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 Buddhism - Big Difference ?
I've been practicing Buddhism for a good 2 months now, but have postponed my deep readings momentarily, as my studies are too taxing right now.
Someone asked me though, what type of Buddhist I was... and I actually did not even know!?
Just to be practical I've started with the 8-fold path, but have no idea which will be best for me: Theravada or Mahayana ?
I believe Mahayana is associated with Tibet & the Dalai Lama, so I'm inclined to believe that that would be the most suitable for me.
Do I have to choose at some point? What's the "real" big difference?
THANX!
Someone asked me though, what type of Buddhist I was... and I actually did not even know!?
Just to be practical I've started with the 8-fold path, but have no idea which will be best for me: Theravada or Mahayana ?
I believe Mahayana is associated with Tibet & the Dalai Lama, so I'm inclined to believe that that would be the most suitable for me.
Do I have to choose at some point? What's the "real" big difference?
THANX!
0
Comments
"Do I have to choose at some point?" My personal opinion is to take your time. You only started 2months ago, some people take between 5-40 years to find the path they prefer. Some people benefit from following only one school as it causes less confusion for them. Others prefer to mix and match. At the end of the day, it's your choice.
"What's the "real" big difference?"
Some say none, or that the differences are superficial, but for clarities sake...;
Therevada is based on the Pali cannon which are the oldest buddhist texts. Someone from the therevada might be able to fill in on the practices etc.
Mahayana is based on the sanskrit sutras. They were written down later than the Pali cannon and differ slightly. Within the mahayana path we find stories about Bodhisattvas (which are not in the Pali cannon), and stories of many different buddhas and buddha lands (like the Pure Land). The practice differs slightly.
I recommend to just take things easy, and try the different ones. Join some groups and get some experience. Best thing of all... enjoy the journey
Nios.
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4346
The schools differ as much as the societies they developed into. China had a more pragmatic culture, very down to earth, about the everyday man with everyday problems, and gave birth to Zen.
India had a rich philosophical and religious tradition, that stretched into Vajrayana, imbued with a lot of analytical meditations, huge pantheon and tantric practices.
In Theravada tradition countries you might have a different profile, which I don't know much about. It is direct and understandable.
The knowledge underlying them is probably the same.
I am relieved it's no big deal & that there's no rush either.
Where does the Dalai Lama stand in all of this though?
Cheers!
The Dalai Lama has imitations of many different Tibetan Traditions (he is a Gelug, but there is also Nyingma, Sakya and Kaguy) so I think he is fine :-)
Mahayana covers numerous schools including various branches of Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is heavy in culture and rituals. Zen is another form that is very straight forward and emphasizes zazen. Mahayana has Sanskrit scriptual sources outside the pali canon.
Given what you've shared about yourself the Thai forest tradition is one I would suggest look into. Zen might also be an option. They're all just different methods of teaching...
Of course you don't have to choose one. But it is good to learn the differences and not muddle different teachings.
Actually the Dalai Lama holds and transmits the teachings of all major lineages of Tibetan Buddhism.
He was raised primarily in a Gelug setting but once he was forced into exile he went out of his way to become a completely non-sectarian leader and teacher in the world of Tibetan Buddhism.
If someone asks what type of Buddhist you are, just tell them you haven't decided yet.
Look into all the traditions, because they will all teach you something important. And when you find the tradition that is right for you, the one that "sings" to you, you will know.
I am thinking of getting "Buddhism for Dummies"
Maybe half an hour a day is more practical?
Books like "Buddhism for Dummies" usually have horribly inaccurate descriptions of Vajrayana.
Just a word to the wise.
My advice would be to begin investigations with the core teachings of Buddha in the Pali Canon and the Theravada Thai Forest tradition. Later maybe go on to investigate Mahayana/Vajrayana.
Kind regards,
Dazzle
Hmmm... what makes you say that ooMundus, I kindly wonder. Perhaps because I mentioned the Tibetan branch, it's just that I have such great respect for them.
To be honest, I do believe in living a worldly-live (i.e. practical life), and I mean this in the most respectful way possible. But a quick search suggest that Forest Monks live very monastic lives, so perhaps that's not my ticket, although I do like the ideology.
