What are the differences between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism?
D.K.
I know Mahayana came later, and is popular in different parts of the
world than Theravada, but other than that I am not real clear on the
differences.
Can someone, in a nutshell, explain the differences?
And perhaps you all might tell me why you chose one over the other?
This hopefully will not lead to an argument over which is "better".
Let's just keep it to a matter of personal taste and individual
preference.
anon
Mahayana= Big Boat= Heart
Theravada= Little Boat= Mind
Many books will make the analogy above.
Now, imagine that suffering and ignorance is a river that keeps us
seperated from the opposite shore (nirvana/enlightenment). There are
two boats that you can use to cross, a big boat and a little boat.
Which one would you choose?
With the little boat (room for one) you can focus on self awareness,
self disipline, and knowledge. With the big boat you can do the same
things BUT you can also bring people along. Don't be mistaken, it is
not forcing people on the boat. It is not like other religions that
force people to convert etc.
So it depends on your personal prefrence.
Buddha was a big boat person. After crossing the river and working to
escape karma and samsara, he found nirvana but refused it so he could
be reborn and help others seek nirvana. So he started with a little
boat reached the other shore but instead of getting off, he returned
and used the big boat to help people cross.
Many people try to combine both ways of life. There are even stories
that insist that you should use both in your life. Theravada and
Mahayana are like wings. Both need each other to fly. It makes sense.
If someone has the mind but no heart to care the world will not be
better. If some one has the heart but no mind they will not know how to
make the world better.
What books are you reading? Don't send an email to the
sac....google.com address, it is dead.
I am always looking for people to talk about buddhism, I am in a place
where there are very few buddhists. If you want my email address click
the link below. Yes, it is an ad for backgammon but it keeps spam out
of my inbox.
Evelyn Ruut
"D.K." <pdsni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165115550.3...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
My teacher says they are both aspects of the same path. Distinctions can
be made, but as you said, it just leads to pointless quibbling. Theravada
(often referred to as Hinayana), Mahayana, Vajrayana.... all vehicles to
carry you to enlightenment, all the same path.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
jerry
"anon" <sac.g...@mailnull.com> wrote in message
news:1165120603.1...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
selfless acts is the boat he used to cross with. trying to argue the best
way only grows a self.
:o)
jerry
D.K.
jerry wrote:
> >
> the buddha sought to end the suffering of other people not him*self*. these
> selfless acts is the boat he used to cross with. trying to argue the best
> way only grows a self.
>
> :o)
> jerry
I don't think one has to "argue the best way". I'm only asking you WHY
you chose the way you chose. There is no implication of "best"; only
what is "best" for you as an individual.
What you choose may not be best for me, and vice versa.
What I am looking for is how does one go about choosing? How did you
make the decision to go with one over the other?
Does one just choose arbitrarily and go with that?
For example, there are elements I like from both schools of thought,
theravada and mahayana. I am just beginning to study and practice
Buddhism but I kind of want to choose one path to start with so that I
don't get too confused or my enrgy becomes too scattered.
So far I am leaning towards Theravada, yet there are certain things I
like about Tibetan Buddhism which is Mahayana. Zen doesn't appeal to
me, but I love the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, who I believe is a Zen
monk, no? And I like what the Dalai Lama has to say...
"It's all good" as they say, but maybe I need to focus on one path?
anon
> like about Tibetan Buddhism which is Mahayana. Zen doesn't appeal to
> me, but I love the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, who I believe is a Zen
> monk, no? And I like what the Dalai Lama has to say...
>
> "It's all good" as they say, but maybe I need to focus on one path?
If you want to study one over the other that is fine. There is nothing
wrong with applying both either. You have to make your own decision.
I try to combine knowledge (Theravada) and compassion (Mahayana) as
much as I can. I try to let go of attachments and try to find the truth
of what is real. At the same time, I am open to helping others cross
the river of ignorance (I teach GED). At first it seems like it is too
much to learn but if you really know buddhism, you don't really know
buddhism.
Theravada and Mahayna are opposite spokes of a wheel. The hole in the
middle where the spokes meet is the strongest spot--The middle path!
There is nothing wrong with starting w/ one school and growing into
another. I am new to buddhism (a few years learning) and I was torn w/
the same debate you have Thera or Maha. I started w/ Thera but if I
was forced to step outside of the middle, I would lean to Maha. I like
to help people.
