If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
- imagemarie
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:35 pm
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
Existentialism..
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
I'd probably just stick to the other tradition i already belong to, always on the lookout for people who appreciate peace, laughter, good music and dancing....
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
-
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
- Location: By the River Thames near London.
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
Interesting isnt it ? It would appear from this mini sample that a proportion of Theravadin Buddhists would not choose to practice any other form of Buddhism.That in fact the Theravada is the only tradition they would consider perhaps.
That conforms to my own observations in talking to other Theravadin practitioners over the years.
That conforms to my own observations in talking to other Theravadin practitioners over the years.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
Wow. I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article about Stoicism and I found many similarities between it and the Dhamma.Dhammanando wrote:Stoicism.
The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word 'stoic' has come to mean 'unemotional' or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion' by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, rather they sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' which enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm.[22] Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.
Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of 'passion' was "anguish" or "suffering",[23] that is, "passively" reacting to external events — somewhat different from the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural pathe) which is normally translated as "passion", propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g. turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings resulting from correct judgment in the same way as the passions result from incorrect judgment.
The idea was to be free of suffering through apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια) or peace of mind (literally,'without passion'),[24] where peace of mind was understood in the ancient sense — being objective or having "clear judgment" and the maintenance of equanimity in the face of life's highs and lows.
For the Stoics, 'reason' meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature — the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato.
Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason which would lead to the conclusion of kindness. If they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions — unhappiness is having one's unrealistic expectations of reality go unfulfilled. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy — to examine one's own judgments and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
Yes, and also between the Dhamma and Epicureanism. Do you know this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ism#p17831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ?Stefan wrote: Wow. I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article about Stoicism and I found many similarities between it and the Dhamma.
Let it come. Let it be. Let it go.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
I think epicureanism is actually closer to BuddhismMoggalana wrote:Yes, and also between the Dhamma and Epicureanism. Do you know this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ism#p17831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ?Stefan wrote: Wow. I took a quick look at the Wikipedia article about Stoicism and I found many similarities between it and the Dhamma.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
That is my impression, too. But I don't know enough about Stoicism and Epicureanism to get to a final judgementManapa wrote: I think epicureanism is actually closer to Buddhism
If Buddhism wasn't around (i.e. non of it schools existing), I would probably also go with Secular Humanism.
Let it come. Let it be. Let it go.
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
well, Chan obviously (seeing as that is my practise).
Then probably Zen.
Then Tiantai.
Huayen
Mahamudra
Dzogchen
Madhyamika
Yogacara
If none of those existed....
I would probably be a free spirit seeker, taking my inspiration from stuff like Vedanta, Daoism and Kashmir Shaivism, probably dipping into Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross and Dionysius the Areopagite on the side.
Then probably Zen.
Then Tiantai.
Huayen
Mahamudra
Dzogchen
Madhyamika
Yogacara
If none of those existed....
I would probably be a free spirit seeker, taking my inspiration from stuff like Vedanta, Daoism and Kashmir Shaivism, probably dipping into Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross and Dionysius the Areopagite on the side.
-
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
- Location: By the River Thames near London.
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
So, if there was no Theravada you would do what you do anyway Mr. Honore...
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Bhikku Bodhi.
-
- Posts: 1285
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
- Location: Essex, UK
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
I'm fine with Theravada, thanks
- jcsuperstar
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
- Location: alaska
- Contact:
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
i had been with my teacher for 5 years before i went to Thailand. the main thrust of my conversion was i felt that the mahayana sutras as words of the Buddha wasnt historically reliableDugu wrote:How long were you in Zen? And what was it about Theravada that made you switch?jcsuperstar wrote:i started in zen, and was quite happy there, i only ended up in theravada because i had a ticket to thailand and decided to use my time there visiting and living in temples... so if no theravada then it'd still be zen
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
Does no Therevada mean no sutta-pitaka?
I would probably still do the same. Meditate and reading suttas. If there were no suttas, I would read other things and would keep on trying to "solve the problem of life".
I would probably still do the same. Meditate and reading suttas. If there were no suttas, I would read other things and would keep on trying to "solve the problem of life".
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
how is that debatable, not shareing the same interpretation as some others, and being converts to doesnt negate their belnging
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: If there was no Theravada, which tradition would you pick?
I'd be a secular humanist who meditates and has an interest in Zen.
"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus