How does Theravada Buddhism differ from other Schools in Buddhism?
 

Can some one please identify or clarify some views on Theravada Buddhism..How is it Different or special or same as other Schools in Buddhism.

Hi shoel,

This might be helpful :

"What is Theravada Buddhism ?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...theravada.html


Kind regards

Aloka http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif

I'm no expert and not a Theravadan, but I'll try and give an overview. Theravada is the oldest of the existing schools. It's teachings are based only upon the Pali Cannon, which are the most accurate teachings of the historical Buddha. The ultimate goal, traditionally, is to achieve liberation from suffering through nirvana. There is also a lot of emphasis on the Sangha, whereas to my understand Mahayana is more lay oriented. That's not to say one can't be a lay follower and benefit from that practice a lot, you can, it's just historically speaking there has been more of an emphasis on those who are serious about enlightenment entering monasteries and becoming monks or nuns. That may not be the case today, though, I don't know.

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

Element- I'm not sure your view of Mahayana is completely accurate, I mean Zen seems to be a fairly individualistic approach to Buddhism. There is a teacher, but you must still do the work yourself.

Sure. But I personally never include Zen with Mahayana. IMO, Zen is the most 'Hinayana' ('individualistic') of all schools of Buddhism

Just because Zen came from China, it does not mean its character is 'Mahayana' (i.e., for the masses).

Regards http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Yes. Many Soto schools do not consider themselves as Mahayana but just as Zen. Having been a former Soto Zenner, I never saw any sort of relationship with Mahayana core believes.

Just out of interest, this Soto Zen temple in France describes itself as Mahayana:


"Shôkôzan Denshinji Buddhist Institution is a Buddhist Temple and a religious community in the Soto Zen tradition of Mahayana Buddhism lineage ("Great Vehicle")."
......

"Shôkôzan Denshinji Temple is a member of the Japanese Religious Federation SÔTÔ-SHÛ (Japanese Federation of religious organizations of temples and monasteries as well as zen-masters in the doctrinal lineage of zen-master Dogen) which is the authority of the Soto lineage in Zen Buddhism tradition"


http://www.soto-zen-buddhism-denshinji.com/ The term "Buddha Nature" is definately a Mahayana concept/core belief.

Here it is mentioned on a Soto Zen site in the UK:

We can all learn to meditate because we all have the Buddha Nature, even though it may be buried under much confusion. All beings are Buddhas and should be respected as such, whatever manner of life they may be in .

http://www.zensheffield.org/buddha-nature.html
'Buddha Nature' is also mentioned here at a centre in the USA:


Soto Zen's History

Master Dogen first brought Soto Zen Buddhism to Japan. The school in China had made little showing in its early years of development. However, its popularity had greatly increased by the middle of the Sung Dynasty.

The central tenets of Chinese Soto were that all beings are born with Buddha nature and are consequently and essentially enlightened, that one can enjoy fully the bliss of Buddha nature through the practice of Zazen, that practice and enlightenment are the same, and that this practice must be internalized and carried to everyday life.

At the age of twenty-four, Dogen traveled to China and visited all of the prestigious monasteries, finally becoming a student of Ju-ching (J. Nyojo). It was there that Dogen freed himself from the illusion of ego and realized liberation. He remained in training in China for two more years before returning to his home country.

http://www.austinzencenter.org/teach...enhistory.html
with kind wishes,

Aloka http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

OK, lets say ‘some’ schools… http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

For zenners, at least in my experience, Buddha Nature is nothing more than just the possibility of achieving 'awakening' and not a kind of metaphysical substance in the being.

Even when some schools have declared themselves as Mahayana, this is doubtful because when it comes to practice, the focus of Zen in general, and Soto in particular, is about here and know. Many Soto teachers refuse to accept rebirth as an important believe and the emphasis in the here and know and a dispassionate mental state is its core practice and almost its goal.

The other believe of Mahayana is that of a savior… but when it comes to practice the concept is centered in the teaching shown to the student only as an act of compassion where the idea of a savior of Mankind is neither real nor practical for Zen purposes

Worshiping of a guru –another important feature of Mahayana- is against the way of teaching the Dharama. In memoir of Jikai Danin Katagiri from a student of him:

"My basic memory of Katagiri is of how he paid total attention to what was in front of him. He took care of each thing as if it were the most important thing in the world, whether it was throwing away some trash or talking to another person. He really listened and tried to give the best answer he knew how to give. He also encouraged each of us to stand up in our own space, following our own wisdom rather than depending on him for answers or affirmation. I would sometimes tell him exactly what I thought about some idea he had, only to turn and see him smiling broadly at me, glad that I wasn't buying into his agenda."[8]

Dainin_Katagiri
From this same lineage we have Steve Hagen that is against ‘trash thoughts’ as those that are not concerned with the here and know.

His book ‘Buddhism Plain and Simple’ is an excellent example of this kind of approach.

Taisan Maetzumi, the founder of many Soto schools in America, stated:

"I encourage you. Please enjoy this wonderful life together. Appreciate the world just this! There is nothing extra. Genuinely appreciate your life as the most precious treasure and take good care of it."[16]

Taizan_Maezumi
His lineage, Baian Hakujun Dai Osho, has spread a huge number of schools around the world.

