Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
Digity
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:13 am

Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by Digity » Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:22 pm

I hate to say it, but I'm not comfortable with other schools of Buddhism. I feel like people should study the Pali Canon and what the Buddha taught and leave it at that. All these other schools that came later, to me, seem to be muddying the water. The Buddha laid it all out there. There was no need to create more schools, etc. Why have Zen, Mahayana, etc? I'm not trying to be controversial or start a fight here. I really want to have an open discussion and maybe people can help me see these schools in a different light, because at the moment I just find them unnecessary.

From my own experience, most of my understanding and knowledge of Buddhism came from just reading the suttas. When you have other schools like Zen and they have all these methods, etc. I wonder why do this stuff? Why not just do what the Buddha said? I have more faith in the Buddha's words than in someone else who came later and formed a new school based on the Buddha.

thepea
Posts: 874
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by thepea » Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:35 pm

The Buddha had no concern with Buddhism, he taught Dhamma(laws of nature) if it is Dhamma, it is Dhamma, it must be universal, this is what I've been taught and experienced.

Find a tool that resonates with you and stick with it, don't worry about what resonates with others.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:37 pm

Digity wrote:I hate to say it, but I'm not comfortable with other schools of Buddhism. I feel like people should study the Pali Canon and what the Buddha taught and leave it at that. All these other schools that came later, to me, seem to be muddying the water. The Buddha laid it all out there. There was no need to create more schools, etc. Why have Zen, Mahayana, etc? I'm not trying to be controversial or start a fight here. I really want to have an open discussion and maybe people can help me see these schools in a different light, because at the moment I just find them unnecessary.

From my own experience, most of my understanding and knowledge of Buddhism came from just reading the suttas. When you have other schools like Zen and they have all these methods, etc. I wonder why do this stuff? Why not just do what the Buddha said? I have more faith in the Buddha's words than in someone else who came later and formed a new school based on the Buddha.
If you are not comfortable with other schools of Buddhism, then don't bother with them. Leave them alone and you won't get upset. Keep, in mind, however, that Theravada is not what the Buddha taught, the Pali Canon is one among many that existed.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
VinceField
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:03 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by VinceField » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:06 pm

Theravada is not what the Buddha taught, the Pali Canon is one among many that existed.
According to my knowledge, there are two other main canons, the Chinese and Tibetan canons, the source of the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. I am curious if anyone has insight as to why there are such distinct differences between these canons, their commentaries and the practices of their followers.

:thanks:

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:52 pm

VinceField wrote:
Theravada is not what the Buddha taught, the Pali Canon is one among many that existed.
According to my knowledge, there are two other main canons, the Chinese and Tibetan canons, the source of the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. I am curious if anyone has insight as to why there are such distinct differences between these canons, their commentaries and the practices of their followers.

:thanks:
Take away the Mahayanist texts, the differences are fairly minimal in the canonical texts. Also, keep in mind those are the surviving canons, or bits of them, in the case of what is found in the Tibetan.

As to the commentaries and such, just take a look at the wide variations of ideas about things floating around on this forum.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

SarathW
Posts: 10118
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by SarathW » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:37 pm

Even Buddha had to go to many teachers.
Finally he realise Nibbana by his own effort.
What matters is your practice and your experience.
Sometimes we learn through our mistakes.
:)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6440
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by Mkoll » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:50 pm

Digity wrote:I hate to say it, but I'm not comfortable with other schools of Buddhism. I feel like people should study the Pali Canon and what the Buddha taught and leave it at that. All these other schools that came later, to me, seem to be muddying the water. The Buddha laid it all out there. There was no need to create more schools, etc. Why have Zen, Mahayana, etc? I'm not trying to be controversial or start a fight here. I really want to have an open discussion and maybe people can help me see these schools in a different light, because at the moment I just find them unnecessary.

From my own experience, most of my understanding and knowledge of Buddhism came from just reading the suttas. When you have other schools like Zen and they have all these methods, etc. I wonder why do this stuff? Why not just do what the Buddha said? I have more faith in the Buddha's words than in someone else who came later and formed a new school based on the Buddha.
Mahayana schools take sutras such as the Lotus Sutra and the Mahaparinirvana sutra as the word of the Buddha. In Vajrayana, one's guru is to be looked upon literally as a living Buddha. Both schools have belief in many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteśvara and Amhitaba. There's also the concept of an innate Buddha-nature in all beings. My point is that their conception of a "Buddha", and thus Buddhavacana, can be very different from Theravada.

Tilt's advice is good. Just leave them alone if they stir up aversion.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2464
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by manas » Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:13 am

Still, I'm far happier when I see someone adopt Pure Land Buddhism, than militant, fundamentalist Islam, for example. Really, the other schools of Buddhism still teach non=violence, patience, love for all sentient beings...they might not be our cup of tea, but they are still pretty darn wholesome.
Knowing this body is like a clay jar,
securing this mind like a fort,
attack Mara with the spear of discernment,
then guard what's won without settling there,
without laying claim.

- Dhp 40

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2464
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by manas » Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:15 am

In my post above that should have read, "non-violence". (typo)
Knowing this body is like a clay jar,
securing this mind like a fort,
attack Mara with the spear of discernment,
then guard what's won without settling there,
without laying claim.

- Dhp 40

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4406
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by SDC » Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:31 am

Learn in school, graduate and then find a job in the "your experience" field.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:15 am

thepea wrote:The Buddha had no concern with Buddhism, he taught Dhamma(laws of nature) if it is Dhamma, it is Dhamma, it must be universal, this is what I've been taught and experienced.
That's true, and within it is an implied answer to the OP's question about why the other schools arose.
In every other field of knowledge we respect the early discoverers and build on their work. We don't expect that Newton's word is final and say that Einstein's is unnecessary; ditto Mozart and Stravinsky, Rembrandt and van Gogh, Columbus and Livingstone, Pasteur and Fleming, Pythagoras and Leibniz, etc.
Why, then, should we refuse to do the same with the dhamma?

My question looks like a rhetorical one and it is, since clearly I expect the answer, "We shouldn't."
But there is also a strong, realistic answer to it if we treat it as a real question. We might refuse to add to the Buddha's teachings if we regard him and them in the same way monotheistic religions have always regarded their Teachers and Scriptures, i.e. as divine revelation to a unique individual and therefore untouchable, unalterable, infallible, etc, and beyond criticism or extension.
Is that what we want?
Is that what the Buddha would have wanted?
:thinking:
Now think about where that approach has led Christianity and Islam.
Is that really what we want?

:thinking:
Kim

User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by m0rl0ck » Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:16 am

Digity wrote:I hate to say it,
As you should. It can only make problems when you do, but there you go anyway.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:09 am

m0rl0ck wrote:
Digity wrote:I hate to say it,
As you should. It can only make problems when you do, but there you go anyway.
Reminds me of this:
natalie-nourigat.png
natalie-nourigat.png (163.97 KiB) Viewed 1482 times
:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by Mr Man » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:39 am

Digity wrote:I hate to say it, but I'm not comfortable with other schools of Buddhism. I feel like people should study the Pali Canon and what the Buddha taught and leave it at that.
Are there any particular manifestations of the Theravada that you a comfortable with?

SarathW
Posts: 10118
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Issue with other schools of Buddhism

Post by SarathW » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:51 am

This tree diagram may some help to answer Mr.Man's question:

http://funki.com.ua/ru/portfolio/lab/wo ... ions-tree/
Last edited by SarathW on Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 68 guests