Huayna Capac357
Deity
What is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism and what are their specific merits or liabilities? I have no clue on this one.
Difference Between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism?
- Thread starter Huayna Capac357
- Start date
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
IIRC (and i drank a little so it may not be accurate): Mahayana - Buddha=a god, Theravada - no gods at all.
The biggest differences between Mahayana and Theravada is their separation on the question of what and who a Bodhisattva is, and how one should seek Enlightenment (IIRC the Theravada focus more on self-enlightenment, seeking one's own salvation).
You are correct that you are not accurate.
Neither Mahayana and Theravada have gods in the conventional meaning of the word. Buddhism is fundamentally atheism. The gods mentioned in the sutras are simply metaphors for the actual worldly functions.
Same idea that in many stories, animals speak. But we Buddhists are very clear that animals don't speak. The stories are simply metaphors of life.
Buddhism states that sufferings are mainly due to unfulfilled desires.
In a nutshell,
Theravada teaches that to rid one of sufferings, one should attempt to eradicate desires.
Mahayana teaches that if we focus on altruism and society's problems as a whole, we de-emphasize our own desires and hence lessen sufferings.
Bast
Protector of Cats
Theravada Buddhism goes back to the roots of Buddhism in that it is about practising exactly what the Buddha taught.
Whereas Mahayana Buddhism is more about incorporating that philosophy and using it to help the greater good.
One example that I could give is this.
In Theravada Buddhism the goal is to attain enlightenment. That is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. Nothing else matters. You follow the eightfold path that leads to enlightenment.
But Mahayana Buddhism stresses more on helping others attain enlightenment. That is, it isn't just about you. That's the simple way of looking at it.
So in other words, whereas Theravada is more personal and inward looking, Mahayana is more community-oriented and outward looking. That's the way I understand it.
IMO, some forms of Mahayana violates one of the fundamental notions of Buddhism. For example, "some Mahayana scriptures declare the existence of 'atman', which in these scriptures is equated with buddha-nature." This is complicated and I really don't want to go into it.
This is why I cannot agree with Mahayana at all.
Whereas Mahayana Buddhism is more about incorporating that philosophy and using it to help the greater good.
One example that I could give is this.
In Theravada Buddhism the goal is to attain enlightenment. That is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. Nothing else matters. You follow the eightfold path that leads to enlightenment.
But Mahayana Buddhism stresses more on helping others attain enlightenment. That is, it isn't just about you. That's the simple way of looking at it.
So in other words, whereas Theravada is more personal and inward looking, Mahayana is more community-oriented and outward looking. That's the way I understand it.
IMO, some forms of Mahayana violates one of the fundamental notions of Buddhism. For example, "some Mahayana scriptures declare the existence of 'atman', which in these scriptures is equated with buddha-nature." This is complicated and I really don't want to go into it.
This is why I cannot agree with Mahayana at all.
Actually, the highest seat of Mahayana teachings, which is the Lotus Sutra, explains...
Life is fundamentally Buddha. That means that in the remote existences millions of kalpas ago, we have all attain enlightenment. What happened is the accumulation of negative karma clouding the Buddha nature.
By helping others to "realise" their own innate enlightenment, it is to rekindle our own. It is said that the purpose for the existence of Shakyamuni lies in his behaviour as a human. That means that Shakyamuni's task is to aid all to mankind to attain the same enlightenment as himself, urging others to attain the dharma and Buddha body just as he did.
Shakyamuni himself is highly community-orientated resulting in the formation of the Buddhist Order.
In his earlier teachings, he taught the three vehicles for attaining enlightenment which are "learning, realisation and bodhisattva". Theravada Buddhism focus on learning and realisation. Mahayana focus on bodhisattva.
However, in the parable of the Great White Ox, it is stated that the three vehicles were all expedient means and that there is truly only one Buddha vehicle.
Neither the Theravada "inward-looking" or the Mahayana "outward-looking" is complete. One of the key idea of Buddhism is actually to recognise the oneness of man and environment. That the two is intrinsically related and all life are manifestation of the Buddha life.
Life is fundamentally Buddha. That means that in the remote existences millions of kalpas ago, we have all attain enlightenment. What happened is the accumulation of negative karma clouding the Buddha nature.
By helping others to "realise" their own innate enlightenment, it is to rekindle our own. It is said that the purpose for the existence of Shakyamuni lies in his behaviour as a human. That means that Shakyamuni's task is to aid all to mankind to attain the same enlightenment as himself, urging others to attain the dharma and Buddha body just as he did.
Shakyamuni himself is highly community-orientated resulting in the formation of the Buddhist Order.
In his earlier teachings, he taught the three vehicles for attaining enlightenment which are "learning, realisation and bodhisattva". Theravada Buddhism focus on learning and realisation. Mahayana focus on bodhisattva.
However, in the parable of the Great White Ox, it is stated that the three vehicles were all expedient means and that there is truly only one Buddha vehicle.
Neither the Theravada "inward-looking" or the Mahayana "outward-looking" is complete. One of the key idea of Buddhism is actually to recognise the oneness of man and environment. That the two is intrinsically related and all life are manifestation of the Buddha life.
