DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - How does Theravada Buddhism differ from other Schools in Buddhism?

**evennyNiz** · 07-29-2012, 02:38 AM

i think a distinguishing feature of Theravada Buddhism, i.e., the original Buddhism of the Pali scriptures, is its emphasis upon individual self-reliance & self-governance. this is found in the phrase: "Buddhas only point the way; you must walk the way"

the other (Mahayana) schools of Buddhism evolved due to the loss of popularity of Theravada Buddhism; due it emphasising the individual must do the work

my impression is the Mahayana schools have more focus upon the Buddha as 'God-like' and more focus upon the need of saviours (Bodhisattvas) and gurus

my impression is the Mahayana schools are closer to Christianity, where another person is saving you & doing alot of the work for you

Mahayana gets more involved with the ordinary folk where as Theravada keeps more of a distance

Thailand is a good example. although there are many monks in Thailand & the monks have an intimate connection to Thai society, the monks actually impose very little upon the common people. they try to teach the common people generosity & non-anger but do not moralise very much. for the most part, the Thai monks lead by example, rather than directly teach or place expectations upon people

most Thai people, although showing devotion to monks & Buddhism, know very little about Buddhism

***

however, that Theravada Buddhism places emphasis upon individual self-reliance is also a redeeming feature because this has resulted in the preservation of a greater scope of the Buddha's teachings that are relevent to our modern life. the Buddha provided so many teachings about how the lay person should skilfully conduct themselves for their own benefit which seem to be not preserved in Mahayana

Theravada, in its essence, empowers the individual, be they a monk or layperson. for the layperson, Theravada strongly promotes 'self-governance'. where as Mahayana seems to disempower the ordinary person, making them subserviant. many Westerners idealise Tibet but essentially Tibet was a subserviant culture, where Buddhism was used to opiate rather than educate the common person

although the common person must seek it, Theravada is a thorough & complete education system for the aspiring individual human being

imo

07-29-2012, 02:38 AM	#4
evennyNiz Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 548 Senior Member	i think a distinguishing feature of Theravada Buddhism, i.e., the original Buddhism of the Pali scriptures, is its emphasis upon individual self-reliance & self-governance. this is found in the phrase: "Buddhas only point the way; you must walk the way" the other (Mahayana) schools of Buddhism evolved due to the loss of popularity of Theravada Buddhism; due it emphasising the individual must do the work my impression is the Mahayana schools have more focus upon the Buddha as 'God-like' and more focus upon the need of saviours (Bodhisattvas) and gurus my impression is the Mahayana schools are closer to Christianity, where another person is saving you & doing alot of the work for you Mahayana gets more involved with the ordinary folk where as Theravada keeps more of a distance Thailand is a good example. although there are many monks in Thailand & the monks have an intimate connection to Thai society, the monks actually impose very little upon the common people. they try to teach the common people generosity & non-anger but do not moralise very much. for the most part, the Thai monks lead by example, rather than directly teach or place expectations upon people most Thai people, although showing devotion to monks & Buddhism, know very little about Buddhism *** however, that Theravada Buddhism places emphasis upon individual self-reliance is also a redeeming feature because this has resulted in the preservation of a greater scope of the Buddha's teachings that are relevent to our modern life. the Buddha provided so many teachings about how the lay person should skilfully conduct themselves for their own benefit which seem to be not preserved in Mahayana Theravada, in its essence, empowers the individual, be they a monk or layperson. for the layperson, Theravada strongly promotes 'self-governance'. where as Mahayana seems to disempower the ordinary person, making them subserviant. many Westerners idealise Tibet but essentially Tibet was a subserviant culture, where Buddhism was used to opiate rather than educate the common person although the common person must seek it, Theravada is a thorough & complete education system for the aspiring individual human being imo
	Quote