Some good books that talk about the differences of Thera and Maha are:
Burtt, EA. The teachings of the compassionate Buddha.
Humphreys, Christmas. Exploring Buddhism.
Osho. Buddha his life and teachings.
Evelyn Ruut
"D.K." <pdsni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165175994.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
I like all of them as well. Perhaps shall we say that "fortuitous
circumstance" allowed me to connect when I did, with the teacher I did.
My main teacher happens to be a Tibetan Buddhist, but I also studied with a
Korean Zen master as well. The way it happened for me, was that I chose
to take refuge and begin sitting with a group that was nearest to my home.
That was fine for me, maybe it could work out for you too, if you don't have
any special leanings toward any particular group.
But please be aware that there ARE some groups and teachers out there that
are best avoided. We buddhists aren't any different than other religions.
We have our nuts and flakey ones too, like everybody else.
Beyond
There is no fundamental difference in that both leave the experiencer
intact.
Uncle Weasel
(in message <1165181296.0...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> There is no fundamental difference in that both leave the experiencer
> intact.
>
"Experiencer"?
What are you, some kind of wise guy Advaitist?
---Uncle Weasel
--
"I merely borrowed somebody else's Perl scripts, loaded them up on my
Linux shell account and then edited them using vi in Bash.
I think that pretty comprehensively demonstrates that I am not a geek!"
---Kirsten "I am not a geek!" Bayes
Charles E Hardwidge
>> intact.
>
> "Experiencer"?
>
> What are you, some kind of wise guy Advaitist?
He made you look so dumb.
Heh, that's funner.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> which do you think comes first?
Neither, they devolved. *Boom* *Tish*
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
jerry
hi D.K.
self is an idea, therefore self can only exist with thought. when there is
no thought, there is no-self. all things come from and return to the
stillness.
teaching your mind to be still is the purpose of meditation. when the mind
is still, u are living in the now that is the only reality. all the rest is
dreams
of the past and future, delusion. practice begins and ends here, since in
the stillness there is no beginning or end.
in a relaxed position, find a dot on the wall and focus all your attention
on it
when u can hold all your attention on the dot without thought arising for 20
minutes then u will find what the buddha taught. if u choose to use this as
practice, when the mind wavers, continue to pull it back to the dot. rmber
the middle way, not too much, not too little, either is detrimental to your
practice.
it all returns to what works best for u
:o)
jerry
Hollywood Lee
> self is an idea, therefore self can only exist with thought.
It is largely irrelevant whether the self is no more than a thought up
and illusory idea or it truly exists in some fashion. It appears that
our knowledge of what does or doesn't exist is limited to and by the
sensible world of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and thought, and I
haven't seen anyone demonstrate that we can pull ourselves up and see
beyond these limitations.
So qualified, what you say appears correct - our idea of self is totally
thought up, and this thought up thingie that can give rise to so much
mental suffering ceases to exist in any meaningful, practical way when
our thinking is stilled - even if a true self somehow does or doesn't
exist behind the scenes.
jerry
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:el1h4v$914$1...@news.datemas.de...
> jerry wrote:
>
>> self is an idea, therefore self can only exist with thought.
>
> It is largely irrelevant whether the self is no more than a thought up and
> illusory idea or it truly exists in some fashion. It appears that our
> knowledge of what does or doesn't exist is limited to and by the sensible
> world of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and thought, and I haven't
> seen anyone demonstrate that we can pull ourselves up and see beyond these
> limitations.
>
> So qualified, what you say appears correct - our idea of self is totally
> thought up, and this thought up thingie that can give rise to so much
> mental suffering ceases to exist in any meaningful, practical way when our
> thinking is stilled - even if a true self somehow does or doesn't exist
> behind the scenes.
>
>
buddha penned:
"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world."
thanks
:o)
jerry
Hollywood Lee
Existentially true.
> thanks
Sho'nuff
yang...@yahoo.com
This site provides an excellent explanation of the differences between
Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana.
http://www.nalandabodhi.org/three_yanas.html
I would advise all beginners in Buddhism to gain a thorough grounding
in Theravada Buddhism before they venture on to Mahayana and Vajrayana.
upod...@aol.com
D.K. wrote:
> I know what the books say, but then again, it is not real clear to me.
> I know Mahayana came later, and is popular in different parts of the
> world than Theravada, but other than that I am not real clear on the
> differences.
>
> Can someone, in a nutshell, explain the differences?
The Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism developed between the 4th
and 1st centuries BCE. According to traditions, the Second Buddhist
council was convened about 350 BCE to address issues in monastic
discipline. It was at this council that the Mahasanghikas broke away
from the Sthaviravadins (viewed as the traditional or conservative sect
of Buddhism at that time). These two groups are the forerunners of the
Mahayana and Theravada divisions of Buddhism. Each though would undergo
many changes and encompass many individual schools to reach their
respective current forms. Theravada grew and developed in Sri Lanka and
Southeast Asia while Mahayana spread to China, Tibet, Korea and Japan.
The Theravada adherent strives to become an Arhat upon enlightenment
and enter Nirvana. Its focus is on the individual and monastic
discipline. Mahayana on the other hand holds the Bodhisattva ideal as
the ultimate goal - that is, to postpone entering Nirvana to assist
others in achieving enlightenment.
You will find that Mahayana Buddhism often recognizes a wide variety of
deities and higher beings, while Theravada Buddhism is predominantly
absent of these. This happened as Buddhism spread to other cultures and
indigenous beliefs were merged into it. In Tibet it developed into
Vajrayana Buddhism due to the influence of the native Bon religion and
Tibetan culture.
There is also a great difference between the Mahayana and Theravada
canons. While they contain many of the same basic sutras, the Mahayana
canon incorporated a wide variety of additional scriptures.
The Theravada canon or Tipitaka was composed in the Pali language.
According to tradition, it was first put into writing in the first
century BCE in Ceylon. Theravada Buddhists hold that the Tipitaka is
linked directly to the collection of teachings that was gathered by the
First Council after the Buddha's death and is therefore a "purer"
form of his teachings. The Tipitaka is about eleven times the size of
the Bible.
The Mahayana Canon exists in a number of languages. The major two are
Sanskrit and Chinese, but also included are Korean and Japanese. The
Mahayana canon includes the basic scriptures of the Tipitaka but also
includes an extensive amount of additional material. The numerous
scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism were not officially organized into a
canon of scriptures until 581 CE in China according to tradition. The
first complete printing of the Mahayana canon, the Sichuan edition, was
in 983 CE. In its current form the Mahayana canon consists of around
100 volumes and over 3000 texts.
This is just a short overview but hope it helps.
stumper
>
> The Mahayana Canon exists in a number of languages. The major two are
> Sanskrit and Chinese, but also included are Korean and Japanese. The
> Mahayana canon includes the basic scriptures of the Tipitaka but also
> includes an extensive amount of additional material. The numerous
> scriptures of Mahayana Buddhism were not officially organized into a
> canon of scriptures until 581 CE in China according to tradition. The
> first complete printing of the Mahayana canon, the Sichuan edition, was
> in 983 CE. In its current form the Mahayana canon consists of around
> 100 volumes and over 3000 texts.
>
IMHO it needs to be made clear that
even though there are Korean and Japanese translations
of the Mahayana Canon, they are quite modern,
and it is practically impossible that any of the scriptures
is originally written in Korean or in Japanese.
Of course, it is theoretically possible that
some text in the canon are of Korean or Japanese origin
even though they are written in classical Chinese.
Anyone?
--
~Stumper
upod...@aol.com
> IMHO it needs to be made clear that
> even though there are Korean and Japanese translations
> of the Mahayana Canon, they are quite modern,
> and it is practically impossible that any of the scriptures
> is originally written in Korean or in Japanese.
>
> Of course, it is theoretically possible that
> some text in the canon are of Korean or Japanese origin
> even though they are written in classical Chinese.
> Anyone?
>
> --
> ~Stumper
Stumper is correct, outside of a number of sutras, commentaries and
treatises, the bulk of the texts are Chinese and Sanskrit in origin.
But many important texts are the commentaries and treatises which are
Japanese and Korean in origin. I should have made that distinction. The
script used at that time was the Chinese script as Hangul script was
not developed until the 15th century CE and Japanese Kana in the 8th
century CE. But the Japanese and Korean contribution when discussing
the Mahayana canon is crucial. The oldest existing copy of a complete
canon is the Koreana Tripitaka and the modern standard is the Japanese
Taisho Canon. There are a number of Korean and Japanese translators and
authors which made great contributions to the modern Mahayana Canon.
upod...@aol.com
common script, these texts included in the Mahayana Canon are Korean
and Japanese in origin.