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.
Help me learn about the 3 Buddhist schools?
Hello there, I'm fairly new here and I've decided to let Buddhism be apart of my life not too long ago. I've been trying to learn more about it and I was wondering if some of you could summarize up the 3 schools of Buddhism; Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, so that I may have a better insight on them. I'd like to state that I'm very thankful for any information you have.
0
Comments
Theravada was supposed to be the Buddha's original teachings when he was in Human form. All his teachings were compiled into the Tripitaka, or three baskets.
The Nikayas are the best place to start reading as they contain most of the essentials of Buddhist teachings. In Theravada monasteries, there is only a singular Buddha.
Mainstream Mahayana introduces us to the Bodhisattvas and numerous other Buddhas, that make up the Buddhist pantheon. Other sutras were also added that expands on some of the earlier doctrines. I suppose this is the second chapter, expanding on the core Theravada teachings.
Theravada and Mahayana is not ritual based but on study, the Sutras and practice, Meditation.
Vajrayana is the most recent, but present day Tibetan Buddhism has many elements of Hinduism absorbed into it, esoteric practices and has some rituals as well.
The foundation is the same for all three, only the later ones have alot of add-ons.
A beginner would do well to start with Theravada, but that depends on the nearest monastery... yes? As you progress, you can then choose which is more suitable.
To summarise, the teachings are the Sutras, Meditation is the practice. Application is your personal conduct as you travel along the path.
This is a common form of Ignorance Vajrayana comes from Buddha Vajradhara whom is actually Buddha's enjoyment body. Vajrayana has a rather strict system of lineage and vow keeping and to mix with Non Buddhist teachings is a great downfall.
There is a debate as to whether there are just two main schools (Theravada and Mahayana) or whether Vajrayana(Tibetan) is it's own school and not just under Mahayana, so that will vary depending on whom you ask.
and also this link which goes into Vajrayana and various schools from China and Japan -
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/schools.htm
at the very bottom of the second link is a comparative study of the schools that I've always found useful.
Greater/Wider Vehicle or Mahayana: built on the basis of the Individual Vehicle. Starts with recognition of two fold emptiness (self and phenomena). Compassion is stressed along wih prajna wisdom (particulary the emptiness of phenomena). Aim is ceaseless compassionate activity for all sentient beings. Intention is much more stressed over following strict vows.
Diamond Vehicle or Vajrayana: Taking the fruit of enlightenment as the path. The teacher gives a glimpse of the natural state and the path is to build a relationship with that through various practices dependent on the capacity of the individual. This vehicle is also built ontop of the two other yanas as a basis. The only vow is to stay in the natural state.
The Pali/Sankrit term hina basically means 'low' or 'inferior,' but those translations doesn't really do it justice. The entry for hina in the Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary give a fuller range of its meaning: inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable. Whatever the definition, it should be clear that the connotation is extremely negative; and while one translation for hinayana is 'lower vehicle,' an equally valid translation is 'garbage vehicle.'
Essentially, the term hinayana, as defined by Mahayana, denotes "self liberation without the thought of helping others achieve the same," which isn't a fair designation of Theravada, in my opinion. Moreover, Theravada also stresses the importance of intention rather than imply clinging to "rules and observances," and has teachings for those desiring to follow the bodhisattva path via perfecting the ten paramitas (e.g., see The Ten Perfections and Manual of the Excellent Man).
In some cases, I think this term can be applied to some within Theravada when used to differentiate between certain, limited motivations and practices without too much controversy, but I certainly wouldn't use it to define the entire tradition and I'd caution others about painting Theravada with such a broad, and arguably unkind, brush.
I will have to go back through my old paperback books from the seventies (if I can still find them) and reread them. I first read them in the mid seventies, but I don't recall any of this sort of nuance, I just remember being overawed.
@WomanOfPeace, Buddhist thought and the history of its practice and development is one of the most immensely interesting things in the world. Buddhism represents the most truly countercultural culture imaginable to me, and its many "schools" make up quite the tapestry. I really like the word "school," in that it carries with it so many nuances: Groups (fish travel in schools), Educational Centers (such as secondary, Universities, and the like —each laden with associations of all kinds and the attendant loyalties and obligations and friendships, etc.)...
I wonder which school could contain the Buddha...
The categorization is a Tibetan thing, so I suppose we can view it from that context.
I'd certainly agree that Mahayana stresses the bodhisattva path, which is commendable and one of the things I admire about it; but I'm not sure why Theravada is seen as not focusing on things like compassion or helping others. As with the motivation to go to medical school to become a doctor and help others, they're not mutually exclusive. The teachings in the Pali Canon or those of many contemporary Theravadin teachers may be more subtle in this regard, but it's definitely not absent or ignored. Personally, I think Theravada is a lot less 'self-oriented' than people realize.
There are definitions that focus on what each of the major schools emphasize, just as there are other definitions on what each of the major schools lack.
Such info is very easy to find but from my experience, a sincere practise is simply too wide to be contained by such definitions.
Mahayana is dependent origination (DO) shunyata.
