify their beliefs, that doesn't make the problem with the path they are on. They have turned it into something else entirely. If someone thinks their path is superior, that is a problem with that person.
If somebody says a specific sect, tradition or religion is superior for whatever reason, it does not speak to the actual sect, tradition or religion. It speaks to their path exclusively.
I'd reckon there are at least as many paths as there are people. No two of us are going to see it all the same way exactly.
@David thanks for the clarification
I was thinking you meant path and tradition as the same thing rather than individual paths.
Not necessarily, it could also be a problem with the tradition they are practising in. If people are continually told they are practising in a superior or more authentic tradition, then they are likely to end up believing it. It seems like you are in denial about the sectarianism which exists in Buddhism, wanting to blame it all on the individuals involved.
"Whatever reason" could include an assumption of superiority within that particular sect, tradition or religion.
Don't split hairs, @SpinyNorman. Sectarianism only exists because misguided people make it so.
It's a 'man-made' construct, not a religious one.
@SpinyNorman I'm not in denial, but you put your opinion across as it "this is the belief of a tradition, and that's the way it is" while I'm more willing to allow for the differences within any tradition. I've never been taught that. It's never been insinuated, suggested or out right stated even once with the teachers I've studied with. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that I don't know it happens. I'm just always looking at the other angle, and using my experience to share something else. It is not in any way a denial of the other things that happen or exist. I don't think it's fair to label an entire tradition as one that thinks it's superior, basically, because you have zero way to poll every teacher and every member in that tradition to ask if that is what they think/are taught.
Like so many things I think this comes down to probability. Some traditions do teach their own inherent superiority - like Vajrayana being the "fast path" to enlightenment. Then perhaps 80% of them will believe that, others will have a more nuanced view. Which means that when you come across a practitioner of that school, you can have a certain expectation with a good chance of being right.
I'm not "splitting hairs". Religion is a man-made construct, and sectarianism is common, including in Buddhist groups.
I am talking from extensive hands-on experience of different Buddhist groups, something which you lack.
@Kerome I am a Vajrayana student, and it has never once been said, or even insinuated that there is superiority. It is simply a different path, none of them being right or better than the other. For the millionth time I am not suggesting it doesn't happen or negating someone else's experience but it doesn't always happen and suggesting otherwise doesn't do anyone any good. People say other things about Theravadans, too, that they think their system is the best because it's the only TRUE system that is based on Buddha's REAL words. That is an aire of superiority as well.
That's true, I think all the schools talk up their selling points at times, and to be fair the Tibetan monk I studied with did apologise when talking about the meaning of Hinayana and Mahayana, and so on.
From that I make the guess that Theravada DOES talk about the advanced. My teacher says the same about the view of the self. If you know it thoroughly from a canonical viewpoint that touches on the same places the Mahayana scriptures talk about.