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.
Does anybody know some of the most basic differences between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism?
Between2Worlds
New
I am having trouble understanding them.
I also dont understand what it means wen they say that zen is outside of the sciptures? what is this?
0
Comments
Mahayana holds that practitioners should ultimately dedicate their efforts to the liberation of all sentient beings. Those who reach realization (Nirvana) become Bodhisattvas, and pledge NOT to opt out of the cycle of rebirths until all sentient beings gain Enlightenment. In other words, they voluntarily give up their option to leave the cycle of rebirth, and pledge to work towards the Liberation of all sentient beings from suffering.
Theravada practitioners work mainly toward their own Enlightenment while practicing compassion toward others, of course. When they reach Enlightenment, they are considered Arhats, and they leave the cycle of rebirth.
Mahayana practitioners believe in a pantheon of Buddhas, while Theravada practitioners accept the historical Buddha as the only one. Mahayana practitioners eventually study the Buddha's Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which teaches that all beings have Buddhanature at their core, and that realizing this Buddhanature and gaining Enlightenment is the realization of the permanent True Self. Theravada practitioners don't recognize the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, or the concepts of Buddhanature and True Self, as I understand.
The Mahayana has additional teachings than in the Pali Canon. They say that the 'Hinayana' is just the first teachings of the Buddha. In modern times it is very painful to call any student 'hinayana' because it is derogatory. I think there was squabbling much like in Christianity with some protestants (in USA) antagonistic to Catholics and so forth. It is also the reverse to the Mahayana a pain to call their teachings 'Hindu' or whatever.
So that said I would hope that in your future you can find where you are comfortable, but be kind to all schools in brotherhood and sisterhood.
Here is a presentation of the 'three wheels of dharma' given by the Tibetan Buddhist presentation. As you are just starting your studies (I think) some jargon might throw you but I think it at least might be somewhat helpful; I don't know.
http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/jkrnature.htm
I think Zen being outside scriptures refers to the mind to mind transmission of master to student.
also there is the yinyana which @lobster can tell you about
Welcome here. Looking forward to learning about the dharma with you.
Here is a link that spells things out quite well:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot02.htm
Hi @Between2Worlds
First of all a warning about Lobster, never listen to anything he says, I don't.
Therevada is one of the oldest Buddhist schools, before it was called Buddhism. The Mahayana includes the Therevada teachings and has its own explanations, insights and skilful means.
Zen comes from an unconfirmed (no youtube or mobile phone cameras) sermon/teaching/satsang where the Buddha said nothing but held up a flower instead. One person in the audience understood this wordless gesture . . . the founder of what would become Chan and then Zen.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon
Hope that is helpful. If not can not say I am surprised . . . I did warn you . . .
(this message sponsored by YinYana Heretics Anoymous)
@cook the top film guy said that Mahayanists say 'oh don't bother meditating' (because Mahayana says many lifetimes). I thought that was a little ridiculous.
A little ridiculous? How about a lot?
Zen is all about meditation. They don't call the Karma Kagyu the "Practice Lineage" for nothing. The Gelug and Nyingma have a definite focus on meditation practice, too. The other schools, unnamed, have a similar focus.
The Venerable doesn't know what he's talking about.
@Chaz I'm very curious what "venerable" refers too. I've heard the Buddha's cousin referred to as venerable but I guess I assumed that was just part of his name? So what does this mean?
'Venerable' is simply a term meaning 'revered, respected, admired'....
The 'Venerable Bede' for example....
okay thanks
Okay so I watched that second video....was he just being rude? Or is that really how Theravada is? I haven't decided which school of thought is for me yet but I had been leaning to Theravada since the beginning but seeing it put like that almost came off as "over-enthusiastic" about bashing Mahayana. I can't honestly make any sure statements though until I know more. What do you guys know about it? @cook
you mean, @cook99.
You have to quote the whole forum name, correctly, in order to alert that member....
