I understand some schools have a lot of techings in the sense of the big questions "what is life?", "why am I here?", etc. I heard they resemble traditional religions, with a set of codes and beliefs.
However, I have heard other schools forego that type of questions and simply focus on meditation and awareness. They don't see Buddah as a god but simply as a teacher.
how true is this? If it is, could you please tell me which schools belongs to which mindset?
I understand 'ideologies' isn't the best word, but 'cosmologies' didn't sit right with me, given that the intertwining between the interests of scribes and other learned individuals and the execution of those ideas by Chinese government officials in varying forms.
Hello everyone,
I would like to have your advice, because since I'm considering Buddhism, and after reading quite a lot about it for two months or so, I can't decide which school of Buddhism is the right for me.
As of right now, here are the two that I've read the most about :
Theravada: I basically enjoy this school because it looks like the most "close to the origins" and to the teaching of the Buddha. I like the fact that the "goal" is personnal enlightment. I'm clearly not an egoistic individual, but the spirituality is a matter of me and myself (it's a personnal stand, of course).
Vajrayana : I enjoy this one because of the "identification" you can make to a certain deity, and because of the mantras. I know that my main concern about my personnality is my angerness (I'm a really impulsive and agressive individual in some cases), and to get the image of a deity/mantra sounds like a great deal to me. I know that I could progress faster (and further?) with a certain symbol. But with Vajrayana, I'm not comfortable with the "really sociable and in group" practices. With every Vajrayana centres that I've visited, came this almost... evangelistical feeling, like a big group following one Guru and drinking fully each of his word. This may be exclusive to the centers I've visited, I don't know, but I didn't like that, and that made me really uncomfortable.
So, a tl;dr : I like the basic, close to the roots aspect of Theravada, and that it's focused mostly on individual practice. I'm a social guy, but I'm totally fine alone too. But I would like to practice with a deity/mantra in mind, but the Vajrayana centers I've seen are to focused on the listening of one Guru, and there's a "religious group" effect I'm uncomfortable with.
Is there an in-between, a school I would be good with ?
Thank you for your answer. And good day to you all!
PS : If my words aren't the good ones, I'm sorry, that's how it all appears to me. Please take no offense. Or if you do, you have my sincerest apologies.
Iโm relatively new to Buddhism and Iโm hearing all about the different schools of Buddhism, Theravada and Mahayana. Within those categories thereโs so many branches and it all seems so overwhelming. Is it necessary to choose a school to follow? Will not doing so prevent me from enlightenment?
I am wondering what school Jodo Shu is closest to in terms of Buddhist Philosophy? What school (Non Jodo or pure land) has the closest similarities on views of things like emptiness ect. I would like to supplement my Buddhist studies with a school that goes a little deeper on the philisophical side of things but still stay reletively close to Jodo Shu. WOuld I be correct in saying it is probably Tendai, only because that is what Honen studied? If it is Tendai, does anyone have resources? Thanks!
I've been studying buddhism for maybe a year now, but have never really picked a certain school to follow.
I used to go to a zen center, but I had a hard time understanding the teachings since it seemed like a lot of the teachers spoke in riddles and it ended up causing confusion for me. Right now I'm interested in the Tibetan tradition, but also the Theravada tradition. I like Tibetan Buddhism with all its different sadhanas but at the same time it sometimes feels like it strays into too much ritualistic? ( I could be making a wrong assumption about this) I find Theravada deals very directly with suffering, not that the Tibetan tradition doesnt, but it just feels different and more concise? I also like how Theravada seems to use the Pali Canon as their main text too and that it comes directly from the Buddha, please correct me if im wrong!!
I'd ask if someone could help me decide, if the choice wasn't such a personal thing. So I'll ask a different question.
What school of Buddhism to you practice in? What made you choose that path, and did you consider other paths? If so what also drew you to the other paths and how did you decide between them?
I am just beginning to explore Buddhism; please forgive my ignorance. In my first exposure to Buddhist belief systems, I am faced with the question of Theravada vs Mahayana. I looked up some of the past discussions on the topic here on reddit and, like many new things to be educated in, the answers only yielded more questions.
From a few sources I have seen indications that the Mahayana believe in spiritual beings or the like, while Theravada does not. Is that correct? Do all schools of Mahayana believe the same? Forgive me if even my questions are filled with errors; please help educate me on my first few steps into Buddhism.
I found Buddhism through Theravadan scripture (Pali Canon) and Theravadin Buddhist teachers (Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dipa Ma). However I also have great respect towards those who tread the Bodhisattvayana and I have considered taking up the Bodhisattvayana as an alterantive to the Sravakayana.
I feel stuck in between the two schools. I don't know what to do.
I wish I could just pick a school and stick with it. I want to "fit". What questions can I ask myself, what can I reflect upon to pick a school?
Dear all,
For quite some time I've been interested in zen Buddhism over the other forms, but looking for a local community, I can only find a center for 'Diamon Way Buddhism', which simply doesn't appeal nearly as much to me from what I read about it.
What is your advice, stick to online communities or get more involved with different schools to later better understand Zen Buddhism?
I've been reading and practicing much of Zen Buddhism's teachings, yet I know one can't simply conceptualize the understandment of Zen alone, it simply doesn't help. I like Zen, but I live far from a Zendo, and not only that, I feel frustrated and confused. I'm just unsure on which school of Mahayana Buddhism to follow. I've been to a Nichiren gathering and I read a lot of Thich Nhat Hanh's books, though. They help me cope with suffering and craving.
