[lakraboob]

As I study Buddhism, I find that I'm drawn to both of the main traditions for various reasons and I'm not sure which to follow. I was hoping if I posted my thoughts here, maybe I could get some feedback and advice. I'm probably not the only one to have this predicament. One of the main reasons I was attracted to Buddhism and left behind Christianity is because Christianity requires such a large leap of faith, that I can't make it. That is partly what I like about Theravada, there is no creator God, there is no great leap of faith. The Buddha's words and teachings are testable and practicable.

Then we come to Mahayana, based on my understanding, which admittedly could be wrong so please correct me if it is, Mahayana has more in common with religion in the western sense of the word since Buddha is viewed almost like a deity and Bodhisattvas are revered and worshiped. For instance, Pure Land, seems to have a lot in common with Protestant Christianity since it stresses faith over individual works. However, I am very attracted to the ideal of Bodhisattvas and the compassion they embody. I also like the Mahayana idea that enlightenment can be achieved by the laity and not just monastics, like it is in Theravada.

So, I was wondering, am I the only one who has these thoughts and do you all have advice for helping me here? Finally, I apologize if I've said something wrong or offended any one of either tradition. I freely admit I could be very wrong and welcome any information you all can offer. Thanks.

[bestworkother]

However, I am very attracted to the ideal of Bodhisattvas and the compassion they embody. I also like the Mahayana idea that enlightenment can be achieved by the laity and not just monastics, like it is in Theravada. Hi white_wolf,

I think its a misperception to think that more compassion is practiced in Mahayana just because there's an outward emphasis on the Bodhisattva idea. Its also not true that Theravada teaches that enlightenment can only be achieved by monastics.

I was drawn towards Theravada when still with Vajrayana - and was an offline Tibetan Buddhist practitioner for many years before deciding to change over to the western branch of the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition - and the teachings are clear, direct, and very pure and definately include loving kindness and compassion. So I've been very happy with my choice.

with kind wishes,

Aloka

[MicoSiru]

Hi White_wolf,

Your question is welcome and you are not offending anybody

As Aloka told, neither Theravada has less compassion than Mahayana nor monastics is the only way to achieve awakening.

Some Mahayana practices are about deities and worshiping but it is not the case for all Mahayana.

Some Theravada are equally developed into that religious haze.

My humble advice is to keep looking and asking questions as you have done until something resonates deeply within yourself.

For example, the monastic life of Theravada tradition inspires my practice even when I am not a Bhikkhuni.

I am not a devotee about being into traditions but about the early teachings of Buddha, left in the Nikayas.

Those are the teachings that have resonated deeply and which I follow with absolute confidence. Even though I have found the Thai Forest Tradition as a good support to the practice of the teachings of Buddha.

[spamkillerf]

As I study Buddhism, I find that I'm drawn to both of the main traditions for various reasons and I'm not sure which to follow...
So, I was wondering, am I the only one who has these thoughts and do you all have advice for helping me here?

Hi, WW,

Many people are attracted to aspects of both traditions. I certainly am. Although I'd describe myself as Mahayana, I am very much drawn to the Pali Canon and when I listen to dharma talks, I usually choose Theravada teachers.

In my meditation, I follow the instructions set forth by the Buddha in the Anapanasati Sutta. But I also accept the teachings in the prajna scriptures (Heart and Diamond), the Mahayana doctrine of sunyata (emptiness) and the bodhisattva path. And I see much value in the contemporary movement known as "humanistic" or "engaged" Buddhism -- a development which arose out of East Asian Mahayana.

Some Mahayana schools incorporate aspects of Theravada. For instance, my introduction to Buddhist practice was via Thich Nhat Hanh, who emphasizes the Pali suttas as well as the later Mahayana and Zen teachings. Meanwhile, the Insight Meditation Society -- which is basically Theravada in orientation -- has also been open to aspects of Mahayana/Vajrayana. Whether this kind of synthesis works for you may depend on personal sensibility or affinity.

[Rjvpicux]

Then we come to Mahayana, based on my understanding, which admittedly could be wrong so please correct me if it is, Mahayana has more in common with religion in the western sense of the word since Buddha is viewed almost like a deity and Bodhisattvas are revered and worshiped. For instance, Pure Land, seems to have a lot in common with Protestant Christianity since it stresses faith over individual works. However, I am very attracted to the ideal of Bodhisattvas and the compassion they embody. I also like the Mahayana idea that enlightenment can be achieved by the laity and not just monastics, like it is in Theravada.

So, I was wondering, am I the only one who has these thoughts and do you all have advice for helping me here? Finally, I apologize if I've said something wrong or offended any one of either tradition. I freely admit I could be very wrong and welcome any information you all can offer. Thanks.

I have found also that many " Theravadians " view the historical Buddha and the written words from him as the one truth -could this also be seen as being consistent with what you mean by " in common with religion in the western sense of the word" and viewing Buddha "almost like a deity " ? Just musing here.

