Theravada vs. Mahayana Buddhism

vlrox

Could someone please explain to the differences between the 2? I know Theravada is the teachings of the elders. And Mahayana is the great vehicle. As i was researching it got all confusing. Maybe because i am new and don't understand the lingo lol

taiyaki

The elder vehicle uses renouciation as its driving force.

The great vehicle culivates the good as its driving force.

But those are just impressionist paintings of two great yanas. In reality or practice they overlap. Like sugar and salt.

Ones karmic vision brings one towards a specific vehicle or not.

Use what works, shit out the rest.

Sabre

Hi!

I know this can be a bit of a challenge for beginners, perhaps finally you found a certain way of life you can agree with, turns out people don't agree within it! Can be quite a bummer. So I take my time to respond here.

Because Buddhism is a religion where one needs to find their own way and is not dependent on a book or external power, a lot of different opinions arise. This is quite natural of course, but it's also confusing, I can certainly agree on that one, seeing myself a while back.

But because of that, there are no clear differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Between the two traditions certain people agree on topics, while inside the traditions people disagree on that same topic. So it's fuzzy. And yes, certainly for beginners this can be confusing. And sorry, I'm not going to say there are no very big and important differences of opinion, because there are. That's because the Buddhism the Buddha taught is very difficult to understand. But as I said, these differences are not black and white between Theravada and Mahayana, although some people think there are. But perhaps those haven't really seen different traditions enough.

However, if you have a bit of self reliance this doesn't have to be a problem. The way I see it is that there is a type of Buddhism for each individual practitioner. I always tried to look behind these labels to find the real truth. Doing the practices that work for me, taking on the ideas that I can agree with. That way I never got lost.

Say you have a bag of mixed apples. When you are thirsty and hungry, you just want a nice juicy and fresh apple. It doesn't matter if the apple is red or green, Theravada or Mahayana. You also don't have to choose for a particular type of apple for the rest of your life. Maybe you will one day when most of the hunger is dealt with. But especially in the beginning just enjoy the variety of apples. I still do, practicing in both Mahayana and Theravada environments.

I recently repsonded to this topic:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/297541/#Comment_297541

saying the following:

Hi!

There are many topics on this, and yes, when you just get into Buddhism it is confusing. You think one particular school must have the truth and the other doesn't. But let me tell you how I see things.

It's not about following this or that school. Within both Therevada and Mahayana there are also big differences of opinion on various matters. So even if you pick one of them, you still have to find your way inside that tradition as well. So what should you do? Trust your own instinct and experience to tell you what's right and what's not. That's what you should do. Only that way can you find the truth. Remeber this is what the Buddha did. He didn't belief the teachers of his time until he had found the truth for himself. He would have wanted us to do the same.

I have the opinion that the Buddha never set up his teachings to form different schools, neither Therevada nor Mahayana. These were made up afterward. And when these various splits of the sangha occured, there must also have been monks that never cared about being in a particular school because they knew that the Dhamma doesn't work like that. It's our job to find out what that original Dhamma is. And whatever that is, although some schools may be closer than others, in the end it doesn't belong to one particular school of thought. So all this division of schools is artificial, it has no place in reality itself.

So go with what you feel is right. What texts do ring true to you and which don't? Perhaps they all do. Perhaps you just don't know. And if you don't know, that's still knowing something. And yes, some texts can be dated older than others. But does that make them more true automatically?.. If that was so, aren't the Egyptian texts even older? So should we belief those? No, we should belief what we feel is true, or better even, what we can verify.

Long story short, within various Buddhist traditions there will have been people who found the real Dhamma, both 'Therevada' practitioners and 'Mahayana' practitioners and others. But there are also many who didn't. So it's up to you to find out for yourself. Just always be aware that just because someone wears a robe, has practiced Buddhism longer than you, or is within a specific tradition, that doesn't automatically mean they are right.