"The big bad wolf!" a goat shouted. "Is meditating!"
"So? Isn't that a good thing? questioned the bear.
"Noooo!" the goat bleated. "It's become aware wolf!"
Namo Buddhaya
I want to ask something related to vegetarianism in Buddhism. This question started when I read about vegetarianism according to several schools of Buddhism such as Theravada and Mahayana. I have read this and the answers have different perspectives. I just confused with the 2 schools of Buddhism stating about vegetarianism.
According to Theravada, the Buddha allows Buddhist and monks to consume meat if it is not seen, heard, or suspected as a sentient being is not slaughtered only for the eater. This is stated in Jivaka Sutta, MN 55. There were also monastic guidelines in Theravada stated that Buddhists are prohibited to eat 10 types of meat such as humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. This is because these animals can be provoked by the smell of the flesh of their own kind, or because eating of such flesh would generate a bad reputation for the Sangha. This makes sense for me but why is cat not included ? So, the monks are not prohibited to eat meat and the rule is also not stated in the Vinaya (227 Patimokkha precepts).
According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to eat any kind of meat. Even if vegetarian food has been touched by meat, it needs to be washed away before it can be eaten. The Mahayana's precepts refer to the Dharmadatu. It means when you eat the flesh of a sentient being, it is the same as you eat the flesh of a single dhatu. For example, when you eat a chicken's flesh, it is the same as you eat the flesh of the chicken's mother.
The 2 schools have made me confused which one is the right one? Why the Buddha's preaching about vegetarianism is not same in Theravada and Mahayana schools. Is the Buddha who preached about those not only Sidharta Gautama? However, because of this confusing, I take the own way or Middle way, that is, not to eat meat too often in order to save the world because of the green house gases.
I hope the Buddhists here can help me to attain bright explanation of vegetarianism in buddhism. I'm sorry if there are misintrepreted sentences from me. Thank you
Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta. I hope all sentient beings can live happily.
Pure Land, for example, is named after that school's "Pure Land" teachings. The Soto Zen school takes its name from its practice of seated meditation, zazen. I'm sure you can think of some other examples.
But the fact that the Nichiren schools are named after a PERSON violates the most basic Buddhist doctrine: "Follow the Law, not the Person". Thus, the Nichiren schools are disqualified from claims of being "Buddhism".
Iโm of Christian background and like most young people of my nation, that Christian background has been milled from a dedicated faith tradition of daily prayer, weekly church attendance and frequent festivals into a slurry of humanistic bromides and vague optimism about progress. Like the majority of my generation I have little family, leading to an extreme pressure to succeed. The social safety net is overstretched charities and miserly state benefit. Living in a connected age has only driven us further from human connection. I can travel further and easier than any human before me and I couldnโt name my neighbors.
I am lost. I am isolated. I seek an alternative. I learn of the Buddha and his teachings. I learn of the Sangha. I travel to my one of my local Buddhist centres, (I am fortunate to have several). I find the two familiar types: the ethnic and the modern. I reasonably enough find I cannot fully relate and engage to an alien community that does not speak my language nor also reasonably enough does this sangha seek to cater to my needs. I go to a modern Buddhist centre and there I find the modern Buddhist.
The modern Buddhist is educated. The modern Buddhist is successful. The modern Buddhist is sceptical. The modern Buddhist is progressive. The modern Buddhist is independent. The modern Buddhist does not need ritual. The modern Buddhist does not need Tradition. The modern Buddhist does not need a temple. The modern Buddhist does not need a sea of Faith, a world of Faith to engage with a hostile world because they donโt live in a hostile world
(Edit: this is not to say Buddhists who go to traditional and ethnic temples are not any of these things. Only that Western Buddhism is almost exclusively these things, in my experience, and I do not feel at home there.)
In short the modern Buddhist flees from religion. So what is my next move? Leave and hide my spiritual doubts in a different Faith? Leave and continue to live in an isolated and materialistic world? Leave this world as Brutus said โnot only with our feet but by our handsโ? Or can we have a Buddhism that speak to the anomie of modern life. That speaks to the youth not in the pandering language of selfies, rap and hedonism but with a call to the rocks of Faith and Tradition? I say yes.
Edit: wow, A guy who literally just said he feels isolated got downvoted to hell. I wonder if he got harassing messages too? You people downvoting every opinion you disagree with are disgusting.
After some quick math, if I died tomorrow, my expected life would be over 600 years old.
Over the last few years, Iโve come across different kinds of Buddhism such as zen, zazen, and lately also Nichiren Shoshu. Even though they are all based on the same concept, it comes hard to me to be able to pick โmy ownโ branch of Buddhism. This ended up in a bit of confusion and random practice (sometimes I meditate and chant in the Korean way, some other times I do in the Japanese way). So far Iโm happy to know about Buddhism and itโs been very fascinating for me to enter this world. However, what are the points I should keep in mind to make the best decision and find the best Buddhism school for myself?
As is my way, I'm feeling convinced by the last cogent argument I heard on a subject.
This time it's about the proposition "Zen is not buddhism." The argument was presented to me cogently by someone who I don't particularly enjoy interacting with yet--and that latter fact makes me feel even more convinced. (For me to feel convinced by someone I don't like, is even more convincing to me.)
So I'm asking, what's the best argument that Zen _is_ buddhism?
I'm sorry I know this is probably a can of worms but I'm just looking for something kind of succinct and summary, trolling through the history of the sub led me to a lot of confusion at the basic level of even sometimes understanding just what a person thinks about the issue in the first place.
How would you resolve this?