[entaifsfets]

I have found also that many " Theravadians " view the historical Buddha and the written words from him as the one truth -could this also be seen as being consistent with what you mean by " in common with religion in the western sense of the word" and viewing Buddha "almost like a deity " ? Just musing here.

That's great that you know lots of Theravadins, Andyrobyn. Perhaps they'd like to come to BWB to join in some discussions?

Regarding "religion" I think that the reason why, in my offline observations, that some Catholics are attracted to Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is because there's lots of praying to deities and bodhisattvas and ''holy lamas,''. ...as well as ''confession'' to 35 different Buddhas and so on..... and lining up to receive morsels of food and drink and get "blessings" from a guru at empowerment rituals etc. So therefore, it doesn't seem so strange to them.


.

[r9tbayfC]

Anyway, just as a general aside, I think we all need to be mindful that this thread is in the Beginners forum and therefore we shouldn't get too complex or off topic in our responses and that the topic is "Is anyone else drawn to aspects of both Mahayana and Theravada?"

[feseEscaple]

That's great that you know lots of Theravadins, Andyrobyn. Perhaps they'd like to come to BWB to join in some discussions?

Regarding "religion" I think that the reason why, in my offline observations, that some Catholics are attracted to Tibetan Buddhism, for example, is because there's lots of praying to deities and bodhisattvas and ''holy lamas,''. ...as well as ''confession'' to 35 different Buddhas and so on..... and lining up to receive morsels of food and drink and get "blessings" from a guru at empowerment rituals etc. So therefore, it doesn't seem so strange to them.


.

I will pass on the invitation from you - mostly my friends ( from many different spiritual traditions ) don't share my interest in online discussion - I have tried on occasion but will specifically ask that group.

I would agree with your observation, in a general way.

[Wluwsdtn]

I think one way of looking at the question Theravada or Mahayana is to see that our realizations about the truth - both absolute and relative - manifest in our own mind and so it is largely down to our own efforts, our own meditation and contemplative practices.

But at some stage we usually accept that we need help from outside our own mind in order to make further progress and we are attracted by and turn increasingly to certain teachings and teachers. It is these that determine which aspect of Buddhism we follow - one of the Theravada schools or one of the Mahayana schools or a combination of schools from different traditions - in fact whatever we, ourselves, feel comfortable with.

We cannot follow some school or teacher simply out of recommendation or because it is good for someone else - we choose according to our own inclination and experience.

The Tibetans have a saying that when we are ready for a teacher, he will appear. I also don't think we should be in too much of a hurry with the choice of school or teacher to follow, but practice with as open a mind as possible to begin with and indeed, as the Zen Master Suzuki Roshi advises, to keep this "Beginner's Mind" because in the mind of the beginner there are endless possibilities whereas in the mind of the expert there are few.

[Enladalusange]

Honestly I don't think choosing one or the other to follow is important. Follow what parts of each resonates with you the most strongly. I go to a Mahayana school and the way they explained it was that, in general, Theravada are focused on the self and attaining nirvana.

Mahayana on the other hand is focussed on enlightenment as they realize that true happiness cannot be achieved while others are suffering so they want to help all sentient minds. However that's just one point of view and it's always important to investigate fully rather than follow blindly. Which is why I say choosing one or the other is not important, that's only assigning labels to something.

On a personal note, anything to do with religion and blind faith makes me uncomfortable, probably because I've had so many born again Christians try to convert me and only deflect any logical questions I have. I don't feel comfortable praying or worshipping or making offerings. However that could also be because I don't understand the motivation behind them.

For example I always thought that performing prostrations was silly; bowing down to a statue? Come on! But then I found out that the reason behind them is more to focus yourself on what you are trying to obtain and that by bowing down before an image of a Buddha is acknowledging that there is something to attain to and refocussing the mind to try to attain that goal. I still don't feel comfortable enough to perform them myself, but I no longer feel uncomfortable when others around me do them.

It's highly likely that the more 'religiousy' aspects of Mahayana Buddhism has to do with that, it's simply that we don't understand the meaning behind them yet so they seem more like the blind faith we are used to in more dominant Western religions.

[sueplydup]

I go to a Mahayana school and the way they explained it was that, in general, Theravada are focused on the self and attaining nirvana.

Mahayana on the other hand is focussed on enlightenment as they realize that true happiness cannot be achieved while others are suffering so they want to help all sentient minds. My opinion is that this explanation given by Mahayana/Vajrayana is is rather like 'sales talk' ! How can one' help all sentient beings' (which is impossible) if one still has delusion and emotional obscurations oneself?
(nirvana and enlightenment are also the same thing)







.

