types of Buddhism?

Discussion in 'Buddhism' started by Elizabeth May, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. samabudhi

    samabudhi New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    1
    There is another most important difference not mentioned by Vajradhara. This is in regards to the root of all suffering (which is what Buddhism is all about).
    There are 3 main causes of suffering: craving (or greed), aversion (hatred) and ignorance.

    The Theravadas maintain that one should extinguish even the last drop of craving and aversion, and thus attain enlightenment. This is what they emphasise.

    The Mahayanas say it is ignorance which one should try to dispel.

    The Vajrayanas add to this by stating that the reason we are ignorant is because of our impure perceptions, and so, we should aim at purifying our perceptions.

    The goal is the same, the methods are different.
    Hope this helps.
     
  2. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste Samabudi,

    thank you for the post and welcome to the forum :)

    you are correct, and this difference is directly related to their understanding of the term "emptiness".

    the Hinyana schools see emptiness of self, the Mahayana schools see emptiness of self and phenomena and the Vajrayana schools see emptiness of self and phenomena though it is a more subtle understanding of emptiness that they are using.

    the Dharma rain falls equally on all sentient beings and they each respond according to their capacity!
     
  3. Zazen

    Zazen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    buddha

    "the Mahayana assert an "emptiness" of persons and phenomena and the Vajrayana supports this Mahayana veiw but expands on it to include the entire nature of perceptions, thought formations, feelings et al."

    this is incorrect in that there is no differences being stated

    amitabha
     
  4. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste zazen,

    perhaps... you would care to correct me then rather than simply stating it's incorrect :)

    please be aware that the philosophical position that is being taken is with reference to the Prasangkia-Madyamika view.
     
  5. Zazen

    Zazen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    "please be aware that the philosophical position that is being taken is with reference to the Prasangkia-Madyamika view."

    cant honestly say i know what that is

    "Vajrayana supports this Mahayana veiw but expands on it to include the entire nature of perceptions, thought formations, feelings et al."


    like i said before, what your stating here isnt a difference, the philosophical teachings of the nature of perceptions, thought formations, feelings etc are all present in mahayana

    in particular that of the chan school, which points directly at the mind and dissolving the ego to see the "original face"

    amitabha
     
  6. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Buddhist Philosophical Schools, pt 1

    Namaste zazen,

    thank you for the post.

    in part, it's my fault as i've said i will be posting the various philosophical positions that are held in Buddhism, and i've not done that yet. very slack of me :(

    yes, they are all present in the Prajnaparamita Sutras. this is not in question. what i'm asserting, however, is the level of realiztion that these statements lead to.

    you agree, do you not, that the Hinyana school asserts a position of empitness of self but not of phenomena?

    and you agree that Mahayana schools assert a position of emptiness of self and phenemona, do you not?

    this isn't what i had intended to post, but it should suffice for our discussion at this point:


    Buddhist philosophical views are classified, at least by Tibetan Buddhists in general, into four main categories: Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogachara, and Madhyamika.

    1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.

    2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.

    3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.

    4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

    The Madhyamika view has given rise to two particular schools of thought: Svatantrika and Prasangika, which is the school that i adhere to. According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha)* is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than—a little over and above—what is merely labeled by the mind.

    The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso Rinpoche in The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice. Boston: Wisdom Pub., 1995. (49-54):

    "According to the explanation of the highest Buddhist philosophical school, Madhyamaka-Prasangika, external phenomena are not mere projections or creations of the mind. External phenomena have a distinct nature, which is different from the mind.

    The meaning of all phenomena being mere labels or designations is that they exist and acquire their identities by means of our denomination or designation of them. This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable.

    Phenomena are unable to withstand such analysis; therefore, they do not exist objectively. Yet, since they exist, there should be some level of existence; therefore, it is only through our own process of labeling or designation that things are said to exist.