Is this true? I say it in a book-store the other day, so I wondered. Thing is, I am real facts man, and actually I like doing extensive research in matters that interest me, but right now (for the time being...) I am looking for a "quick fix" for lack of a better phrase. Sounds silly, but otherwise I don't feel credible myself.
Perhaps this is a way to go, just the core teachings for the moment.
I read some Buddhadasa bhikkhu as suggested by oOMundus ... and found those very very interesting. Selecting can at times be chore though with so many sources available.... haha... but that's not a real complaint
Thanks again !!
I'd recommend starting with the Theravadan tradition. Why? More material on how to meditate, less of a rote style than the Ch'an/Zen schools, and how to manifest and progress through the jhanas. Also if your put off by the metaphysical (i.e. do you think the magic tricks of the Bible are silly?) the Mahayanan (and from what I understand) the Vajrayanan sutras will be more off putting.
I started with reading Ch'an / Zen books on meditation, and had bias towards wanting to learn from the Zen school. What I found was that they're very rote, and won't take you much beyond following the breath. Don't get me wrong, they mention immaterial states, but don't really paint a clean picture on how to get there.
In a week after being introduced to the Thai tradition I had what I believe the Zen school would call a satori, about non-self.
When you're ready to punch through the illusion of concept, start reading Ch'an texts.
What Buddha Taught (Writings of Thai Forest Monks)
Buddha Net Ebook Library
GeminiVI thanks for the links. I agree on the not-clinging to a school, as soon as you have to make a choice, you have to invest time in researching the particular school, they way they teach etc. it can be a tricky and time consuming activity. Still, I only say this because of my previous religious experiences, there are many suitable schools and it is a consideration for the foreseeable future.
NOTE:
Right now my focus would just be to study the EIGHT-FOLD PATH ... in an extensive way. (Although I have started reading up on some suggested readings too)
I just wonder what your opinions are on my approach, will it suffice for the moment. Does that make me a worthy Buddhists for the time being?
Thanks always!
There are a lot of differences between the 3 practices, (not forgetting Vajrayana) These differences are not just to do with the practices and methods, they are to do with one's motivation as well. Meeting the people in the group will tell you a lot about how the practice may fit you, and you the fit the practice.
Go and experience a few groups for sure
Best Wishes
Not only is this book an excellent look at the Sakya lineage but it is a hugely informative book on the foundations of Tibetan Buddhist practice in general.
There are no Vajrayana sutra's. The Vajrayana tradition uses Therevada and Mahayana sutras that comprise the foundation of the teachings and the Tantras of the Vajrayana that represent their main corpus of scriptural reference.
The tradition is primarily transmitted from teacher to student.
Our friend is new to Buddhism and merely wanted to know about different "types" of Buddhism. Indeed you are correct in that the Vajrayana tradition uses Therevada and Mahayana Sutras but perhaps look further into this practice you will see a vast rich and profound practice and certainly worth recommending as an option to Hank.
Good wishes to you
Oh, i highly recommend it.
The all-inclusive nature of the Vajrayana/Tibetan tradition is one of its greatest attributes in my opinion.
One can focus their practice on Vipassana if they want to without having to exclude the use any of the other methods offered by the vast and profound Vajrayana.
Just as an additional comment about me recommending Theravada - I've been an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner for many years and have only recently realised how much I've missed out on with my readings of the Pali Canon. These investigations have revealed a great deal..... especially the way that later teachings in other traditions have been built around some of those core suttas.
I do think its important to know what Lord Buddha himself said in the earliest suttas that we have available .
Kind regards,
Dazzle
absolutely.
I think people make a lot more out of the differences than there really are.
The Pali sutta's are very interesting to read from the perspective of someone trained in the Tibetan tradition. I find them to be very supportive of the methods of practice that I have been taught in the Vajrayana context.