Vajrayana is the developement of the mind. As DO view is understood it becomes apparent that dukkha is sensitivity, anger is clarity see through obstacles as empty, and ignorance (avidya/avoidance) is openness. Thus in vajrayana the student does not try to uproot mindstates and replace them. Rather, the student works with whatever mindstates are arisen and tries to notice the sensitivity in their daily awareness (as an example). In some Vajrayana schools meditation on sorta deities helps to uncover the wisdom qualities of the three: dukkha, anger, and ignorance.
A comparision of fundamental Buddhism and vajrayana from the Tibetan Buddhist perspective is that fundamental Buddhism tames the mind whereas vajrayana trains the mind. This can be seen in an arhant being free from dukkha etc (the three) whereas vajrayana trains those qualities into enlightened aspects.
These are the three vehicles from Tibetan Buddhism (TB) perspective. Fundamental Buddhism as they see it doesn't correspond to Theravada. And TB teaches all three. For instances my sangha with a lama is a mahayana sangha.
Vajrayana is distinguished from mahayana in that after shunyata is realized there should be a heart of endless non-graspable Buddha qualities.
The Buddha said we only need a raft. Therevada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, they do their thing, but all these are additions of oars, sails or paddles to the simple raft. The raft the Buddha meant was letting go. That's all we need. We can spend our time trying to figure out which additions to this practice are best fit to our person, but we should not forget a raft is all we need.
Sorry, felt like putting it into a little story.
With metta,
Sabre
That was a beautiful example (: thank you for that.
What I think it comes down to is: People may disagree on which school is more 'original Dhamma', but sometimes forget all those things (suttas, chants, traditions, etc) are about Dhamma. They are not Dhamma themselves. Dhamma has to be in our hearts, not in books or traditions. At least, that's how I see it. As I heard one monk say: In a restaurant, you don't eat the menu.
So while very interesting to see various approaches to Buddhism, real Buddhism -the Dhama- is something we can find regardless of a tradition. That's because it's hidden within ourselves, not outside of us. The Buddha also had no tradition to base upon and still found it.
I'm not saying getting a bit of information on traditions is not useful. So by all means, investigate it a bit, ask questions and look around - it can be helpful in finding where you would fit best. But I wouldn't let it become the main thing; don't let it distract you from the main message. It's often one of the first questions people ask when they are new to Buddhism - and understandably so. But it needn't be. I actively practice in both Theravada and Mahayana traditions and think they both have things that are great and go together just fine. Basically the same thing.
But in a way you could also say there are just as many traditions as there are practitioners.. just depends on how you look at things.
(Also, I found the line between the three main traditions is very vague anyway. It's a bit like pop, rock and funk music. Some bands just fit in multiple genres or none at all. You can try to define the line, but meh.. just enjoy the music.)
Metta with capital M!
Sabre
Mantrayana and Tantrayana both has its roots in Hinduism, albeit the forms practiced to day have diverted from the originals.
The Mantra "OM" precedes Vajrayana by about at least 2 thousand years in Hinduism.
Fire and smoke Pujas are still common to Hinduism today, and were directly transplanted albeit nowadays using Buddhist instead of Hindu prayers and the offerings.
Vajrayana has a rather strict system of lineage and vow keeping and to mix with Non Buddhist teachings is a great downfall.
The local Tibetan BON shamanistic practices have been absorbed into TB.
Go ask your Lama(s). Talk about ignorance.
There are many ritual practices that are common to both traditions however making the observation that because they share similar rituals they must both have similar origins would be incorrect, Much like comparing Buddhist meditation with Hindu meditation superficially they resemble each other Internally they are very different.
Again with Bon if you cannot distinguish between resemblances then this is very sad, Bon in all Buddhist texts has been recorded as the work of village magicians and practices of Black magic this is very different from the Bon of today which more or less resembles a Buddhist tradition ( Similar but different to the Nyingma ) though there are still those who are known to practice the ancient Bon around there was a documentary about a Bon Pilgrim to mount Kalish who encountered practitioners who called their selves Bon but where extremely different to the him ( Practising the old Bon as recorded in Buddhist texts ) so its fairly easy to see where the actual resemblances come from.
@WomanofPeace
I suggest The School of Individual Observance and Understanding...
In other words, learn the basics of Buddhist practice* (Precepts, 8-fold path, 4NTs) and apply as needed to your intellectual and emotional well being.
Once there is personal commitment to these guidelines and teachings, delve into the actual Suttas/Sutras, and top off with a regular meditation practice - if needed.
From there decide if you need more, or are satisfied with the improvements to your life and your relationship with others and the world around you.
If you need more, then look into each Tradition and see if one in particular calls to your way of understanding (what you already understand on your own).
* http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/u/basics.htm
The reason I suggest a foundation of PERSONAL understanding first, is because it can be overwhelming and completely confusing to try and decide on a tradition or 'school' of Buddhism when one is just getting the basics down.... Because honestly, the basics are the same no matter which tradition one chooses.
Peace and Success on your Journey!
:clap:
If you are beyond the worldly winds you are beyond fear. So I recommend not to 'settle'.