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 relations between the buddhists schools
Daegu
New
Hi.
I want to ask: how are the relations between buddhists traditions/schools/divisions. It is something like: You are (totaly) wrong, i'm right. You are a heretic, only my way of thinking is correct? Or all schools are good to follow, being like two lungs of the same body?
Thanks.
I want to ask: how are the relations between buddhists traditions/schools/divisions. It is something like: You are (totaly) wrong, i'm right. You are a heretic, only my way of thinking is correct? Or all schools are good to follow, being like two lungs of the same body?
Thanks.
0
Comments
Namaste.
There are also differences with regards 'the small print', but it seems that the deeper teachings, such as Emptiness are more or less the same.
And a Buddhist practise seems to be meditation, mindfulness, and the development of compassion and wisdom. So in this respect, all Buddhists sects are the same.
I don't think, in general, that one Buddhist sect thinks his is the only, or the best way; but rather understands that you have different courses for different horses. If you have an academic bent, you could be more suited to Tibetan Buddhism, but if you have a devotional nature then maybe Pure Land Buddhism is more your cup-of-tea.
Just my thoughts.
Look, it would be nice if all Buddhists everywhere did nothing but join hands and chant a few rounds of the Lotus Sutra when they met, but the reality is, our Sangha is made up of people. We Buddhists tend to be a pretty tolerant bunch in the West and especially here in our newbuddhist sanctuary, but we're just self-selecting for that. The history of Buddhism is one of people doing what they always do.
Sometimes the argument is over which Master or entire school has the authorized transmission. Sometimes it's over a point of doctrine or a particular practice. Sometimes an established set of temples feels threatened by the upstart, sometimes one school of Buddhism will be singled out as currupt or not teaching the real Dharma, and sometimes it's just the push and shove of feeding at the royal funding trough.
It started soon after Buddha's death, when the disciples split into several sects, mostly Ananda and his followers against the others. Most recently we had that whole SGI-Nichiren thing and of course the infighting amongst the Tibet Buddhist schools over whose diety is proper to worship.
But we don't go about preaching against each other, mostly.
So, the divisions are like those in Christianity, and i'm not talking about the small obscure sects. I'm talking about the important (major) traditions.
So, for example, from an asian point of view, it is wrong for a Mahayana faithful to go to a temple of Theravada tradition and pay respect there, or to read their scriptures, books?
Namaste.
a) As Buddha we are a supremely skilled mental physician we can benefit many beings right now,
b) This precious human life is so precious for doing practise when will you get another one, when you close your eyes.
It really can be compared to Christian denominations, I suppose, in some way. To an outsider, a Catholic mass and a Pentacostal revival meeting would seem to be two entirely different religions.
So I suppose my opinion is that individually, people can become very attached to their own school, but criticizing others is generally discouraged and we tend to treat each other as members of a worldwide Sangha.
if you practise, you can speak your viewpoint without suffering about it due to hypersensitivity, intolerance & perceptions about "conflict"
"practise" does not mean a blur of undifferentiated sameness
for example, when the Dalai Lama originally visited Thailand, there was opposition
The authors cover the basics and then discuss the split between Theravada and Mahayana and the continued divisions of Mahayana into Pure Land, Zen, and the unique Vajrayana/Tantric traditions of Tibetan Buddhism.
Keep in mind that all the various paths lead to the same place. Most everyone on the path of awakening knows this and so any differences in interpretation and practice are simply acknowledged.
It is our ego attachment that wants to make me, myself, I, feel superior by making the other person wrong. The context of the disagreement does not matter in this regard. One could just as easily provoke conflict and ill will on any item of discussion if that is what is in your heart.
Best Wishes
Theravadan monks and the police in Sri Lanka last week raided a zen center that had been reportedly abusing women followers. When the police arrived, there were women locked inside the center trying to get out.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/09/25/police-probe-suspicious-temple/
1. Shakyamuni Buddha is the original and historical founder of Buddhism.
2. The Three Universal Seals, Four Noble Truths, Eight Fold Paths and Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are the basic foundation to all schools of Buddhism including the Tibetan schools of Vajrayana.