I feel I maybe was unclear - hard to type long post on an iPod. But when people here have suggested Thai forest to you, that doesn't mean monastic life - just as recommending other traditions doesn't mean practicing within a monastary. Thai forest is Theravada, and focuses on meditation (anapanasati and vipassana). Basically it focuses on direct experience and insight rather than scholary study. Buddhadasa's teachings would fall in this category (although he ceased identifying as anything by the end of his life) as would ajahn chah and sumedho for example.
Renunciation is part of all traditions. But the vinaya is for monks not laypeople. Thai forest monastic lifestyle is suited to this but ultimately renunciation is a mental thing.
In any event I just wanted to clarify. Personally I've never chosen a specific school in eight years but do lean towards certain ones for various reasons. Take what's helpful wherever you find it.
Palzang
As Bhante Sujato said...
"If you asked the Buddha 'are you Mahayanist or Theravadin' he would say 'what are you talking about? I don't understand those words, I have never heard them before, they are meaningless to me'"
...The Buddha just went to a quiet place and meditated (and this is what he taught his followers to do). All that other stuff about "which is better, Theravada or Mahayana" came later.
With Metta,
Guy
Technically correct. In actuality quite a number of Nyingmapa do not recognise The D.L.'s authority.
The term “Mahayana” means “Greater Vehicle”, and it was used in contrast to the term Hinayana, which means “Lesser Vehicle”. Of course this terminology is no longer politically correct, as are references to the spiritual “superiority' of men as opposed to women, and so forth. The distinction points out that practitioners of Theravadin supposedly practice only for their own personal liberation within a single lifetime, whereas practitioners of Mahayana practice primarily for the purpose of generating generalized compassion directed toward the liberation of all sentient beings, and this is presumed to take place over several, usually countless, lifetimes.
The distinction is seen in the way the refuge “statement” is phrased. A person taking refuge in a Mahayana tradition takes refuge “until I reach enlightenment” whereas a practioner of Theravadin takes refuge only for this lifetime. If I remember corectly, the term Theravadin means “forest dweller”, and that would appear to pretty much sum up their approach to practice. By contrast, in the Mahayana tradition, compssionate acts and the motivation to generate generalized compassion are seen as a logical extension of the desire to overcome suffering. If I myself want to overcome suffering, well, gee, what about that person over there that seems to be suffering too? To Mahayanists, that just makes sense. Mahayanists take this to the point at which the motivation to become enlightened is for the sake of others rather than for the sake of the individual.
It's true that Tibetan Buddhism is Mahayana, and HH Dalai Lama's talks about compassion are among the best examples of Mahayana, but this is not to be confused with Vajrayana. Vajrayana is a set of intense practices directed toward achieving enlightenment in this lifetime, for the sake of all sentient beings. So Vajrayana is sub-category of Mahayana, which has been said above.
So it would seem that whatever type of Buddhism you gravitate toward will depend on your disposition. I happen to be an American that can't sit still, and I have been a “Kennedy liberal” since I was eight years old, so Mahayana came pretty naturally for me. And there are lots of nice Mahayana situations you can get yourself into. I am pretty close to retirement, and I have spotted a nice Chinese Chan/Pure Land congregation in Orlando, Florida, so I think I'm going to go do that. The Master that started that set of organizations, Hsing Yun, has done some good writing that should give you a good feeling for Mahayana.
Best wishes. When in doubt, be nice to somebody.
I refer to all precepts and the ideal of moral discipline and restraint. Its my understanding that all traditions adhere to the same ideas - and agree what one shouldn't do.
Study them to the best of your ability and practice in the spirit of the meaning of the precepts to keep you mind/body/and speech in line with what the buddha taught.
best of luck.
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> It's hard to comment specifically on such a general statement, but I would point out that this is not all that accurate. For instance, there is the thought that different levels of precepts and ideals of moral discipline and restraint apply to monastics as opposed to non-monastics. Assuredly, the motivations for moral discipline and restraint differ between Theravada and Mahayana. Again, Theravada is focused on moral discipline and restraint for the liberation of the individual within a single lifetime, whereas in Mahayana they are focused on the liberation of all sentient beings. Some things are permissible in Mahayana that are not in Theravada, but to elaborate on what things and why is difficult given the general nature of the statement.
