Quiz Time - Mahayana -vs- Theravada

buddhafoot

Time to brush up on your history a little bit.

What are the differneces between Mahayana and Theravada?

Do you know?

Which school of thought are you more closer to?

We'll do something on Zen later... something about those scoans and tea they're always eating or talking about.

I love me some scoans!

Answers on Friday!

-bf

Palzang

Would you like some scones with your koans, sir?

Simonthepilgrim

Palzang wrote:

Would you like some scones with your koans, sir?

With Cornish clotted cream and homemade strawberry jam!

not1not2

Is it friday yet?

Palzang

It is on my planet! I don't know about you-all's...

Palzang

not1not2

Palzang wrote:

It is on my planet! I don't know about you-all's...

Palzang

That's fine, but since I don't know if this forum recognizes your planet's time system, I will simply post the following link. It clarifies some of the misconceptions surrounding the usage of the term Hinayana in relation to Theravada.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=21602

_/\_
metta

buddhafoot

Palzang is in a time and reality of all his own making...

-bf

Brigid

Simon, any chance of some strawberry rhubarb jam? That's my ultimate favourite! And I can't eat dairy any more so don't torture me with the clotted cream!

It's only Wednesday here...

Simonthepilgrim

not1not2 wrote:

That's fine, but since I don't know if this forum recognizes your planet's time system, I will simply post the following link. It clarifies some of the misconceptions surrounding the usage of the term Hinayana in relation to Theravada.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=21602

_/\_
metta

The linked article is a good, clear (and referenced) summary. Thank you Not1not2.

What it does point up is that, whereas differences exist between Theravada and Mahayana (and Tantra, for that matter), they are not the same as between early and later Buddhism.

When standing back from the 'faith families', there appears to be a process that they all go through. At some time after its foundation, a body of belief will be re-structured around new texts or a new leader. In all cases, these will hark back to the Founder, claiming legitimacy from this link. After a further time, each 'school' will claim true 'authenticity' or more direct descent, to the detriment of the other(s).

This was (and, alas, remains) the case in the Christian churches as in Buddhism. What the late 20th century has added to this old process is a new attitude. This is exemplified by movements like the Christian ecumenical movement or the action of great souls like Gandhi or HHDL. In this mindset, each school learns from the other, without thereby losing their own distinctive nature.

Coming from the outside, we who have arrived at the BuddhaDharma from Western traditions find ourselves confused by the multiplicity of Buddhist schools. We like to simplify and label, so we try to assimilate them to a Western-style dualism: Theravada vs Mahayana. The real question is not about opposition but how we can learn, as never before, the vast diversity of Buddhist traditions.

If we examine what is going on at, for example, the Mind & Life Institute to which Brigid directed our attention, we find many different schools of thought and spiritual traditions.

The apparent 'opposition' between Theravada and Mahayana is only that: apparent.

Palzang

buddhafoot wrote:

Palzang is in a time and reality of all his own making...

-bf

As are we all, dear friend. As are we all.

Palzang

buddhafoot

Yeah... but yours is just as creepy as mine.

-bf

buddhafoot

Oh yeah... Friday is coming... everyone get their fantastically terrific answers ready for the fray!

-bf

Palzang

buddhafoot wrote:

Yeah... but yours is just as creepy as mine.

-bf

No, mine is pretty cool! Really! :eekblue:

Palzang

not1not2

Okay, somebody just mentioned that it was Friday in my time-sphere. I think it might have been me. And suddenly I found myself without much to say on the subject.

I will say this though. Theravada means something along the lines of 'Teaching of the Elders' and Mahayana means 'Great Vehicle.'

While all Buddhist traditions teach the same 4 Noble Truths and share many of the same ideas, Theravada cut off their accepted suttas at the Sutta Pitaka, Vinaya Pitaka & Abhidhamma Pitaka while Mahayana has many more texts, which are accepted to varying degrees dependin upon which school of Mahayana it is. This fact could be used for or against either. Substantially though, one could say they are all still one Buddhadhamma (or should I say Buddhadharma?).

However, there are some differences in the two on certain terms. For example, both Arahats & Bodhisattvas are regarded in very different ways in either tradition. In Mahayana, an arahant is considered on the same level of realization as a Buddha, whereas in Mahayana they are not. Consequently, a Bodhisatta/Bodhisattva, or one aspiring towards Buddhahood, is less realized than an Arahat in Theravada, but moreso in Mahayana.

