retrofuturist wrote:Meta-discussion is disruptive at the best of times, but especially in the Discovering Theravada forum where the focus is to help answer the questions of newcomers.
0pper wrote:My understanding is that Theravada Buddhism is closer to what the Buddha actually taught...
0pper wrote:I'm extremely intrigued by Buddhism and am well on my way to becoming Buddhist. I've been reading about it for a long time, but I'm close to making a commitment to becoming a Buddhist. I am now in the stage of choosing what specific path of Buddhism I want to follow.
My understanding is that Theravada Buddhism is closer to what the Buddha actually taught while Mahayana, although also very profound, seems to be influenced very much by others aside from the Buddha himself. Mahayana seems to have more cultural trappings. Things like dieties, divas and spirit worship... well frankly I have no interest in that whatsoever. I was a Christian in my early 20s for 4 years. Been there, done that.
I'm more interested in the practical aspects of Buddhism and less in the religious stuff.
Is Theravada a better fit for me?
What do those who are critical of the Theravada path have to say?
Tree wrote:I had to leave Buddhism a few years ago because I had become disillusioned with it. I was hanging/chatting with too many hardcore Western style Theravadans who were behaving no different than Fundamentalist Christians.
Pannapetar wrote:Tree wrote:I had to leave Buddhism a few years ago because I had become disillusioned with it. I was hanging/chatting with too many hardcore Western style Theravadans who were behaving no different than Fundamentalist Christians.
Though regrettable. I have made the discovery that virtually no field of thought, no philosophy, and certainly no religion is free of fundamentalists. Mind you, I even know some "fundamentalist" software engineers who think that procedural programming is evil and that only lambda calculus can save us. This just goes to show that even a supposedly rational field of thought has its fundies. But I am digressing. The important point is (it can't be stressed enough): neither Theravada nor Mahayana practice necessitates religion, and both do quite well without fundamentalism.
Zom wrote:As Ven. Ratanasara Mahathera said - "Buddhism is like a tree. This tree has a pure core (those with deep practise and understanding), and a thick bark (those with all that religious ceremonies, superstitious beliefs and so on). Without a core this tree will rot. Without a thick bark it will wither. So for Buddhism to be alive both things are necessary".
Pannapetar wrote:Hence, I am not entirely sure about whether the sangha needs "bark" at all.
Wow! Thanks for making the re-interpretation clearer, but then I may be barking up the wrong tree, or barking mad, or i may have barked my shins, or I may be adrift on the ocean in a barque, but i am keeping my eye out for bark-people.Anicca wrote:Pannapetar wrote:Hence, I am not entirely sure about whether the sangha needs "bark" at all.
Somehow the bark became the core but still functioned as the bark but it wasn't the bark - it was the core - so who needs the bark if you got the function of the bark that isn't the bark but is the core that functions the same as the core that used to be the bark but isn't anymore. Simple!
What's the matter Alan - are you really that thick?
Ben wrote:Dear gawd!
I think I'll just go and meditate while you guys make each other giggle with these bad jokes.
Anyone else want to have a go at bark humour?
-- You've got five minutes!
Coffee Bar K has a laundry list of high-class cocktail concoctions, all served up by Japanese bartenders trained in how-to-impress-the-ladies in their zen-like flair.
Users browsing this forum: BasementBuddhist and 5 guests