    Except for the Prasangika school, all the other Buddhist schools of thought identify the existence of phenomena within the basis of designation; therefore, they maintain that there is some kind of objective existence.

    Since the lower schools of Buddhist thought all accept that things exist inherently, they assert some kind of objective existence, maintaining that things exist in their own right and from their own side. This is because they identify phenomena within the basis of designation.

    For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right.

    This is a philosophical tenet of the Yogacara school in which external reality is negated, that is, the atomically structured external world is negated. Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one's own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind. By analyzing along these lines, Yogacara proponents conclude that there is no atomicly structured external reality.

    This conclusion is reached because of not having understood the most subtle level of emptiness as expounded by the Prasangikas. In fact, Yogacarins assert that things have no inherent existence, and that if you analyze something and do not find any essence, then it does not exist at all.

    Prasangikas, on the other hand, when confronted with this un-findability of the essence of the object, conclude that this is an indication that objects do not exist inherently, not that they do not exist at all. This is where the difference lies between the two schools."

    * Object of Refutation: one possible technique for searching for truth is to employ the process of elimination, and see what is left. Therefore, the principle or topic under consideration may be called the object of refutation which helps keep in our mind the notion that the thing is not to be assumed to exist. It is merely a target, so to speak.

    this link has some very good information for the interested reader:
    http://www.khandro.net/Bud_philo_Madhyamika.htm
     
  7. Zazen

    Zazen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    buddha nature

    the classification of self and phenomena is only an elementary and intellectual intercourse, because there is no differentation between them, if there were, they wouldnt be empty

    "yes, they are all present in the Prajnaparamita Sutras. this is not in question. what i'm asserting, however, is the level of realiztion that these statements lead to."

    the emphasis placed on doctrines and sutras is unimportant to a chan practitioner, because reciting sutras and studying buddhist doctrines is only a phase, which is not even a neccesity.. the key is understanding from direct experience

    amitabha
     
  8. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste,

    yes, i am aware of your teachings, thank you for expounding on them further.
     
  9. zenmonk_genryu

    zenmonk_genryu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    "reciting sutras and studying buddhist doctrines is only a phase, which is not even a neccesity..."

    Not actually the case in practice, as all Zen/Chan students are required to have a firm understanding of Buddhist teaching.
     
  10. Zazen

    Zazen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    bong?

    pass whatever your smoking this way

    amitabha
     
  11. zenmonk_genryu

    zenmonk_genryu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, it's called actual experience in Zen monasteries. :)
     
  12. Zazen

    Zazen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    oh

    oh so if its taught in a monastery it must be the only way to practice chan, so then, how do you explain bodhidarma?

    amitabha
     
  13. zenmonk_genryu

    zenmonk_genryu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean Bodhidharma who insisted that his students have a full grasp of the sutras? The one who himself practiced in a monastery (Shorinji) lol? And it's taught to all Zen students working with a teacher, not just those in monasteries, as you'll discover for yourself if you actually go to any Zen center or monastery. If you want confirmation, just try reading some more Wong Kew Kit, who you quoted yourself earlier on, and is quite clear that while direct experience is vital, a thorough understanding of Buddhism, including the sutras is also an important component of any Zen student's practice.
     
  14. zenmonk_genryu

    zenmonk_genryu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mahayana emphasises the Bodhisattva ideal, and also has monks and nuns. All Buddhist traditions agree on the same fundamentals, none is considered 'more spiritual' than any other. The majority of Buddhists are actually Mahayana Buddhists, with Theravada in the minority and while the pali cannon is part of the oldest written tradition, the language spoken by the Buddha was actually a dialect not pali.
     
  15. zenmonk_genryu

    zenmonk_genryu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd be careful quoting Wong Kew Kit's Complete Book of Zen too, as it has quite a few innacuracies and isn't generally accepted as a good source, though it is an interesting enough read.
     