[Adollobdeb]

Oh highly possible, or rather highly probable just sharing what I had been told. Perhaps I wasn't as clear with what I meant though. The way it was described to me was that all schools of Buddhism are the same in that they all wish to achieve enlightenment and overcome emotional obscurities but it's the reasons for doing so and in some cases the methods that differ.
However I'm still very new at this (I didn't even know there were different schools of Buddhism till a couple months ago heh) and I could be barking completely up the wrong tree here In which case just ignore what I say and I'll bow out gracefully heh

[Vedun*]

How can one' help all sentient beings' if one still has delusion and emotional obscurations oneself? (nirvana and enlightenment are also the same thing)

Aloka,

The question you ask here comes up often in Mahayana discussions and the answer generally is that you can't. In order to fulfil the bodhisattva vows, one has to cut through delusion and emotional obscurations. The Mahayana POV could be better described as "the aspiration to gain enlightenment for the sake of liberating all sentient beings".

The bodhisattva is considered to have achieved this, except for "one shred of affliction" -- namely, the attachment to liberating sentient beings.

People who enter the Mahayana path sometimes get overly enamoured with the idea of themselves as liberators/saviors, but in reality a great deal of difficult work is required, much of it having to do with one's own afflictions. I'm sure you know all this from your years in Vajrayana practice -- I'm just calling attention to it since it is a frequent source of confusion.

[AromeWahmaron]

However I'm still very new at this

Yes of course. Nothing I wrote was meant to be personal.

People who enter the Mahayana path sometimes get overly enamoured with the idea of themselves as liberators/saviors, but in reality a great deal of difficult work is required, much of it having to do with one's own afflictions

Sure. One can get puffed up with the perceived superiority and importance of this then go off to work and have a confrontation with a colleague which could have been avoided with more fruitful contemplation and practice.

I'm sure you know all this from your years in Vajrayana practice -- I'm just calling attention to it since it is a frequent source of confusion.

Yes - to begin with I used to want to 'save' and convert everyone I knew....until it finally dawned on me that I had to learn to swim out of the waters of ignorance myself, before I would perhaps be able to see and act with a little more clarity and insight in the future !

Anyway, Lazy Eye the Beginners forum isn't the place for you and I to start debating each other my friend, - so I'm off to do some offline thingies needing attention !

[jeaccatty]

Hi White_wolf

Welcome to the great adventure that is Buddhism, the path is full of gems and a few duds, so the best advice I ever heard was the Kalama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....065.than.html

It gives you the tools to evaluate all you see and hear about the Dharma

Good luck on your Journey

[Voliscietle]

In browsing the forum some more, I found this sticky which relates directly to... well not this topic as such, but to the differences between Mahayana and Theravada: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ayana-Buddhism

On it it had a link to an article (http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html) which is really good and actually explained without bias the now-acknowledged bias I had been told about the difference between the two. Clarity is great, is it not?

[HassFks]

May I ask, Aloka-D, why you made the switch from the Vajrayana to the Theravada tradition? I got the impression that Vajrayana is supposed to be the "fast track" to enlightenment involving a lot of very intensive and mind-bending work. By comparison I understand Theravada to be the slow-but-steady approach. Speaking personally I have some difficulty with the complexities of Mahayana so, at least for now, I'm mostly sticking to Theravada material. This is pure curiosity: I'm just trying to learn, not trying to get you to defend anything other than possibly your own point of view.

[PrareeLor]

May I ask, Aloka-D, why you made the switch from the Vajrayana to the Theravada tradition? I got the impression that Vajrayana is supposed to be the "fast track" to enlightenment involving a lot of very intensive and mind-bending work. By comparison I understand Theravada to be the slow-but-steady approach. Speaking personally I have some difficulty with the complexities of Mahayana so, at least for now, I'm mostly sticking to Theravada material. This is pure curiosity: I'm just trying to learn, not trying to get you to defend anything other than possibly your own point of view.

Hi Boob,

I made the change partly for private reasons and partly because some of the things I'd previously accepted just didn't make sense any more. There's also a lot of cultural add-ons and ritual inTibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhists are the ones that promote the idea that Vajrayana is the ''fast track'' by the way.

[Pmeidstc]

Hi Boob,

I made the change partly for private reasons and partly because some of the things I'd previously accepted just didn't make sense any more. There's also a lot of cultural add-ons and ritual inTibetan Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhists are the ones that promote the idea that Vajrayana is the ''fast track'' by the way.

That is my problem with Tibetan Buddhism as well. I can't accept a lot of the Bon beliefs that were absorbed into Tibetan Buddhism, and I have a similar problem with Pure Land. I'm not saying either aren't good practices for those who can accept some of the extra beliefs and practices, I just can't. For those who can, I'm glad and I wish them the best of luck in their practice. That's the good thing about Buddhism, it can be adapted to fit a lot of different views and mindsets.

[BEyng6hj]

My opinion is that this explanation given by Mahayana/Vajrayana is is rather like 'sales talk' ! How can one' help all sentient beings' (which is impossible) if one still has delusion and emotional obscurations oneself?
(nirvana and enlightenment are also the same thing)

I thought about this question for a while, and I think the idea is that helping others will help you on your path.