And I mean all schools, everything from Secular Buddhism to Pureland to Nichirin, all of them.
My starting suggestion is to say that they all share the goal of liberation from suffering, though this may be expressed in different ways.
It would be tempting to add the Four Noble Truths, but those are not made explicit in all schools, so I'm not sure.
Your thoughts?
Comments
I would have thought The Buddha....
The idea of cultivation? That there is something to realize and/or do? I think most every school I can think of as a sort of more-active-than-passive sort of way/method/practice/religion.
I'd also like to add the 4 Noble Truths but it seems there are a few sects that you wouldn't know teach it if you've never heard of it.
Wait though... Wouldn't the Eightfold path pretty much have to be represented even if it's called something else?
I don't know enough about all of the schools to be able to say. The 4 Noble Truths are not explicitly taught in all schools, for sure (they aren't focused on in mine but we do touch on them and talk about them with our teacher) but I think they are still the underlying theme. They wind in and out of everything I've ever read. But like I said, I can hardly say I've read a lot off other schools, especially Pureland, and some of those that are more "outliers" for lack of better term.
The three marks of existence: anicca (impermanence), anatta (not-self) and dukkha (affliction).
I have read the Dalai Lama mention the Four Noble Truths as a core teaching in Buddhism, so, if initially it was more of a Theravadan concept, it would seem it is beginning to get widespread in other schools.
It is a core teaching. But it is not always specifically taught. My teacher is a vajrayana teacher, and like I said, we cover the 4NT, but not to any great extent. We don't touch on the eightfold path at all. It never even comes up, despite it being an extension/continuation of the 4NT. All of those things, and more, are wound into the teachings we cover. But we do not cover them separately and we have not even mentioned them again that I can think of in the last 4 years.
I know.
My former teacher was Gelug and the subject of the 4NT never came up.
In the Dzogchen sangha where I currently participate, the truths have been touched, though not quite as such.
@Citta once mentioned that the 4NT did not figure highly in Tibetan schools, that's why I was rather surprised to find them extensively dealt with on at least three books by HH the Dalai Lama.
I wonder if he made that choice to include them in his books and teachings because of his position. Since he has a worldwide audience, it makes sense to start with the basics, instead of assuming your everyday reader might already realize they are wound into everything else. Makes it easier to understand, perhaps?
For whatever reason, specifically in his book "The Heart of the Buddha's Path," which happens to be one of my favourites by him, he says:
Question: Does Pure Land emphasize The three marks of existence: anicca (impermanence), anatta (not-self) and dukkha (affliction).
I think not, but would like to be better informed.
Yes, this is what immediately came to mind. The Buddha and the basics: 4 NT, 8fold Path, meditation/insight, mindfulness, compassion, emptiness/selflessness. If some Tibetan Buddhist teachers don't cover the 4 NT and 8fold Path explicitly, those principles are in the Lamrim and other teachings implicitly. The DL lectured on them in the first lecture he ever gave in the US, back in 1979.
As they say, TB's foundational stage is Theravada ("Hinayana"), the 2nd stage, the 2nd "Turning of the Wheel" is Mahayana, and the final, or advanced stage, the 3rd Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma, is Vajrayana. So when you begin at the beginning, so to speak, with the basic teachings of the Buddha, which define the Theravada/Hinayana stage, you naturally learn the 4 NT and 8fold Path. Not all teachers begin at the beginning though. The DL does. He's very methodical.
Enlightenment!
My guru, who's Kagyu insists on study that includes 4NT, N8FP and other concepts found in what's referred to as Hinayana. Practice, from a Mahayana perpsective is ephasized, but has it's basis in the Hinanya.
It's not "Theravadin". Lot's of different schools teach it.
I don't think there's anything that truly "unites" Buddhism, nor do I think there needs to be. As a Kagyupa, I don't really care much about what they teach in Theravada, or the Nyingma, or Pure Land. If there's common ground, that's fine, but I don't really need that for my study or practice.
Uhhhhhh no.
The third turning is teachings on Buddha Nature.
Vajrayana is something else, sometimes referred to as a 4th turning but not by all.
Adding in (SGI) Nichiren Buddhism kind of throws a wrench in this. I was taught to never place any idols on my shrine and didn't learn much about Buddha in general. I never learned the 4 Noble Truths or 8 Fold Path or other common Buddhist teachings. The only sutra we studied was the Lotus Sutra, which many think was never written by the Buddha (which I also think we've discussed until we turned blue here in the past). But even so, we mostly studied the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin and his teachings revolve around his interpretations of the Lotus Sutra.