Sorry that I can't give more reliable links because most of this ideas are from personal notes from some Teishos I attended. And this conclusions are from the way we practices during several seshins that I attended too. I have the impression that this bent is from Japanise traditions and maybe it is very different for the Cha'an. But I don't know this.

But I can be misguided,

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/dontknow.gif

Is it ?

Maybe I'm wrong here too, but it happens in Tibetan tradition where the intimate relationship with the teacher a very important aspect of the practice.

In Zen we have the Daisan -the personal interview- with the teacher but it isn't intended to have intimate bonds with the teacher but just to encourage independent thought and responsibility for further independent practice. It encourage non attachment to the teacher ideas. The few Daisan one attends, the best progress the student has.

That isn't worship though. Worship is a very strong term reserved for deities. I don't think the relationship between a student and teacher in Tibetan Buddhism fits that category. At least none I've seen, and I would be very wary of any guru who demanded anything close to worship. I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist, so take what I've said with a grain of salt.

Tibetan Buddhism isn't the whole of the Mahayana tradition !

....and its called 'Guru devotion"....not "worship"

You seemed to imply 'guru worship' was a feature of Mahayana in general...

Brad Warner (Soto Zen Priest) mentions 'worship' in connection with Zen on his blog:

Interestingly, he also says:


It's true that generally speaking Zen is mostly free of masters who live high off the hog from donations. At least in the West.

In Japan things are different. I found that most of my "normal" (ie, not involved in Buddhism) friends had no respect at all for Zen masters. The general feeling seemed to be that Zen masters were lazy rich people, driving around in fancy cars and working only when necessary to do funerals and other such ceremonies. They were seen as taking advantage of the poor and uneducated.

http://hardcorezen.blogspot.co.uk/20...ff-part-2.html

True. But intimate relationship with the teacher, Boddhisatva ideal and rebirth seem to be core teachings for Mahayana practitioners. All this is not seen in Zen way of practice, even when some schools declare themselves -in the paper- as Mahayana; but never happens in practice.

The school I practiced with was one of those of the 'reformed' Soto schools and we didn't considered ourselves as Mahayana but just as Soto.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/dontknow.gif

Don't Zen Buddhists take a form of the Bodhisattva vows? The Four Great Vows, I think they are called? Here are the ones I found on a Zen center's website:

1. Sentient beings are numberless. We vow to save them all.
2. Delusions are endless. We vow to cut through them all.
3. The teachings are infinite. We vow to learn them all.
4. The Buddha Way is inconceivable. We vow to attain it.

Yes... Brad has a bent toward Mahayana way of thinking. Here, his last posted video, reveals that bent. The Roshi with which we learnt Zazen never held the idea of "[I think] we are something more like just 'this' http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/sad.gif

This thought is against a Zen mind.

Hi white wolf,

I think this is them :


THE FOUR GREAT BODHISATTVA VOWS

The Four Great Bodhisattva Vows are recited daily in Buddhist Temples and monasteries at the close of the service (Sanzenkai).

We recite the Four Great Bodhisattva Vows to encourage us in our study and pursuit of the Enlightement of the Buddha.

These great vows express the infinite Compassion of the Buddhas, and, in chanting them we express our desire to become as the Great Bodhisattvas and Buddhas.

The Bodhisattva is an enlightened being who, deferring his/her own full Buddhahood, dedicates his/herself to helping others attain Liberation.

In one's self-mastery, Wisdom and Compassion, a Bodhisattva represents the Highest stage of Buddhahood, but one is not yet a supremely Enlighteneed, fully Perfected Buddha.

Bodhisattvas, like Buddhas, are not merely personifications of abstract principles, but are prototypes of those states of highest knowledge, wisomd and harmony which have been realized in humanity and will ever have to be realized again and again.

Our Mahayana Buddhism requires that the enlightened ones and those advanced along the path show the way to others. Our tradition emphasizes that each person who practices Buddhism should see his or herself as holding a candle in ones hand. This candle will help one to light (see) the way, and others will benefit from the light. For this reason, Mahayana Buddhists do not wait until perfect enlightenment before one acts, we begin to act when we begin our practice.

THE FOUR GREAT BODHISATTVA VOWS

Shu jo muhen sei gan do
Bo no mujin sei gan dan
Ho mon myryo sei gan gaku
Butsu do mujo sei gan jo

However innumerable all beings are, I vow to liberate them all.

However inexhaustible my delusions are, I vow to extinguish them all.

However immeasurable the Dharma Teachings are, I vow to master them all

However endless the Buddha's Way is, I vow to follow it completely.


http://aspengold.org/44.html

Oh...I've just seen that you've now added some to #17, White Wolf http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/hands.gif



.

After those, we took as vows the Eight Satoris. The Eight Satoris are the practical vows.

The Bodhisattva are just a ritualistic thing not having the transcendence aspect of 'the savior' of mankind.

Eight Satoris is the last chapter of the Shobogenzo. It was taken form the Parinivana Sutta and is the guideline of all practice.