Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism - Why The Conflict?

[Nikkolas]

So Buddhism is no less sectarian than any other religion that 's been round thousands of years. There are innumerable Mahayana traditions but they are all supposed to be grouped under the "Great Vehicle" banner. Contrast with Theravada which is about personal enlightenment. Both groups also draw from very different scriptures and apparently the goal of any Mahayanist practitioner is not just to achieve personal enlightenment but to become a Bodhisattva and help all others achieve it as well.

So, to very, VERY generally sum it up, Mahayana is a group tradition with the goal of helping everyone and Theravada is an individual tradition with the goal of self-liberation.

But why is this? Why couldn't a person just read whatever Mahayana scripture they prefer (and there are many with a lot of East Asian schools focusing their entire doctrine on just one or a handful) with the goal of liberating just themselves? I just don't see the need for this "everyone" vs. "personal" liberation where if you follow the former you read the Mahayana and if you follow the latter you read the Pali Canon.

 

[George-ananda]

It seems like the two should complement each other.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So Buddhism is no less sectarian than any other religion that 's been round thousands of years. There are innumerable Mahayana traditions but they are all supposed to be grouped under the "Great Vehicle" banner. Contrast with Theravada which is about personal enlightenment. Both groups also draw from very different scriptures and apparently the goal of any Mahayanist practitioner is not just to achieve personal enlightenment but to become a Bodhisattva and help all others achieve it as well.

So, to very, VERY generally sum it up, Mahayana is a group tradition with the goal of helping everyone and Theravada is an individual tradition with the goal of self-liberation.

But why is this? Why couldn't a person just read whatever Mahayana scripture they prefer (and there are many with a lot of East Asian schools focusing their entire doctrine on just one or a handful) with the goal of liberating just themselves? I just don't see the need for this "everyone" vs. "personal" liberation where if you follow the former you read the Mahayana and if you follow the latter you read the Pali Canon.

It's the different goals each school sets out. Therevada is more focused on monk and nun practice. The idea is to become arahants and with Dharma, their role is to teach lay practitioners The Dharma (as per taught The Buddha) and lay practitioners support the monastic community in finances, foods, deeds, etc.

Mahayana is more bodhisattva oriented where we are lay practitioners and monastics within the lay community practice The Dharma (and teach from monastic) and teach lay practitioners we can become Buddhas too without needing to be monastics to do so.

The conflict seems to arise in each person saying "who is authentic." I mean, the only temple I know near me is the Kadampa tradition. I got my precepts in Zen Vietnamese tradition. I go to another site that bans anyone practicing in the Kadampa tradition even though my knowledge of "scriptures" is purely from the Pali Theravada tradition.

Theravadans aren't solo self-enlightenment focused. They teach The Dharma to lay practitioners and lay practitioners take care of the monastic community.

Mahayanas arent totally for other people and disregard self. Some traditions say that we need to be self-awakened in part to help others be self-awakened. Others teach we are self-awakened by helping others rather than helping others first and then we are self-awakened.

I think it's a lot of pride and ego. I didn't know there was a big issue compared to, say, Christianity. I found they are pretty much the same.

 

[Srivijaya]

So Buddhism is no less sectarian than any other religion that 's been round thousands of years.

Yes and no. Oddly enough, it's only 'sectarian' in the west where we have access to many flavours of Buddhism from different countries. Each land developed its own take on Buddhism, as the mother land (India) ceased supplying teachers.

Who can say whether a Theravadan or Zen practitioner has more potential to get enlightened, or if the quality of their respective 'enlightenments' will vary.

Whichever type of Buddhism the westerner adopts you can be sure that he will paper over his lack of spiritual development by comparing his tradition favourably against the rest (yawn).

 

[TripleZ]

So Buddhism is no less sectarian than any other religion that 's been round thousands of years. There are innumerable Mahayana traditions but they are all supposed to be grouped under the "Great Vehicle" banner. Contrast with Theravada which is about personal enlightenment. Both groups also draw from very different scriptures and apparently the goal of any Mahayanist practitioner is not just to achieve personal enlightenment but to become a Bodhisattva and help all others achieve it as well.

So, to very, VERY generally sum it up, Mahayana is a group tradition with the goal of helping everyone and Theravada is an individual tradition with the goal of self-liberation.

But why is this? Why couldn't a person just read whatever Mahayana scripture they prefer (and there are many with a lot of East Asian schools focusing their entire doctrine on just one or a handful) with the goal of liberating just themselves? I just don't see the need for this "everyone" vs. "personal" liberation where if you follow the former you read the Mahayana and if you follow the latter you read the Pali Canon.

,, all religions are simply just man made... The One True Church of Yeshua the Messiah is from God alone.

 

[Srivijaya]

,, all religions are simply just man made... The One True Church of Yeshua the Messiah is from God alone.

ALL religions are simply just man made. Even your fictitious One True Church of Yeshua the Messiah.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So Buddhism is no less sectarian than any other religion that 's been round thousands of years. There are innumerable Mahayana traditions but they are all supposed to be grouped under the "Great Vehicle" banner. Contrast with Theravada which is about personal enlightenment. Both groups also draw from very different scriptures and apparently the goal of any Mahayanist practitioner is not just to achieve personal enlightenment but to become a Bodhisattva and help all others achieve it as well.

So, to very, VERY generally sum it up, Mahayana is a group tradition with the goal of helping everyone and Theravada is an individual tradition with the goal of self-liberation.

But why is this? Why couldn't a person just read whatever Mahayana scripture they prefer (and there are many with a lot of East Asian schools focusing their entire doctrine on just one or a handful) with the goal of liberating just themselves? I just don't see the need for this "everyone" vs. "personal" liberation where if you follow the former you read the Mahayana and if you follow the latter you read the Pali Canon.

Well it all stems from "greater" vehicle "lesser" vehicle, and of course the derogatory "hiney" word.

It's essentially a big **** wagging contest, over what form of Buddhism is the "best".

I kind of liking it in comparison with disputes between Protestants and Catholics. It's organizationally the same thing overall and people argue over who has the better cojones.

 

[TripleZ]

ALL religions are simply just man made. Even your fictitious One True Church of Yeshua the Messiah.

accordingly He Yeshua was a real flesh and blood person who was a Jew and still lives today even though He was dead and buried. He speaks and lives and is NOT dumb nor made of stone and or wood. He died for you and the rest of the world as well..

 

[Srivijaya]

accordingly He Yeshua was a real flesh and blood person

Buddha was real a real flesh and blood person too. He had a longer ministry than Jesus, which is a pity for Christians, as the New Testament could really use more depth.

who was a Jew and still lives today even though He was dead and buried.

In contrast to many, I do actually believe that Jesus was an historical person, Josephus mentions him but his earthly manifestation is long gone.

He speaks and lives and is NOT dumb nor made of stone and or wood.

He doesn't actually speak because he died 2000+ years ago. Even from a Christian POV he told his disciples he was leaving but the Holy Spirit would be with them in his stead. I'll pretend I don't know what you mean with the stone and or wood comment.

He died for you and the rest of the world as well..

Shame. He had too little time and was surrounded by idiots who didn't have a clue what he was trying to teach them. You can see his frustration at having to dumb it down - let those who have ears hear etc. He never got the opportunity to elaborate on any deeper knowledge. Would have been an amazing bloke to meet though.

 

[TripleZ]

Buddha was real a real flesh and blood person too. He had a longer ministry than Jesus, which is a pity for Christians, as the New Testament could really use more depth.

In contrast to many, I do actually believe that Jesus was an historical person, Josephus mentions him but his earthly manifestation is long gone.

He doesn't actually speak because he died 2000+ years ago. Even from a Christian POV he told his disciples he was leaving but the Holy Spirit would be with them in his stead. I'll pretend I don't know what you mean with the stone and or wood comment.

Shame. He had too little time and was surrounded by idiots who didn't have a clue what he was trying to teach them. You can see his frustration at having to dumb it down - let those who have ears hear etc. He never got the opportunity to elaborate on any deeper knowledge. Would have been an amazing bloke to meet though.

and so who did krishna or what ever die for, you, me ? how do pictures and statues speak then buddah was a big fat overweight con artists and is not dead and dust..pagan worshipers...well this is the truth of it all..

 

[Srivijaya]

and so who did krishna or what ever die for, you, me ? how do pictures and statues speak then buddah was a big fat overweight con artists and is not dead and dust..pagan worshipers...well this is the truth of it all..

It's people like you who guarantee that I'll never be a Christian. In any case I don't see you contributing anything, apart from religious intolerance to the OP. You know nothing about Buddhism and demonstrate that with every hate-filled phrase you utter. Merry Christmas.