The Emphasis Of Mahayana Vs Theravada

[camerata]

In his commentary on the Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing, Nhat Hanh says something about Theravada teaching putting the emphasis on suffering while Mahayana puts the main emphasis on the wonder of life (or something like that). Anyone know why this is so?

[sabaijai]

After the Great Schism occurred, it probably didn't take long for adherents of Mahayana to out-number Theravadins, as it's arguably easier to sell 'wonder of being' than it is to sell the three marks of existence, ie anicca (impermanence), dukkha (dissatisfaction) and anatta (non-essentiality).

Less cynically, Theravada might be seen as placing an undue emphasis on the negative side of existence, if it didn't also offer a cure for suffering and the attainment of a state beyond wonder and puzzlement, beyond pleasure and suffering.

Then again, when it comes to "the wonder of being" I would suppose it comes down to what one does with that. Is it right view? Only a careful reading of the Tipitaka, with an accomplished teacher, can tell you that. Is it sufficient means for liberation? If so, then it's a viable path.

In a sense, all religions start from a point of suffering. If people throughout history weren't experiencing real pain, whether existential or circumstantial (or both), they wouldn't be seeking outside themselves for answers.

In the end, one's spiritual choices often come down to aesthetics. One might say that Theravada emphasises realism as an antidote to existential pain, while Mahayana emphasises idealism, and thus those who choose one over the other do so because they're either realists or idealists. Some like their chocolate sweet, some like it bitter. Many paths, the goal the same.

Buddhism rests on the pivot of sorrow. But it does not thereby follow that Buddhism is pessimistic. It is neither totally pessimistic nor totally optimistic, but, on the contrary, it teaches a truth that lies midway between them. One would be justified in calling the Buddha a pessimist if He had only enunciated the Truth of suffering without suggesting a means to put an end to it. The Buddha perceived the universality of sorrow and did prescribe a panacea for this universal sickness of humanity. The highest conceivable happiness, according to the Buddha, is Nibbana, which is the total extinction of suffering.

Ordinarily the enjoyment of sensual pleasures is the highest and only happiness of the average man. There is no doubt a kind of momentary happiness in the anticipation, gratification and retrospection of such fleeting material pleasures, but they are illusive and temporary. According to the Buddha non-attachment is a greater bliss.

The Buddha does not expect His followers to be constantly pondering on suffering and lead a miserable unhappy life. He exhorts them to be always happy and cheerful, for zest (Piti) is one of the factors of Enlightenment.

from:

buddhism in a nutshell

[Suthep_Steve]

IMHO I think both focus on suffering. In the Hinayana teachings (I don't necessarily equate these with the Theravada) you examine your own personal suffering and develop renunciation.

In the Mahayana you examine the suffering of all sentient beings and develop great compassion (the wish for all living beings to be free from suffering) and love ( the wish for all living beings to experience happiness and its causes ). Based apon this the practisioner then developes the wish to do something about the suffering of all living beings, realizes that only a Buddha has the power and skill nessesary to perform the task and thus resolves to become a Buddha for the sake of all living beings (mind of Bodhichitta).

Based on either of these two motivations the practisioner meditates on ultimate truth in order to cut the root of their delusions.

[camerata]

In the end, one's spiritual choices often come down to aesthetics. One might say that Theravada emphasises realism as an antidote to existential pain, while Mahayana emphasises idealism, and thus those who choose one over the other do so because they're either realists or idealists. Some like their chocolate sweet, some like it bitter. Many paths, the goal the same.

In a similar vein, it seems there is quite a difference between the attitude of the Theravada and Mahayana traditions towards one's own body. Nhat Hanh is always saying that the Buddha never said we should abuse our body (i.e. that we should look after it by eating well, etc), but Aj Chah seems to think of it as hardly worth mentioning. In fact, he had all 16 teeth pulled out at once because they were a nuisance.

Would Theravadin forest monks frown on the idea of using mosquito repellent to prevent malaria, for example, or exercising to keep the body (and mind) healthy?

[sabaijai]

In the end, one's spiritual choices often come down to aesthetics. One might say that Theravada emphasises realism as an antidote to existential pain, while Mahayana emphasises idealism, and thus those who choose one over the other do so because they're either realists or idealists. Some like their chocolate sweet, some like it bitter. Many paths, the goal the same.

In a similar vein, it seems there is quite a difference between the attitude of the Theravada and Mahayana traditions towards one's own body. Nhat Hanh is always saying that the Buddha never said we should abuse our body (i.e. that we should look after it by eating well, etc), but Aj Chah seems to think of it as hardly worth mentioning. In fact, he had all 16 teeth pulled out at once because they were a nuisance.

Would Theravadin forest monks frown on the idea of using mosquito repellent to prevent malaria, for example, or exercising to keep the body (and mind) healthy?

Ajahn Chah's reply might be (actual reply of his, to another question):

"The real foundation of the teaching is to see the self as being empty. But people come to study the Dhamma to increase their self-view, so they don’t want to experience suffering or difficulty. They want everything to be cozy. They may want to transcend suffering, but if there is still a self, how can they ever do so?"

[Covertjay]

Perhaps both schools of thought have lost their way.

If a central tenent is impermenence, and I believe Buddha said don't waste money on statues, temples, sacrifrices, and material things (as opposed to Hinduism) they why do adherents of both still plough money into both? Buddha said no statues, do only in the 5th century B.E did they appear (that I know of) due to the Hindu's incorporating Buddha as the 9th life of Vishnu. Untill then, the symbol had been the wheel of life.

If the four truths are to be believed, then why do very religious Thais (Therevada) and Chinese (Mahayana) engage so readily in the greed that would, according to their beliefs, cause suffering.

Why the proliferation of Mahayana Buddha's? Isn't this a larger schism than that of the Christians? All religions to me seem to be the inevitable corruption of an outstanding, loving teacher into a God (remember neither Jesus, Buddha or Mohammad said they were divine, it was thrust on then for political purposes) that can be a quick fix solution to the most difficult issues in life.

In this very human process, the original message how to end suffering and become a better person is lost.

[Suthep_Steve]

Buddha Shakyamuni said: Now my four disciples and others make offerings to me directly. In the future many people will make offerings with faith to an image representing my form. These actions have the same meaning

If the four truths are to be believed, then why do very religious Thais (Theravada) and Chinese (Mahayana) engage so readily in the greed that would, according to their beliefs, cause suffering.

Only those who have completed the path are free from delusions and there effects. Also if the world is impermanent or subjective, then doesn't the subjective appearance of the world tell us more about ourselves than it does about others? If we live in a world devoid of the divine, it says more about how obscured the divinity is in our own minds, rather than implying the validity of our opinions about others.

Why the proliferation of Mahayana Buddha's?

All things arise from causes, even Buddhas. If you create the causes to become a Buddha that is what you become. The main aim of the Mahayana is to benefit all living beings. The best method for benefiting living beings is to become a Buddha. Therefore the Mahayana focuses on creating the causes to become a Buddha.

[cdnvic]

In his commentary on the Sutra on the Full Awareness of Breathing, Nhat Hanh says something about Theravada teaching putting the emphasis on suffering while Mahayana puts the main emphasis on the wonder of life (or something like that). Anyone know why this is so?

If you look at the early history of the mahanyana, and it's spread through China, it was at that time more of an philisophy than a religion. The early adhearants were mostly intellectuals who lived vastly different lives than the more austere followers of the therevada teaching. I think this would have definitly influenced their writings. Also if you compare the general folklore of the Chinese, and that of the Indian sub-continent at that time, you will notice a more light-hearted mood among the Chinese.

Just an educated guess but I think much of it had to do with the living conditions of those doing the early writing and how it affected their general outlook on life. The blossoming of Chinese art as Zen spread is another sign this may be the case.

cv