Even more interesting, if you look at a break down of the Gohonzon (literally "object of veneration" aka a scroll used for practice, I'd show you a picture but it is forbidden...even if they are easy to find online), you'll find that Shakyamuni Buddha's place is somewhat small despite it being a text description of the Ceremony in the Sky from the Lotus Sutra. Here is a breakdown of the Gohonzon He comes in at point 8 while the most prominent features are the Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, Nichiren himself, and Nichiren's personal seal.
But Nichiren was a Buddhist and did study all of the sutras and did venerate the LS, so it wouldn't be correct to say that they don't study the Buddha. But in my experiences with the SGI, it certainly did not feel like the focus. (Also relevant is that the SGI is a lay organization, but my group had many members from Japan, India, Korea, Taiwan, and of course, America, so I felt like it was a pretty good sampling.)
Good answer.
Of the religions I prefer the company and environment associated with Buddhist dharma. Not all Buddhists, not all dharma . . . maybe it is too much of a generalisation . . . m m m . . .
However for what it is worth the qualities I find most often that I like:
So even though I can not pin down what art or what the unifying Buddhist trait is, 'I know what I like' . . . just a pleb Buddhist I iz . . .
When spelled in English, they all have Buddhism word in their end.
Me.
The nature of mind is the same in each person if not each school.
Looking for some information as to which could be the common points in most Buddhist traditions, if at least not in all, I found what nowadays might strike us as a rather naïve point of view, but which was apparently quite promising in his time.
In one of my rare books, Henry Olcott's "The Buddhist Catechism" (I have the 1915 edition), I found these fourteen points which Olcott back then submitted to several authorities from different schools and got them to sign his document in agreement.
These authorities were from Japan (different Zen schools, including Nichiren), Burma, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Bangladesh and Mongolia.
I can't see any Tibetan authority subscribing to it, though.
Did they not agree or maybe Olcott did not have access to any authority of Tibet?
http://www.dharmadana.org/pdfs/Essay5/Colonel Olcott and his Buddhist Catechism - Text.pdf
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tbc/tbc13.htm
Since we're at it, in 1956, Christmas Humphreys, late director of the Buddhist Society, wrote a book entitled "A Buddhist Student's Manual."
(Yes, I have that book too )
In this book, he mentions back in 1945 he drafted twelve principles, this time, which he deems apply to most Buddhist schools.
Once more, no mention of any Tibetan schools as approving the text, but he claims it has been approved by Japan's seventeen major sects, a Chinese master has approved them on behalf of the million Chinese Buddhists, the Supreme Patriarch of Siam, responsible authorities in Burma and Ceylon, and Buddhist organisations in Europe and USA.
http://www.astepback.com/buddhism.htm
Excuse me for posting these photos here, but some people from another Buddhist forum allege that people in this forum make false claims or copy information from elsewhere and pass it as one's own, so I wanted to prove that I have the books as I say I do and I got the information from there.
Lucky me, the links also exist, so I did not have to sit down and copy from the books myself...
Practiced by human beings.
It's curious that an anagram of 'unites' is 'unties'...
@Federica -- Do I behold a fledgling member of "The Bletchley Circle?"
Isn't it equally curious that an anagram of "unties" is "unites?" Reminds me a little of those who run around saying "no pain, no gain" without acknowledging the inescapable corollary, "no gain, no pain."
It's curious the way I put it, in direct relation to the thread title. No more than that.
"What is it that unties all schools of Buddhism?"
The question was rhetorical. I merely posed it to illustrate my meaning to genkaku.
Let's not stray too far off topic, or reverse its intention!
Would it be safe to claim all schools of Buddhism have compassion at their core?
@ourself I think Tibetan Buddhism emphasizes compassion more than other schools. They have a whole teaching that wisdom is at union with compassion. And of course they have the Bodhisattva ideal.
I do it a whole lot more than I should, so no problem.
It tends to be rather underplayed in Theravada, though there is Right Intention and the Metta Sutta for example.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html
An interesting range of views here, I think I'd still come back to the goal of enlightenment, liberation from suffering.
And of course the Buddha!
That sounds hard core. Good base.
I once met/was harassed by a Hari Krishna devotee. I told him I was a Buddhist. 'So am I', he assured me.
Well . . . in Hinduism, Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashavatara
Hari Krishna Hari Krishna Krishna Krishna Buddha Buddha
Me iz Hindu?
Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Theravadin Buddhism - oh yeah good point
Hindu Buddhism - No? . . . well . . . Secular Buddhism, Punk Buddhism . . . m m m . . . and I do like a touch of the elephantine Ganesh . . . m m m . . .
Hari Rama Hari Rama
Rama Rama Buddha Buddha
Hindu Buddhists like to smuggle in an atman and avoid customs checks, so they are very naughty...