With metta,
Sabre

how

There's a first thorny subject to examine!
IMHO
The longer I practise, the more they all seem the same. Much of the differences seem to be from those wishing to legitimize their choice of one over the other. Both are filled with folks trying to ease suffering through the 4 noble truths/ the eightfold path/ dependant origination and many precepts conducive to enlightened action.
Both share and practise most of the Buddhist teachings.
The stickiest differences are mostly found in the more rarefied levels of meditative theory which seems mostly mastigated by those who are not yet there.

son_of_dhamma

Mahayana, or the "Great Vehicle," actually comes from Theravada. Of course it does because this is the oldest tradition which is composed of the Buddha's original teaching. What makes it traditional is the practitioners, authors, and commentators of those teachings.

Mahayana is simply the adaptation of that teaching culturally and esoterically, able to facilitate all. In all truth, they are the same thing and when one is distinguished from the other, it is definite that somewhere along the way you have lost the way, and Dharma is being obscured.

It truly is a dangerous idea to separate the two for yourself.

Jason

vlrox said:

Could someone please explain to the differences between the 2? I know Theravada is the teachings of the elders. And Mahayana is the great vehicle. As i was researching it got all confusing. Maybe because i am new and don't understand the lingo lol

The simplest answer is that they tend to have different approaches to the path and ending suffering. Some are quite compatible and other seem contradictory. I don't think that's really important, however. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is take your time and study a bit of both, whether through reading or visiting nearby centers, and then seeing if either seems right for you. I, for example, started out studying Tibetan Buddhism, but later found myself more drawn to Theravada. Who knows, maybe you'll dislike both and opt for Zen or end up become a Pagan.

Lotus21

It is my belief that we as a layperson need to have deep understanding of the essences of buddhism that are common to all schools of buddhism.

You might want to google on , "Three Vehicles in Buddhism" to get a glance of different schools of Buddhism.

Cinorjer

Modern historians and archeologists also now believe the two approaches coexisted in India long before they became institutionalized as rival schools. There are ancient references to monks following the two approaches and sharing the same temples.

Jeffrey

One difference I gather is that theravada goes by the ancient texts of the dharma Buddha taught. Thus the texts are emphasized.

Mahayana teaching is a transmission of teacher to student. My dharma teacher says that the texts are frozen bodhicitta (awake heart) that someone thought was so important that they froze it. There is a sutra in the Mahayan with 180000 pages IIRC so yeah that's a lot of frozen &%#5

But the regular transmission in mahayana is teacher to student.

Jason

Jeffrey said:

One difference I gather is that theravada goes by the ancient texts of the dharma Buddha taught. Thus the texts are emphasized.

That's not necessarily true. Most teachers in the Forest Tradition, while fairly knowledgeable about the texts, tend to give talks and such from their own experiences, especially when it comes to meditation. It's not as ossified of a tradition as some think.

Jeffrey

Dharma can be frozen which you heat to your needs. Or it can be freshly made in our funny idiosyncratic lives.


fresh waffles


frozen waffles

Jeffrey

Jason, it's not true of course. There are transmissions in the theravada tradition. But contrast that with the Jewel Ornament of Liberation. the text for Kagyupas in Tibetan Buddhism, which the teacher is necessary (eventually) to become enlightened. Bodhicitta is the seed the essential nature that is needed.

The teacher points out the methods of:

transmute attachment to pleasure reflection of suffering
transmute attachment to life with impermanence
transmute attachment to peace with love.

Since we don't know how to learn these three things we need a learned master to teach us. At this time we accumulate the necessary components and work with the teacher based on the method and teachings they provide.

This is specifically layed out in the text Kagyupas read on their three year retreat to become a lama. The text is only like 300 pages. And what I posted is an outline of the table of contents of the first (accumulation) part of the path.

Jason

Jeffrey said:

Jason, it's not true of course. There are transmissions in the theravada tradition. But contrast that with the Jewel Ornament of Liberation. the text for Kagyupas in Tibetan Buddhism, which the teacher is necessary (eventually) to become enlightened. Bodhicitta is the seed the essential nature that is needed.

The teacher points out the methods of:

transmute attachment to pleasure reflection of suffering
transmute attachment to life with impermanence
transmute attachment to peace with love.

Since we don't know how to learn these three things we need a learned master to teach us. At this time we accumulate the necessary components and work with the teacher based on the method and teachings they provide.

