Hmm, I am most surprised to see two of you recommend Mahayana to me. Mind you, this is coming from a very ignorant novice's limited knowledge, but I had the impression from my cursory readings that Mahayana tended to be more religious, ritualistic, and mystical, while Theravada tended to be less so, perhaps more praxis oriented. Is my impression completely wrong?
It is not the details of each, but the view which is my concern. I came to Buddhism through the writings of the great Taoist masters - Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu. The Taoist view is as expansive as the Mahayana Buddhist, but they lack a path to follow, a method. Taoist writings come across as devoid of ritual and anything "mystical", yet they have the most expansive view. On the other hand the Theravadin methods will take you so far, but they don't have the view to carry you through. You'll get stuck following the flow of karma rather than mastering it.
"These are the writing of Buddha". The Buddha's teaching were only written down decades if not centuries after his death, so how can this claim be made with certainty? "This is how karma works". What room is there for enlightenment if karma works flawlessly? "This is what nirvana is". Presenting the ultimate conceptually is like trying to shave a tortoise, or eat a mile.
Yes/no...up/down...left/right...cause/effect. Where does this lead? Only deeper into the quagmire of judging, dividing, and dualist vision, which has no place in the realm of the supramundane. At first, it is necessary, but the Hinayana approach makes no provision for spiritual growth.
Their perspective is always taken from that of a suffering sentient being. As long as they identify with a suffering individual, it doesn't matter what actions they take, it will always be those of a sentient being.
The Buddha's meaning is not discarded in the Mahayana, it is skillfully applied. Rituals are only an aid, a way of leading us to that higher truth which, once grasped, is discarded since it is no longer needed.
The perspective is taken more from that of an enlightened being. The view is that we are all innately enlightened. It is not something different from us or something we have to "achieve" as such. We just don't see that enlightened nature, because of our ignorance.
There is nothing "wrong" with the Theravadin approach, in the same way that learning algebra doesn't nullify basic addition and subtraction. To climb to the peak of enlightenment, you need to work through the forest of lesser views first.
Lao Tzu says:
Pacifying the agitated material soul and holding to oneness:
Are you able to avoid separation?
Focusing your energy on the release of tension:
Can you be like an infant?
In purifying your insight:
Can you un-obstruct it?
Loving the people and ruling the state:
Can you avoid over-manipulation?
In opening and closing the gate of Heaven:
Can you be the female?
In illuminating the whole universe:
Can you be free of rationality?
Can you keep an open mind and avoid discriminating Mahayana rituals you don't understand, or avoid entangling yourself in Hinayana techniques whose context you have no understanding of?
It's all a learning curve, so it doesn't actually matter where you go. I might suggest going to an abattoir to learn about suffering and death - probably be just as insightful.
The reason I had this impression was that I read that Theravada see only the Pali Canon as official and the Mahayana accept the Pali Canon plus additional writings. But my readings are scant and my understanding very shallow at this point.
Pali canon includes Adbhidharma which is disputed as not being the words of the Buddha by Mahayanists. For Theravadins, the importance of the original Buddha's (Shakyamuni's) words is emphasised. But the Mahayana has been a living tradition with many Buddhas for 2500 years who had their own thing to say, often in a way more accessible to changing views. Shakyamuni, as a single person could not possibly provide every single efficacious teaching for all sentient beings of every age. In fact your best bet is to find a living Buddha. He/she can help you infinitely more than your own perceptions of a scripture, retranslated from Pali, from Apabramsa, from the memory of a monk who no doubt had his own ideas on the Buddha, who he never met,'s 45 years worth of contextually dependent teachings. (tee hee
)
Your own context is as important as the teaching you're receiving. So I say Mahayana, because it is a living tradition, not one that sailed around the world as a set of papers. A living tradition will have people who have received the essence-tial teaching right down from Shaks himself. They can advise you skillfully.
Take care