Somewhere, a couple of years ago, I read that way back when Buddhism was young, not long after the Buddha's death, "folk beliefs" had begun to seep in. Even when the Buddha was still alive, I think. This involved casting spells, among other things. The casting of spells is a component of tantra. So if anything magical like that is still part of Theravada anywhere, then the answer would be "yes", tantra is part of Theravada. But only "unofficially" so, as the Buddha discouraged that sort of thing, as I understand it.
I think 'casting spells in tantra' is vague. One's imagination can run wild.
It would be nice to have a reference from a tantrika talking about their personal spellcasting. @Dakini do you have a reference to someone talking about how they cast spells as a tantrika?
@Jeffrey Mantras are a form of spell. Blessings are a type of spell. Medicine Buddha prayers, for example. Praying for good fortune is a type of spell-casting. There's a Red Tara ceremony that's about casting spells for success in opposite-sex relationships, that's very interesting.
@cook99 - Okay so I watched that second video....was he just being rude? Or is that really how Theravada is? I haven't decided which school of thought is for me yet but I had been leaning to Theravada since the beginning but seeing it put like that almost came off as "over-enthusiastic" about bashing Mahayana. I can't honestly make any sure statements though until I know more. What do you guys know about it?
Sorry for copying again...I've never been in a forum I have no clue how this works
I don't really think of those as a spell. Spell is like magic right?
With your loose definition you would have to say that the Christian Reformed Church or Southern Baptists casts spells!
I don't think these videos represent the typical or certainly not 'all' Theravadans. The bashing is too bad. I think it's something people get over. Eventually we don't feel the need to put down others to elevate our self. That said there is room for healthy debate between people of different schools.
I am watching the second movie and in the first 20 minutes it seems lucid.
My wife is Wicca, so around here a "spell" isn't a bad thing.
What do you think?
True. The vast majority of Theravedins, don't care, and I'd dare say most don't know the difference, either. It's just the kind of Buddhist they are.
There is, however, Buddhists you encounter online who are what I'd call self-styled Theravedins. Many of them seem obsessed with Mahayana as an inferior and even heretical form of Buddhism. For may you could maybe fill a shot glass with what they really know about Mahayana.
They're jerks.
Regarding the difference between Theraveda and Mahayana there's really nothing to debate. Different paths. That's all.
I think his conclusion that the Mahayana was the rise of false dharma doesn't make sense. He says five things indicate the counterfit of the dharma (this is the second video). The first three are lack of respect for the triple gem. But this is not the case with the Mahayana. The Mahayana also teaches respect for the triple gem.
Very pleasant how (2nd vid) says that the devestation by chairman Mao*(below) of Mahayana Buddhists is the karmic result of disrespecting the Theravadan arhats.![:\](https://newbuddhist.com/plugins/emojiextender/emoji/little/confused.png ":\")
What a jack ass!
Completely lost it in the end. He says Mara is the creator of the Mahayan.
haha! True. Who are the ones who do snake handling? Southern Baptists?
But I read that mantras began as spells. I think some of these things, at least in Buddhism, did begin as part of magic-making (remember, Buddhism has been evolving for 2500 years), then got a little watered down and also evolved to become more acceptable in a Buddhist context. Someone on this forum a year or more ago sent me the history of that Red Tara puja, and it was pretty wild. But that should be no surprise, because we know that indigenous demons and goddesses and so forth got "tamed" by Padmasambhava, and incorporated into TB.
What I was saying earlier is that local magical traditions seeped into Theravada, as well, in Buddhism's early days. Whether or not they got purged, or perhaps are still practiced by country folk, I have no idea. But Buddhism in its various regions has been influenced by local practices and humans' need to try to influence their world in some type of supernatural way. We can see those tendencies in different parts of the world with Christianity, too. Synchretism seems to be a normal response when a new religion is introduced to people.
What I am saying is not looking at origins rather I am saying if you say a mantra is a spell you have to say a hymn is also.
Well, I hadn't looked at hymns, since we're discussing Buddhism, but...probably so. But are mantras used in Theravada? Or are they Mahayana tradition, only?