3. Threefold training of Precepts, Meditation and Wisdom is universal to all schools.
4. Organization of Buddhist teachings into three classifications (Sutra, Vinaya and Sastra) is practised among the Buddhist Canons of various countries.
5. Mind over matter concept. Mind as the principal area of taming and control is fundamental to all schools.
Back in 1967, the first international congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council unanimously accepted these Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana.
Among the Mahayana traditions, Zen emphasizes enlightenment through meditation, that is, insight. Tibetan Buddhism offers the "quick path" of tantra--enlightenment within the current lifetime, for the courageous. (This path is said to be frought with dangers.) Maybe someone could speak on behalf of Chan. And also do a better job of representing Theravada than I can, lacking experience in it.
Thank you for that explanation, especially the areas of doctrinal commonality (4NT, 8FP, DO, Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta or Three Seals).
"There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.
.....
The definition of the three Yanikas (followers of the three yanas) given by Asanga is very instructive and clarifies some points. According to him, a Sravakayanika (one who takes the vehicle of disciples) is a person who, living according to the law of the disciples. By nature having feeble faculties (qualities), bent on his own liberation through the cultivation of detachment, depending on the Canon of the Disciples (Sravaka-pitaka), practising major and minor qualities, gradually puts an end to suffering. A Pratyeka-Buddha-Yanika (one who takes the Vehicle of the Individual Buddha) is a person who, lives according to the law of the Individual Buddha, By nature having medium faculties, bent on his liberation through the cultivation of detachment, he has the intention of attaining Enlightenment exclusively through his own mental development, depending on the Sravaka-pitaka, practising major and minor qualities, born at a time when there is no Buddha in the world and gradually puts an end to suffering. A Mahayanika (one who takes the Great Vehicle) is a person who, living according to the law of the Bodhisattvas, by nature having sharp faculties, bent on the liberation of all beings, depending on the Canon of the Bodhisattvas, matures other beings, cultivates the pure Buddha-domain, receives predictions or declarations (Vya-Karana) from Buddhas and finally realizes the perfect and complete Enlightenment (Samyaksambodhi).
From this we can see that anyone who aspires to become a Buddha is a Bodhisattva, a Mahayanist, though he may live in a country or in a community popularly and traditionally regarded as Theravada or Hinayana. Similarly, a person who aspires to attain Nirvana as a disciple is a Sravakayanika or Hinayanist though he may belong to a country or a community considered as Mahayana. Thus it is wrong to believe that there are no Bodhisattvas in Theravada countries or that all are Bodhisattvas in Mahayana countries. It is not conceivable that Sravakas and Bodhisattvas are concentrated in separate geographical areas.
Further, Asanga says that when a Bodhisattva finally attains Enlightenment (Bodhi) he becomes an Arahant, a Tathagata (i.e. Buddha). Here it must be clearly understood that not only a Sravaka (disciple) but also a Bodhisattva becomes an Arahant when finally he attains Buddhahood. The Theravada position is exactly the same: the Buddha is an Arahant -Araham Samma-SamBuddha - 'Arahant, Fully and Perfectly Enlightened Buddha.'
The Mahayana unequivocally says that a Buddha, a Pratyekabuddha and a Sravaka (disciple), all three are equal and alike with regard to their purification or liberation from defilements or impurities (Klesavaranavisuddhi)."
- from Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism by Ven. Dr. W. Rahula
It is true that the Mahayana emphasizes the path of the bodhisattva whereas Theravada emphasizes the path of the sravaka. However, the bodhisattva idea still exists within Theravada, but it isn't emphasized for everyone as it isnt viewed as practical.
Also, I have heard that the original Sangha split at the Third Buddhist Council (commonly believed to be the Sthaviravadins and the Mahasanghikas) over doctrinal (e.g. the Mahasanghikas did not view the Abhidhamma as canonical) and certain Vinaya redactions.
