It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Kerome said: Have you all reached a point where you had to commit to a school or even a specific teacher and say, "this is where I get my stuff?" And learn mostly from books and teaching sessions thereafter?
I spent a long time exploring different Buddhist schools, and it can be a confusing and frustrating process. At times nobody seems to agree about anything, and there is much to be taken on trust. On the other hand I have found it useful to get a sense of the big picture, and to understand that Buddhism is very diverse and pluralistic, much like Hinduism.
I found Tibetan Buddhism too complicated, with too many bells and whistles, and talking in Clingon Tibetan was rather weird. I found Zen Buddhism too cryptic, and at times rather pretentious. I didn't like the Mahayana obsession with size, or the Vajyrana obsession with speed, and I got bored with the self-promoting rhetoric from some of these schools.
Theravada was a reasonable compromise for me, and these days I have a very simple approach to practice, it is just satipatthana.
I know some people who would say "very good! Utter confusion is the best state for studying Zen".
It certainly confuses me.
For me Buddhist practice is about seeing things as they really are, and that invariably involves challenging comforting beliefs like "God".
The Neapolitan diet is more effective because it has less chocolate.