I think they chant 'Budho' with the belief it can purify or some such. They also chant the Pali Canon at some ceremony.
Hmm he (2nd video) says, based on a conversation with a particular monk, that the mainstream Theravadan view among monks even is that the Mahayana is EVIL.
From what I've studied so far, it would seem that the Buddha had his followers repeat stuff so that the precepts, etc. would be remembered -- just rote used like in 3rd grade learning the multiplication tables -- and not as some magical mystery chant or spell. My 2 cents ...... I think the Buddha was a man of science, mostly and I don't think he had a superstitious bone in his body.
I think Buddha says he is neither a man or a God and when asked what he indeed was he said merely that he was awake.
I'm not sure how legit this website I googled is but it says:
http://teachingsofthebuddha.com/i_am_awake.htm
I can't find the name of the person, but I read a book maybe 5 years ago where Buddha encounters the first person after enlightenment. I think it was that person who asked what he was. Buddha told him that he had accomplished the holy task, but the man didn't grasp what that meant and that man simply said 'let it be so'.
So Buddha then figured out that he had to find a way to help people understand what he is teaching and shortly after gives his first sermon on the Four Noble Truths to a gathering of 5 aesthetics he knew at Deer Park.
my dad/buddhism/magic man is bigger than your dad/buddhism/magic man . . .
Thus have I read, heard and made up . . .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhāran_Buddhist_texts
There was this guy, sat under a tree till all the magic was gone . . .
You want a map right?
Yes, a Jackass, to be certain.
And how about it @cook99, why did you post such unmittigated nonsense, to entertain us?
@federica - can we take that crap down?
There has been too much discussion to alter the thread, but certainly label it total and utter crap, which it patently obviously is. Hopefully @cook99 recognises how utterly ludicrous the videos are...
A fundamental,important difference between the two schools regards what the Buddha became enlightened about.
I posted three questions but they were deleted.
I wonder why.
@Not_Two, They weren't deleted, they were moved as being off-topic and a new thread created.
I started with Theravada and my source is Bhante G and his Bhavana society, and I really like the lectures from there. They havn't spoken about Mahayan at all.
The only thing I gathered was that even Theravada monks sometimes said that Theravada is to strict. However I am happy Mahayana exists it made Theravada a bit more open to other people. Thought I do think theravada still thinks for enlightment etc you really have to be a monk and so on and so on while in Mahayana lay people or monk both can obtain enlightment.
Anyway it's just small subtle difference I do not think any of the two is superior and they probably had influence on both of them. I sometimes feel like I should give up Theravada as they are so strict on the other hand, I will stick with it and read about mahayana later. It's just for now I find it not to bad.
Today I was looking for skulls in the Grand United Lodge of England. I spoke to people practicing mindfulness. What a joy (and not a Theravadin, Mayan skull or monk key mind in site).
. . . and you thought these guys wore aprons and women and ordinary cructaceans were not welcome? Pah.
http://ugle.org.uk
In a similar way, people make up or align with their preferred prejudices or narrow experiences. I am a 'heretical' Theravadin or Mahayanist. Worse than that, I sometimes hang out with skulls from Islam, Disney World, Hogworts and even muggles (the white van is on stand by).
We are not here to define dharma, we are finding wether we can embody it
Well that is my plan . . . yep I failed again . . . back to the drawing board
http://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/science-mysteries/who-are-the-freemasons.html
Dare I ask what you mean by "skulls," @lobster?
^^^ Well it can mean heads, it is also a 'mori moratorium', a phrase I learned today. It is a symbol used in the extra degree of the KT (or Knights Templars) the original founders of the Cantons of Switzerland.
http://blog.templarhistory.com/2010/03/did-the-templars-form-switzerland/
The curators were very kind and helpful, at first wondering whether anything was available. Then they found many emblems including a tobacco container - my favourite as it is so appropriate:
Incidentally no one was wearing their magic/symbolic aprons or other fancy dress . . .
. . . and now back to terrorities, tribes and such . . .