This is specifically layed out in the text Kagyupas read on their three year retreat to become a lama. The text is only like 300 pages. And what I posted is an outline of the table of contents of the first (accumulation) part of the path.

Agreed. The teacher/guru isn't as important in Theravada as it is in many Mahayana (e.g., Chan, Zen, etc.) and Vajrayana (i.e., Tibetan Buddhism) traditions.

pegembara

During Buddha's time, I believed they called it the Dhamma or Buddhayana if you like new names.

Cloud

@pegembara, Additionally I think the Buddha called his teachings the Dhamma-Vinaya.

"Dhamma-Vinaya was the Buddha's own name for the religion he founded. Dhamma — the truth — is what he discovered and pointed out as advice for all who want to gain release from suffering. Vinaya — discipline — is what he formulated as rules, ideals, and standards of behavior for those of his followers who go forth from home life to take up the quest for release in greater earnestness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro.html

Jason

Cloud said:

@pegembara, Additionally I think the Buddha called his teachings the Dhamma-Vinaya.

"Dhamma-Vinaya was the Buddha's own name for the religion he founded. Dhamma — the truth — is what he discovered and pointed out as advice for all who want to gain release from suffering. Vinaya — discipline — is what he formulated as rules, ideals, and standards of behavior for those of his followers who go forth from home life to take up the quest for release in greater earnestness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro.html

At least that's what's it often called it in the Pali Canon. It roughly translates as, 'teaching-discipline,' 'doctrine-discipline,' or even 'truth-discipline.' A simple, common sense description, if you ask me.

Patr

Theravada is supposed to be teachings at the time of the Buddha, he alone was the teacher and all the speeches, teachings (sutras) came directly from him.

After his passing, there was a realisation that he still existed in another realm, not as a human, but as a benevolent being, deity like. For lack of
a better word. Nirmanakaya, dharmakaya, go look it up.
Mahayana starts from there, with the introduction of various other.
buddhas and Bodhisattvas existence in the non human realm.

Meaning, the Buddha was not alone and there were many others in the Buddhist Pantheon.
So supposedly, Theravada is the first foundation, and Mahayana is the second volume.

Hope this helps, its at least in everyday English.....

son_of_dhamma

Patr said:

Theravada is supposed to be teachings at the time of the Buddha, he alone was the teacher and all the speeches, teachings (sutras) came directly from him.

After his passing, there was a realisation that he still existed in another realm, not as a human, but as a benevolent being, deity like. For lack of
a better word. Nirmanakaya, dharmakaya, go look it up.
Mahayana starts from there, with the introduction of various other.
buddhas and Bodhisattvas existence in the non human realm.

Meaning, the Buddha was not alone and there were many others in the Buddhist Pantheon.
So supposedly, Theravada is the first foundation, and Mahayana is the second volume.

Hope this helps, its at least in everyday English.....

Actually, the dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya are all found in Theravada and did not begin with Mahayana. Theravadins recognized the Buddha, statues and people to be transformation bodies. They also recognized the Buddha's enjoyment body, and of course the ultimate truth body of the Buddha, the dharmakaya, was recognized. It is integral to Buddhism and not special to Mahayana.

Sile

What is the difference between applying a teaching and inventing a new one?

It's interesting to ask this question when looking at any particular practice.

DairyLama

What is the difference between applying a teaching and inventing a new one?

I think humans have a need to re-invent the wheel.

vinlyn

^^ I think there is a tendency for humans to refine (perhaps more than re-invent) "the wheel".

Dakini

I have a question that relates back to the thread on the precepts.

In the Mahayana, there is the "greater good" principle. One can break a precept of doing so serves a greater good. (Lying in order to save someone's life, for example.) Does that principle exist in Theravada as well?

taiyaki

@Dakini

probably not, its better to die then to break vows. the vow or rules are most important and probably emphasized.

but can we paint a whole tradition as such? the tradition is made up of individuals, who do as their hearts please.

so your question is impossible to answer in black/white.

but much easier to actualize in practice or what we call life.

refrain from harm, try your best to do good.