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now. I just thought I'd get the ball rolling on this discussion.

_/\_
metta

Palzang

Still, though, there's only one teacher and one teaching. That's the important point, imho.

Palzang

not1not2

True enough, Palzang. However, it was confusing when I first came accross these contradictions. I don't think they are all that critical of differences, but simply take different spins on the terms for their own effect.

_/\_
metta

Palzang

Oh, I agree, not1not2, but the problem is that the nature of our minds is to think concretely. This is how sectarianism takes root. So I always think it's useful to point out that the differences are more in style than substance. The way I was taught is that the buddha turned the Wheel of the Dharma three times depending on the karma of sentient beings. Thus there is some form of the teachings that anyone can relate to. So the seeming differences between the different vehicles is more a result of the great compassion of the Buddha to make the teachings available to all rather than just a few.

Palzang

not1not2

Palzang wrote:

Oh, I agree, not1not2, but the problem is that the nature of our minds is to think concretely. This is how sectarianism takes root. So I always think it's useful to point out that the differences are more in style than substance. The way I was taught is that the buddha turned the Wheel of the Dharma three times depending on the karma of sentient beings. Thus there is some form of the teachings that anyone can relate to. So the seeming differences between the different vehicles is more a result of the great compassion of the Buddha to make the teachings available to all rather than just a few.

Palzang

I agree, though I do think that these differences should not simply be cast aside or ignored, but should be respected & kept as they are. The contemplation of these differences can give us a deeper understanding of the matter in question. I've found that differences & conflicts cause me to look deeper into these matters & not simply settle with the apparant conclusions and official stances. Conflict itself can be a wonderful catalyst for realization, imo.

_/\_
metta

not1not2

I was scanning the Theravada section & came across a thread which linked to a wonderful article which seemed quite germaine to this thread.

Venerable Ajahn Amaro - Ajahn Chah's View of 'The View'

Adapted from SMALL BOAT, GREAT MOUNTAIN, a forthcoming collection of teachings given by Ajahn Amaro on retreats he participated in or co-led with Ven. Tsoknyi Rinpoche.

Here's a snippet:

A few days ago I was having a chat with Rinpoche and was expressing to him how profound the similarities are between what I have been hearing him say here and my own training in the Thai forest tradition. In fact I have to admit that the other day I suddenly realized that I've been practicing in a fashion somewhat akin to dzogchen [1] for about the last ten years. So, apart from sitting with my eyes closed, the practice I have been doing for at least the latter half of my monastic life, since about 1987, has been close to the practice that Rinpoche has been guiding here. If I had eyebrows, I would raise them a little bit.

Fundamentally we all have the same teacher: the Dharma comes from the Buddha and is rooted in our own nature. So this convergence shouldn't be that surprising. In fact, I was telling Rinpoche that, particularly during the first few days here, listening to him was like listening to my own teacher, Ajahn Sumedho, with a weird robe on. Even down to the same phrases, let alone the same principles. Also, I must admit that the Tibetan teachings are much better on the fine anatomy of the details and particularities of View. Within the tradition that I come from, it is much more down to the eloquence and inspiration in the moment of that particular teacher. In other words, there is a lot of inconsistency in the ways that things are expressed. So I have learned a great deal from the very structured and well-patterned nature of the teachings that Rinpoche has been putting forth.

There's some definite jewels in it.

And in the spirit of ecumenism, here is a quote from the Sufi Mystic Rumi which can be found towards the end of the article:

When were you ever made less by dying? Let that surge of the ego be born, and let it die. Lo and behold, not only is the heart not diminished, if we rouse the strength to let go of that, the heart is actually more radiant and alive than ever before. There’s a spaciousness, a contentment, an ease that is not attainable through grasping or identifying with any attribute of life whatsoever.

No matter how realistic, no matter how genuine the problems, the responsibilities, the passions, the experiences seem to be, we don't have to be that. There is no identity that we have to be. Nothing whatsoever should be grasped at.

Evam.

_/\_
metta

Brigid

That Rumi quotation is so Buddhist. I know that's not the right way to put it because ultimate reality transcends all samsaric categories but it's interesting.