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.
Theravada - Mahayana. Just a thought.
Hello everyone, i'm new here and this is my first post! The reason for me joining the forum is simple, I was on facebook yesterday and i made a bold move! To change my religion to "Buddhist" 
I have been practising for 4 years and haven't found the need to shout it of the roofs that i'm Buddhist but recently some amazing things have been happening and i feel it's appropriate.
NOW, when i went to change my religion it asked me if i was Thevada or Mahayana, which i am farmiliar with. I dont know the ins and out of the two schools, but it got me thinking... All i know is what i know upto this date which i have been taught by various books and people. My point i guess is this, as Buddhism is approaching the west the schools are bieng left in the east because there is noone here, or maybe no big difference in the schools from a western perspective.
Should i take one up? If so which? Or should i stick with what has got me this far?
Any feedback is very much appreciated
I have been practising for 4 years and haven't found the need to shout it of the roofs that i'm Buddhist but recently some amazing things have been happening and i feel it's appropriate.
NOW, when i went to change my religion it asked me if i was Thevada or Mahayana, which i am farmiliar with. I dont know the ins and out of the two schools, but it got me thinking... All i know is what i know upto this date which i have been taught by various books and people. My point i guess is this, as Buddhism is approaching the west the schools are bieng left in the east because there is noone here, or maybe no big difference in the schools from a western perspective.
Should i take one up? If so which? Or should i stick with what has got me this far?
Any feedback is very much appreciated
0
Comments
What are you currently studying ?
The practise and study that if its what suits you
Well intentioned people everywhere must stop that man from painting.
....................ok thats just a personal artistic taste thing.
never mind.
Lol
Also, I happen to like the avatar pic.
So my advice is to think if the teacher can be helpful. Are they compassionate. Is there teaching helping you. Is the teacher or group mature enough so that you are not getting into something in some way harmful to you.
The test on teacher's and teachings is I believe whether they are liberating for you. Which at some point you will notice and then you will be thankful and grateful.
The differences between M & T are fairly significant.
Welcome here. Rather than get into a discussion of whether there are minor or major differences, what I could suggest to you is just to study and practice more and go to some different Buddhist centres/monasteries etc and one day you will say to yourself - I'm a xxxxx-yana/ada. You can read up on a number of different Buddhist schools at buddhanet.net: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/schools.htm
But just take it easy, continue as you have and one day you will know where you fit in the best for your mindset.
Metta,
Vangelis
But I still do some things associated with the other tradition, because they feel comforting, right and they fit.
Which tradition do I follow...?
Theravada.
But even so, it's not what you follow.
It's HOW you follow it.
I will carry on doing what suits me, what i love and what makes me smile, whilst searching for a teacher that i vibe with.
thanks! x
Cool
So.. for a new person it is important to really consider what you are looking into. It is all Dharma, all good and true, but be careful of "many paths up one mountain" idealism. It might not actually be the case.
This is a well considered post, with good will. Namaste.
Thanks,
Vangelis
Once again this is not about dividing something undivided, just being clear.
I like that a good explanation.
There is not much to choose in age between the written Pali canon and the early Sanskrit 'Mahayana' scriptures. It was all written down long after Buddha's death and I see no point in following the human trait of inventing groups to 'belong' to and from which to exclude others.
I recall 'Element' (DD) once writing that at one time he did not realise he had a label, and that it was 'Buddhadhamma' that he was following. (I paraphrase, with apologies.)
I think this is the best approach to take.
As soon as we define what we 'are' we also define what we 'are not'. I think the whole thing is arbitrary and unhelpful. Most of the arguments over the differences revolve around one person rejecting an interpretation of scripture or the total rejection of scriptures attached to, mostly, the Mahayana as not originating as teachings of Shakyamuni.
I guess the most useful thing about the label is that we have some idea whose predigested version of the Dharma we will be asked to taste.
I say, do what feels right to you, but do it whole heartedly.
Thank-you Pietro,
And from your reference I quote:
This is what I understood. Please note in particular the last sentence:
"[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question.[/FONT]"
But just look at it this way. Ask a Theravadin Bhikkhu if everything is already spontaneously self perfected and nirvana and samsara are one?. Ask a Dzogchen practitioner if he is following the Eightfold path and uprooting defilements? My experience is in Zen and The Thai forest tradition. and it should not be seen as a bad thing to acknowledge that the differences are profound. Sure they are more alike than say Zoroastrianism and Zen, but it is not helpful to try and fuse them by ingnoring real difference.
This is not a bad thing.
These are all just ideas. They are superficial differences because on the mat, all of these people end up doing the same thing.
Love & Peace
Joe
As a Dzogchen practitioner I can tell you that I do follow the 8 fold path and am working with uprooting the defilements.
One of the many amazing things about Dzogchen is that it very simply and precisely all inclusive.
But, back to the op.
There are differences but they are primarily based upon three things, view, meditation, and conduct. All different Buddhist traditions have their own philosophical views, meditation methods, and modes of conduct that the prescribe to their adherents.
They are different methods for different people, but the final realization is always the same.
