I have read some comparisons of forms of Buddhism, i.e. Mahayana and Thervada, but much of the discussion is so far way above me. Is there any kind of "Buddhism for Dummies" charts or comparisons that would be good for an initial understanding of them? Years ago I had read books by Suzuki and Alan Watts, but that's as far as it went.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Easy comparison of forms of Buddhism?
- Thread starter duvduv
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
There is a very good "Buddhism For Dummies" book that I have that really illuminates without bogging down in a lot of unnecessary prose.
I see the book promotes the Dalai Lama on its cover......(!!)
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Mine doesn't. But, after all, I guess you could argue that he is the most well known Buddhist in the world today.
Why is that noteworthy?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Human interference...
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Like just about every other religion. Through clergy and monastics. Buddhism after all is a human endeavor as with all religions. That includes its faults and affirmations.
I regard theistic Buddhism as being pretty much Hinduism in Drag. In most cases it would be a mix or a hybrid of two or more religions under a Buddhist umbrella. Buddhism deals with directness, not flights of fancy through a pantheon of gods and demons or expectations that don't do much else but hinder the ability for a person to see clearly through the muck.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
It's worth pointing out that Buddhism is itself something of a recent invention; the term, that is. Buddhist thought is ancient. Putting temporal-spatial markers around what is or isn't to be considered Buddhism, or for that matter calling it a "religion", is relatively new.
My favorite quick introduction to the faith is the Buddhism entry in the Oxford Very Short Introduction series.
My favorite quick introduction to the faith is the Buddhism entry in the Oxford Very Short Introduction series.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
TWO PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS OF BUDDHISM
THERAVADA (“the way of the elders”) MAHAYANA (“the greater vehicle”)
1. Also called Hinayana (“the lesser vehicle”), 1. Also called the Northern school; Majority of
or Southern Buddhism; approx. 38% of all Buddhists (approx. 62% -- incl. Vajrayana)
Buddhists
2. Emphasis on people as individuals; 2. Emphasis on people as involved with others;
emancipation by self-effort, without salvation by aid or grace of a Bodhisattva
need of supernatural aid
3. Key virtue: wisdom 3. Key virtue: compassion
4. Ideal: the Arhant (“worthy”); one who has 4. Ideal: the Bodhisattva (“enlightened one”)
extinguished all desires who assists others to overcome suffering
5. “Buddha Nature” attained by a person at a 5. “Buddha Nature” is in all things and is always
given time and place present
6. The Buddha is understood as a ‘saint’ 6. The Buddha is understood as a ‘saviour’
7. Emphasis on the historical Buddha 7. Emphasis on many Buddhas, Bodhisattvas
(i.e., Shakyamuni Buddha)
8. Minimizes metaphysics and ritual 8. Elaborate metaphysics and rituals
9. Confines prayer to meditation 9. Includes petitionary prayers
10. Single, unified tradition; conservative 10. Multiple traditions (e.g., Zen, Pure Land,
liberal, adaptive Nichiren, Tendai, Tibetan);
11. Chief goal: Nirvana; the extinction of all 11. Chief goal: nirvana; salvation; the
desires, of all that is base in human nature; Western Paradise, etc.; release from
Release from rebirth rebirth
12. Emphasis on action and deeds 12. Emphasis on faith, deeds may be secondary
13. Accepts the Tipitaka only as scripture 13. Accepts both the Tipitaka and the Mahayana
Sutras; or goes outside of them.
14. Fixed scriptures in the 1st cent. CE 14. Scriptures are fluid and (were) open
15. Monks cannot marry, wear street clothes, 15. Depending on tradition, sometimes monks
or engage in an occupation (for money); may marry, wear street clothes, and engage in an
order of nuns disappeared occupation; order of nuns unbroken continuity
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
The Mahayana sutras came later, at various times. The Theravada didn't agree with the Mahayana sutras, and besides they thought they were bogus. The Mahayana believed that the Bodhisatta should not go into Nirvana and come up just short, so they could lead later lives and lead people to end their suffering. The Theravada thought that the individual should go all the way and attain nirvana.
If Dharma gets lost, it will be because people are not being skillful in their practices.
What would the problem be, and why would it be any different for theistic Buddhists as opposed to non-theistic ones?
Sure, if he or she can make sense of that.
Last edited:
Which is a good thing. The Dharma is, after all, a tool. A means for an end. There is no shame in taking responsibility for its validity.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Bur, unfortunately, many religious teachings are bent to reflect the observer's validity.
I don't know what you are talking about.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
The teachings of many, if not most, great religious thinkers seem to have become distorted (for lack of a better word) to fit the agenda of those that would seek to control others by re-interpreting the teachings. The simple instructions of The Buddha and Yeshua, for example, have become so convoluted that one sect has grown into multiple sects; many with their own teachings of the same lesson.
Diversity of form is not always, or even often, a bad thing.
For that matter, nor is making a respect teacher's teachings our own.
So what do the Theravada think should happen to everyone else who doesn't make it? Is it a religion where they only care about themselves? That would contradict the very idea of annulling the ego......!!
In any case, how do they know that the earlier canon from the Pali language are any less bogus than the later Sanskrit texts? Besides, they don't even know if the whole philosophy ever was related to someone named Gautama Siddharta.