Dakini

taiyaki said:

@Dakini

probably not, its better to die then to break vows.

But the question is: is it better to allow someone to go to their death than to break one's vow to always speak the truth? In the Mahayana, the answer is emphatically, "no". And in Theravada?

Jason

Dakini said:

I have a question that relates back to the thread on the precepts.

In the Mahayana, there is the "greater good" principle. One can break a precept of doing so serves a greater good. (Lying in order to save someone's life, for example.) Does that principle exist in Theravada as well?

Not really. At least not as much as Mahayana. Theravada generally seems to discourage this idea, and the commentarial literature based on the Abhidhamma Pitaka goes even further, positing that the intentions to kill, lie, steal, drink, etc. are always rooted in an unskillful state of mind such as ill-will, delusion, covetousness, etc., and ultimately lead to unpleasant results and suffering (e.g., as a result of remorse, legal punishment, a bad destination after death for those who believe in such things, etc.). In regard to killing, for example, the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha states that:

According to Abhidhamma killing is invariably done with ill-will or aversion. Prompted by whatever motive, one, as a rule, kills with a thought of ill-will. Where there is ill-will (patigha) there is displeasure (domanassa). Where there is displeasure there is ill-will in a subtle or gross way.

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, however, and accept that, in certain situations, it's possible that a person can kill, steal, lie, etc. out of compassion or other skillful (read 'morally blameless) mental states (e.g., helping a sick and dying loved one who wants to end their life, stealing food to help feed a starving child, lying to protect someone from harm, etc.). Whether or not someone agrees with those specific actions, I think they can be motivated by things like compassion, etc.

taiyaki

That question is impossible to answer. We all must come to the conclusion ourselves by diving deep into our hearts. From there we will choose what solution is offered to the problem when presented.

Its all conditional. Who knows how we will act when shit hits the fan. Will we say fuck the vows or will we act in total compassion forgetting ourselves. It seems that one is selfish and the other is selfless but thats not the reality, that is our perception of another's choices, etc.

We all have our reasons and we all live with them. There are no right and wrongs. Just action and consequence.

Can our hearts bear it all? I say fuck yea.

Dakini

Jason said:

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, however, and accept that, in certain situations, it's possible that a person can kill, steal, lie, etc. out of compassion or other skillful (read 'morally blameless) mental states (e.g., helping a sick and dying loved one who wants to end their life, stealing food to help feed a starving child, lying to protect someone from harm, etc.). Whether or not someone agrees with those specific actions, I think they can be motivated by things like compassion, etc.

Thanks for the authoritative response, Jason, and the quote. Of course, the whole problem with that "flexible" approach to the precepts is that one's judgment could be clouded by some sort of selfish motivation, that's the whole "slippery slope" issue. But I feel that compassion is key. As long as we're motivated by compassion, morally whichever course we choose should ultimately be the right one. One must always check one's motivation.

Sabre

Dakini said:

One must always check one's motivation.

That's the key, really.

I just want to emphasize (yes, again ) that it's not really fruitful to try and generalize entire traditions, especially on topics such as this. For one thing, not all of "Theravada" take everything that's said in the Abhidhamma too seriously, because it is commentary.

Jason

Dakini said:

Jason said:

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, however, and accept that, in certain situations, it's possible that a person can kill, steal, lie, etc. out of compassion or other skillful (read 'morally blameless) mental states (e.g., helping a sick and dying loved one who wants to end their life, stealing food to help feed a starving child, lying to protect someone from harm, etc.). Whether or not someone agrees with those specific actions, I think they can be motivated by things like compassion, etc.

Thanks for the authoritative response, Jason, and the quote. Of course, the whole problem with that "flexible" approach to the precepts is that one's judgment could be clouded by some sort of selfish motivation, that's the whole "slippery slope" issue. But I feel that compassion is key. As long as we're motivated by compassion, morally whichever course we choose should ultimately be the right one. One must always check one's motivation.

Not authoritative, just what I've come to notice from my years of studying and practicing in the Theravada tradition.