The intent of the Theravada school is liberation for the practitioner. What the practitioner wishes to do as far as others is left to them, but really what has an Arahant to live for *except* the well-being and liberation (if welcome) of others?
Really, it's the intent of the individual that matters in the end. It doesn't matter which school you choose; usually we choose schools that are close to where we are, or based on our personality/temperament.
I do know this: we must liberate ourselves before we can be honest guides for others. If we do not know the path ourselves, have walked it and reached the goal, then we are just passing along information like parrots.
All of the Buddhist schools, or types of schools, teach of suffering and its cessation; they merely do it from their own perspective, and with their own goals. They each have a "self", which is something we must recognize. They are all worthy of respect, but must be seen with right view.
not ready, since the ancient days the Mahayana teachers are more willing to extend their salvation all the way ( embrace, help, teaching , leading the way ) to people such as sex workers, people who deals with killing or handlering animal, soldiers , uneducated , people attached with strong heretical views and other outcast groups, and modify the practice and teaching to suit their lower capacity or less favourable karma
This is a great identification of bodhicitta and the bodhisattva ideal.
It does not however, seem to suggest, that bodhisattvas or anyone engaging in bodhicitta is free to ignore the vows they take.
And where did you get the silliness about drinking alcohol and eating meat in Vajrayana, Life? First of all, there is no vow about eating meat. Secondly, the vows of a Vajrayana monk or nun are exactly the same as the vows of a Theravadan monk or nun.
Palzang
Thanks! this is what I said during my first post in this thread.
- me
i guess I should clarify what I said - Therevada and Mahayana both study the Vinaya - and my only intention was to talk about the similarities.
As far as Vajrayana I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place and for that I apologize.
there are actually mainly two group of vow , the Nikayan monastic vow and the Mahayana bodhisattva vow
In the early days the historical Buddha transmit the Mahayana teaching mainly to those small group of realised yogis ( outside his monastic disciples ) , these Mahayana disciples do not ready follows the monastic precepts
As the time passed, there are splits in the Nikayan groups , and some of them are more inclined towards the Mahayana teaching, when the Mahayana practitioners stays together with the Nikayan monastary , they just follows their rules out of respect.
likewise when Buddha Dharma transmitted outside India, the Nikayan teaching and monastic teaching spreaded first, so people outside the land of India have already developed a preconceptional idea on Buddhism. When the Mahayana teachers came into these lands they would simplily respect these establishment ( avoids to cause confusion among those new faiths )
Till when the faith of the land are matured and the understanding of Mahayana are rooted, some Mahayana teachers thinks it the right time to split the different of the 2 group of vows. For example in Japan , the great teacher Dengyo ( Saicho,founder of Japan Tendai school, 767–822ce) requested the permittion from the emperor to establish a separate ordain platfrom for the new Mahayana new monks and nuns, so that allow them to take only the Mahayana Bodhisattva precepts. In such a way he think this allow the Mahayana teachers to be more flexible in their actions to carry out their Mahayana career. From then on most Mahayana monks/nuns/disciples in Japan only took the Bodhisattva precepts.
( Previous to Saicho, all monastic ordinations took place at Todaiji temple under the ancient Vinaya code, but Saichō intended to found his school as a strictly Mahayana institution and ordain monks using the Bodhisattva Vows only. Despite intense opposition from the traditional Buddhist schools in Nara, his request was granted by Emperor Saga in 822ce , several days after Saicho died. This was the fruit of years of effort and a formal debate )
their could be one who took Nikayan vow , follow Nikayan path
or took Nikayan vow ( or both ) , follow Mahayana path
or took Mahayana vow , follow Mahayana path
or took Mahayana vow , follow the Nikayan path
( within Mahayana, they also refer one follow Nikayan path in they only practice mainly to oneself )
i) the discipline / precept of vow ( Nikayan precept or Mahayana-Bodhisattva precept )
ii) the vow for their goal in their cultivation ( Nikayan - Arhart - Nirvana without remainder , Mahayana - Bodhisattvahood/Buddhahood - Nirvana with remainder )