Therefore, the main differences between Theravada and Mahayana are canonical, and they are also distinguished by their emphasis placed on certain practices and Vinaya usage. The Theravada Vinaya has 227 rules for the monks and 311 for the nuns, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya of Mahayana has 250 rules for monks and 348 for nuns, and the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya of Vajrayana has 253 for monks and 364 for nuns.
@Cloud You're welcome. They did a pretty good job summarizing the commonalities between the schools.
@Dakini Tibetan buddhism also has a lam rim path. And mahayana sanghas as opposed to vajrayana.
My Jodo Shinshu Temple (a tradition which does not practice meditation btw
Most of the differences soon melt away once you go into their teachings in depth. Having started out in a Ch'an sangha, I am constantly surprised to find the same teachings in Karma Kagyu, only with different words. I happily meditate with a friend who practices Japanese Zen, read books by Ch'an Master Shengyen and watch teaching videos of HH Dalai Lama. We have far more in common than we have different and I would never like to shut my mind to useful teachings.
@Jeffrey Could you explain what you mean by TB "also has a Lam Rim path"? Does the Lam Rim not point toward the bodhisattva ideal? I thought it was all part of the same big package.
Now, after reading this thread, all the paths seem pretty much the same, so I can't help but wonder why so many exist in the first place, lol ! It's nice to appreciate the commonalities, but it's also informative to learn about the uniqueness of each tradition. Knowing about the differences can help people make a choice that best suits their character.
I've been looking into Ch'an a little. The general info I've come up with is that Ch'an (from which Zen evolved) emphasizes meditation and insight. However, historically there was a split in Ch'an, between Northern and Southern. Southern Ch'an amalgamated with Taoism. Northern Ch'an took the esoteric path, with mudras (symbolic hand gestures), mantras and secret rituals. Ch'an also was taught in Tibet, before the King in the 8th century organized a debate between representatives of Ch'an and Indian Buddhism, and the Ch'an rep lost the debate, so Ch'an was banished from Tibet. But it makes sense that there are Ch'an elements in TB, because of that early influence.
theravada, mahayana n vajrayana are based on Buddha's
teachings.
However, I would like to point out that bodhipunk's
view is based on the mahayana view.
Anyone able to post the theravada view?
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha125.htm
In Theravada, the bodhisatta refers to a "Buddha-to-be". However, its not as easy to be a bodhisatta as it probably is in Mahayana (which emphasizes a "bodhisattva path"). There are no bodhisattva vows in Theravada, and although the Buddha is often called an "unawakened bodhisatta" prior to his enlightenment - there is no mention of him teaching a "bodhisattva path" in the Tipitaka. Therefore, although the path of a bodhisatta is valid in Theravada, it is not seen as practical. This is probably the main difference, in this regard, between the two schools.
This article by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi may also be helpful:
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm
:thumbsup:
Occasionally I explore something totally new like the turning the wheel of truth book we have read. That book is an instance where it broadened my overviewing look of buddhism, but at the same time the author didn't hit the spot for me I think a lot in the group found flaw with the rhetoric of the author in presenting dukkha in an exagerated way. I am much more comfortable with a positive practice and let the dukkha come and motivate me as it will; I don't need to look for dukkha it will find me.
Yeah, I didn't know there were TB centers that skipped Vajrayana, except for the Bodhi Path Centers Shamar Rinpoche has set up, so I was impressed with that. Well, Stephen and Martine Batchelor are coming to my town next month for a retreat on secular Buddhism, a less patriarchal Buddhism (Joan Halifax's words, not mine), and the future of Buddhism in the West, so I'm going to try to get in on it, somehow.
http://www.upaya.org/programs/event.php?id=552
http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/article/1503/
"Don't be an arahant, don't be a bodhisattva, don't be anything at all – if you are anything at all you will suffer"
Ajahn Chah
A student of Buddhism asked, “Which do you think is the best path: that of the arahant or that of the bodhisattva?”
“That kind of question is asked by people who understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism!”
Ajahn Sumedho
The greed for fame.