As for the rest, I agree that the 'greater good' principle runs the risk of turning into a slippery slope, and that sometimes what we think are skillful intentions when while breaking the precepts are really selfish ones, but I'm not convinced that that's always the case.

Dakini

Sabre said:

not all of "Theravada" take everything that's said in the Abhidhamma too seriously, because it is commentary.

Thanks for this clarification.

Jason

Sabre said:

Dakini said:

One must always check one's motivation.

That's the key, really.

I just want to emphasize (yes, again ) that it's not really fruitful to try and generalize entire traditions, especially on topics such as this. For one thing, not all of "Theravada" take everything that's said in the Abhidhamma too seriously, because it is commentary.

I agree with the sentiment; although it should be noted that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is part of the Pali Canon (along with the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka), not a commentary. The specific text I quoted is a commentary on the Abhidhamma, however.

Dakini

Jason said:

I agree with the sentiment; although it should be noted that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is part of the Pali Canon (along with the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka), not a commentary. The specific text I quoted was a commentary, however.

This is what I love about NB--so much opportunity to learn, from the back-and-forth!

Sabre

Jason said:

Sabre said:

Dakini said:

One must always check one's motivation.

That's the key, really.

I just want to emphasize (yes, again ) that it's not really fruitful to try and generalize entire traditions, especially on topics such as this. For one thing, not all of "Theravada" take everything that's said in the Abhidhamma too seriously, because it is commentary.

I agree with the sentiment; although it should be noted that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is part of the Pali Canon (along with the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka), not a commentary. The specific text I quoted is a commentary on the Abhidhamma, however.

Perhaps technically it's not a commentary, you are right, thanks for clarifying. But it is also not words by the Buddha himself, such as most of the Sutta Pitaka. So some see it as a bit controversial.

Just to clarify, I have no opinion on it because I never read it. The sutta pitaka is long enough by itself.

Jason

Sabre said:

Perhaps technically it's not a commentary, you are right, thanks for clarifying. But it is also not words by the Buddha himself, such as most of the Sutta Pitaka. So some see it as a bit controversial.

Personally, I think that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is essentially a systematization of certain concepts and terms found throughout the Sutta Pitaka — with additional concepts and terms added in for logical consistency — which was possibly intended to act as a pedagogical tool, as well as an attempt to describe the ultimate nature of reality. Many scholars also agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was a later addition to the original teachings that gradual developed over several centuries. This is not only evident from the fact that the Abhidhamma utilizes words that are found nowhere else in the Canon, but also from the fact that each school had their own version (some even rejecting it altogether). As such, I don't think that the Abhidhamma Pitaka as we know it today was taught by the Buddha, although I do think that parts of it may have been, as traditional stories suggest.

Dakini

Jason said:

Personally, I think that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is essentially a systematization of certain concepts and terms found throughout the Sutta Pitaka — with additional concepts and terms added in for logical consistency — which was possibly intended to act as a pedagogical tool, as well as an attempt to describe the ultimate nature of reality. Many scholars also agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was a later addition to the original teachings that gradual developed over several centuries. This is not only evident from the fact that the Abhidhamma utilizes words that are found nowhere else in the Canon, but also from the fact that each school had their own version (some even rejecting it altogether). As such, I don't think that the Abhidhamma Pitaka as we know it today was taught by the Buddha, although I do think that parts of it may have been, as traditional stories suggest.

Fascinating analysis of the Abhidhamma, Jason. What schools rejected it, are they still in existence?

Jason

Dakini said:

Fascinating analysis of the Abhidhamma, Jason. What schools rejected it, are they still in existence?

The most well-known is the Sautrantika school, which was so named because they relied exclusively on their collection of suttas/sutras, rejecting the authority of the Abhidhammic teachings of other schools altogether. It's no longer still in existence, although there are plenty of people today who only rely upon the suttas/sutras like the Sautrantikas.

Vastmind

@Jason.... :bowdown:
That link!
This is the closest I have seen my practice/teachings described!
Never heard the 'school name'! hahahah Guess my commune was
more than I thought. I'm on to more digging for study material...!!!!
Gratitude.