  16. Zazen

    Zazen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    chan

    thanks for the advice, ill be as careful as i can

    having a firm understanding of buddhist sutras and practicing chan are different things all together(although they are complimentary), if you understood this, you would realise that the elementary aspect is only for the students benefit, but never will it be stated that this is mandatory, that would be very "unzen" as some would say

    also, to stress my point of bodhidarma, it is a well known fact that he stressed meditation and direct experience over book learning, the story of him destorying sutras was my way of hinting at this

    furthermore, a monastery or a "zen center" is nothing more then a gathering place for individuals to cultivate cosmic wisdom, there is no authoritive source on the practice of chan, therefore although methods differ, there leaves much room for a wider variety of individuals to participate in the practice of chan

    amitabha
     
  17. zenmonk_genryu

    zenmonk_genryu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    \


    Nonsense and ill informed nonsense at that. If you knew a bit more about Bodhidharma for example you'd know that he was also deeply versed in the sutras himself. But as usual with people who've read and not practiced much, you've taken words out of context and then reinterpreted them to suit yourself. You might have some idea of practicing Chan, or Zen but that's all it is, you haven't a clue when it comes to the reality of what it entails. After all, in your 19 years of life, how long have you actually practiced? You've read a few books, some not so good obviously, and come to a few half assed conclusions, but I'm afraid you obviously haven't much experience of day in day out, year to year practice. You also seem to labour under the common delusion of those that have read a little about Zen, and think they're clever, that Chan is something your ego can do and make up as it sees fit, when the whole essence of practice is dropping ego and seeing things directly. It's not something you make up as you go along.

    Words and texts are pointers to the experience, not to be confused with it sure, but that doesn't mean that Zen students are ignorant of the Sutras, or view it as a 'phase' as you put it, far from it, as you'd know if you actually had any real experience. The irony here of course is that you're criticizing me for pointing you towards what the experience of Zen practice actually is, based on what you've read, in order to address your point about written words versus direct experience. If you can't see the irony of that then perhaps you might benefit from going to sit with a good teacher.

    In fact go see any Zen teacher, or for that matter, anyone who's actually been practicing a while and they'll tell you the same. They may well be a hell of a lot ruder than I have been though. A recognised Chan teacher such as Sheng Yen will put you straight in a few seconds if you actually go meet him. If you do let me know and I can give you his number. Don't forget to say hi for me. :)
     
  18. tom

    tom New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    types of buddhism

    hi all,
    actually a very wise guy will know that there is only one buddhism in this world
    and the difference is the practice of it.some places adapt strictly vegetarian
    and some places can have both meat and vege or maybe some places
    have only meat.you know why i said this is because different places
    have different environment where some places have only meat but no
    vege due to the soil that cannot plant vege and so on.so the important
    thing in this philosophy is not just read about the book or the message
    by individual but we must have self reliasation or wisdom of our own.in order to have this wisdom of our own ( nature wisdom ) we must
    went through a lot of practice.so in future if one master claim that you
    should become vegetarian,first of all you have to consider your state of
    environment before accept his advice.I DONT INTEND TO HURT ANYONE
    FEELING REGARDING THIS CASE BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL
    KNOW THE TRUTH OF THE NATURE .this is one part of my philosphy of
    nature and you cant find it anywhere in the world except learn it from
    the nature.

    wisdom preacher
     
  19. samabudhi

    samabudhi New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    1
    And it's called Ekayana. Tibetan Buddhists see the universality of their religion and have formed a non-partisan
    , for lack of a better word, 'class' of Buddhism called Rime.

    Q. What did the Buddhist say when he ordered a pizza?
    A. Make me one with everything.
     
  20. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    45
    Namaste samabudhi,


    thank you for the post.

    in fact, i incorporate alot of the Rime teachings into my own practice :) we also have a technique called Lam-Rim which can be translated as "the Graduated Stages of the Path" and lead one from delusion to liberation.

    alot of this teaching falls into the Tantras and Yogas which accout for the efficacy of it's practice.
     

Share This Page