This is my first hand experience of practice in the Theravada and Zen traditions. This is based on experience in two particular Sanghas.
Context
Theravada.... The 8fold path resting on authority of the Sutta's. Bound by the wheel of Samsara, we begin practice, samatha/vipassana. Through the progress of insight we achieve liberation. Once defilements have been uprooted one is “no longer born into this world” The sangha is divided between the Ordained Sangha and “Householders”. Only the Ordained Sangha can realize Arhantship(debated). The Householders aspire to the example of the Ordained Sangha. The Authority on matters of Dhamma effectively rests with the ordained Sangha. Lay people receive teaching from the ordained Sangha but the ordained Sangha are not teachers per se', such teacher student relationships exist within the monastic community.
Zen.... “Special transmission” outside of Sutras. Samsara and Nirvana are one. One is originally unbound, there is nothing to achieve. No progress. Practice is called “sudden enlightenment gradual cultivation” and begins with the direct pointing to ones perfect enlightenment and the perfection of Samsara as such. The teacher plays an essential role in direct wordless teaching of the student.
This context matters, because it is the basic ground where one begins to practice.
Theravadin meditation.... Development of concentration leading to Jhana absorptions, leading to formless absorptions, and cessation. The turning of concentration on bodymind and the deconstruction of bodymind into constituent elements. Seeing the arising and ceasing of these elements leads to dispassion toward conditions. Progressive dispassion until one is “no longer born into this world.
Zazen.... Initial pointing to “true mind” the absolute receptivity and non-obstruction of the subjective pole of awareness, precipitating a collapse of the subject and object duality, or “Sudden Awakening”. Conditions and “the” unconditioned are two sides of one coin. Sitting practice is a non-progressive act of continuous awakening, Spontaneous action based on endless worldly engagement.
This is using my own language based on my own experience, it may be different for others, but these are based on years of practice in both traditions. One is not better than the other or more true. But they do lead to different “places” which should be acknowledged, especially when it come to “newbies”
From what i can gather, as a consensus this forum is tending to agree on one factor. Do what feels right for you, what is natural.
If this is true, then in the east would Buddhists born into mahayana/theravada be allowed do diverse school? or would it be something that is traditionally not done?
It puts us western types into a unique position maybe? To choose and find our own "custom" path.
Just a thought.
101
IMHO you are quite right. Go with what feels right, there is no right and wrong as far as the different vehicles are concerned. People in traditional Buddhist countries tend to be aculturated to certain traditions, but there is choice. Others around here may have more knowledge in this regard.:)
I don't agree. The same thing happens on the mat: resting and following the breath.
In my experience, these are just different words for the same thing. (To some extent, the same word, even — look at the etymology of the word "Zen"...)
You seriously think that awakening in Theravada is different than awakening in Zen?
we will have to wait and see though.
it does make sense that different methods get different results but i feel that those results and methods are for the varied dispositions of practitioners and that eventually they all lead to liberation.
I do not know if the "final destination" is the same.
Yes, the nature of the awakening seems to be different.
No. the experience on the mat is different.
Once again this is first hand practice in two sanghas over a number of years and this acknowledgement of difference has taken a while. We may just have to disagree on the matter. What i find interesting is why the possibility of these differences should be a problem.
One of the big problems in general Dharma discussions is oranges telling apples " you misunderstand the Dharma" . Why not just acknowledge that there are oranges and apples?
"Ultimately" what is the difference? Ultimately what is the difference between anything? But still there are on another level differences that count and can be acknowledged;
Arrogance is often the reason, coupled with Ignorance.
I've heard several senior Tibetan Lamas assert the old 'Hinayana' versus 'Vajrayana' argument that Hinayanists simply cannot attain full enlightenment or become a Buddha. Most have a wealth of knowledge of scripture back as far as Atisha or Padmasambhava, but too many have never had much to do with the Pali canon - it is simply dismissed as a stage on the path rather than a path which offers true enlightenment.
They would agree that there are oranges and apples, but assert that only the oranges can attain full enlightenment in this life.
Gobsmacking arrogance. That's why I refuse to have a label stuck on my back. if I did, it may read Tantric Tibetan Theravadan ! LOL !
Very fair. There is a fine balance:
One may explore different schools and retain what works for us.
One may stay within the confines of one school and accept nothing else.
One may flit from one school to another and make little progress.
One may define 'Buddhism' narrowly and regard the teachings of some other schools as superstitious and irrelevant.
IMHO I think that after a period of examination, one should choose what seems to be the best 'core' and add elements to it from other schools which seem to make sense.
To espouse the 'hierarchy' of Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana is an example of the self-cherishing notions we are advised to abandon.
If, however, we seek to define Buddhism through our own proclivities, we run the risk of painting the Buddha out of the picture, rather than regard him as the supplier of the paints and pallete.
the term Hinayana does not refer to modern Theravada.
Hinayana is related to view and it is quite true that a practitioner with a Hinayana view cannot attain Buddhahood. The Hinayana view is one that has no concern for others. This label doesnt apply to modern Theravada.