Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Guy
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:05 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Guy »

David N. Snyder wrote:But because of that perceived perception of the differing traditions, most (the masses) go for the Mahayana (in my opinion). Which, in my opinion, is not an entirely bad thing. As a skillful means, those who are more inclined to accept Buddhism from a Mahayana practice can do so and then come to Theravada at some later time, if they so choose, rather than rejecting Buddhism completely if there were no other choice.
In my case I was hardly even aware that there was such a thing as "Mahayana" and "Theravada" Buddhism. I just listened to talks by the Dalai Lama and read his books and took him to be a pope kind of figure until one day my dad gave me a copy of "A Still Forest Pool" by Ajahn Chah and from there I learned the supposed differences between "Theravada" vs "Mahayana" and eventually started reading the Suttas. Now it is like I have come full circle and it doesn't matter to me anymore what is "Theravada" and what is "Mahayana".
Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

- Ajahn Brahm
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Kim OHara »

Hi, Guy,
I'm not sure if David was thinking of 'the masses' as the majority of Westerners who come to Buddhism or as the majority of people in traditionally Buddhist countries.
If the former, your experience is pretty typical and David is right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. As you accidentally demonstrate, Tibetan Buddhism has such a high profile (relatively speaking, of course) that one can easily not realise there is any other kind, partly because the Chinese-forced Tibetan diaspora did at least bring large numbers of Buddhist teachers into the wider world (not that that is any reason to condone the invasion).
If David meant the latter, he is still right but over a far longer timescale: whole populations gradually shifted Buddhism towards a more 'religious', devotional style and away from the more 'philosophical' style of classical Theravada. Even in Theravadin countries, the typical lay approach is, if I can put it this way without offending anyone, more faith-based than experience-based or analytically-based.

:namaste:
Kim

Edited for clarity.
User avatar
Guy
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:05 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Guy »

Hi Kim,

I don't think it is offensive at all to call someone a faith-based practitioner. Maybe us westerners who have been trained to be very skeptical of religion have a jaded perception of words like "faith" but personally I have no problem with the idea. Even though I am a westerner I would say that of the five spiritual faculties my strongest is probably Saddha.

With Metta,

Guy
Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

- Ajahn Brahm
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Annapurna »

tiltbillings wrote:I came across this from a Zen website (third msg down):
Perhaps that distinction between a genuine delight in realization of the impermanance of things and the sense that one's delight must be infused with suffering is a basic difference between the Mahayana Buddhism and the Theravada Buddhism. The Mahayana doesn't require the realization of impermanance to be shown by a dour attitude. Buddha teaches the end of suffering. What is the end of suffering if not a realization of the joyful or blissful nature of reality?
The question here is not the naughty Mahayana ignorantly characterizing the Theravada; rather, is the highlighted an accurate reflection of the Theravada? Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys, scowling at the Mahayanists who gambol about with abandon in their realizations?.
Of course clearly perceiving the entirety of reality will make you a spoilsport to anybody who is only looking at a part of reality, perhaps his own, while things run pleasantly.
Buddha teaches the end of suffering. What is the end of suffering if not a realization of the joyful or blissful nature of reality?
But is reality only of a joyful and blissful nature?

Tell somebody who's terminally ill with cancer, too weak to eat and in pain.

Tell the child that is getting raped.

Tell the waterbirds that are suffocating under oil coats, covering their skins and feathers.

Is that a blissful reality?


And this is only THIS life....

Of course this last point is irrelevant if rebirth is not accepted.

Metta,

Annapurna
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Dan74 »

I guess another comment that comes to mind from a former Theravada practitioner at ZFI (kojip) is that Theravadins strive for cessation, while Mahayanists for liberation of all beings. So a Mahayanist makes a vow to come back over and over again, while a Theravadin wants to escape this reality (as a human being) once and for all (and while doing so may indeed save a fair few beings!). So it's like people fleeing a sinking ship. One makes an effort to help everyone along the way, but once ashore, does not return and the other one keeps coming back.

Not sure if this is an accurate description and which sounds more dour and grumpy, but it does paint the two traditions in different light in this regard.

_/|\_
_/|\_
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by bodom »

Dan74 wrote:I guess another comment that comes to mind from a former Theravada practitioner at ZFI (kojip) is that Theravadins strive for cessation, while Mahayanists for liberation of all beings. So a Mahayanist makes a vow to come back over and over again, while a Theravadin wants to escape this reality (as a human being) once and for all (and while doing so may indeed save a fair few beings!). So it's like people fleeing a sinking ship. One makes an effort to help everyone along the way, but once ashore, does not return and the other one keeps coming back.

Not sure if this is an accurate description and which sounds more dour and grumpy, but it does paint the two traditions in different light in this regard.

_/|\_
Lets not forget there are Theravadins who are on the bodhisatta path practicing for Buddhahood. The bodhisatta path is by no means restricted to Mahayana and is open to Theravadins as one of three vehicles to enlightenment, as arahat, paccekabuddha and sammasambuddha.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Dan74 »

My understanding was that in Theravada there was no distinction between arahat and Buddha in terms of enlightenment, but the alleged difference I was pointing out is the vow to come back rather than pass into parinibbana (cessation), in order to be of use to others. Mahayana people tend to take this quite seriously, Ven Huifeng (Pannasikhara) can hopefully correct me if I am misrepresenting here.

(Hope Mitra Conf went well, Venerable!)
_/|\_
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by bodom »

Is Theravada Buddhism for Arahatship Only? by Ven. U Silananda
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha064.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arahants, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bodhisattva Ideal in BuddhismVen. Dr. W. Rahula
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha126.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THE BODHISATTVA IDEAL IN THERAVAADA
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jeffrey2.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The path of the Bodhisattva in Theravada Buddhism
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 63&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4528
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Dan74 »

WOW! Thanks for that, Bodom!!! :anjali:

I will give it a good read tomorrow. Now it's time for bed.

_/|\_
_/|\_
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by bodom »

Dan74 wrote:My understanding was that in Theravada there was no distinction between arahat and Buddha in terms of enlightenment, but the alleged difference I was pointing out is the vow to come back rather than pass into parinibbana (cessation), in order to be of use to others.
You are correct, the enlightenment is the same as well as the course of practice. A Theravadin on the Mahabodhiyana path will continue to put off enlightenment for the sake of all beings just as someone on the Mahayana path would.

Also see:

A Treatise on the Paramis by Acariya Dhammapala translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el409.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by bodom »

Dan74 wrote:WOW! Thanks for that, Bodom!!! :anjali:

I will give it a good read tomorrow. Now it's time for bed.

_/|\_
You are quite welcome Dan. This topic has been one that has long interested me.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by DNS »

Kim O'Hara wrote: I'm not sure if David was thinking of 'the masses' as the majority of Westerners who come to Buddhism or as the majority of people in traditionally Buddhist countries.
Actually, both. I didn't mention it in my previous post, because I don't recall the exact source, but there is a scholarly, historical book where the author (perhaps Gombrich?) suggests that Buddhism may not have become this popular (as it is today) were it not for the Mahayana. This is because the masses in Asia 1,000 to 2,000 years ago needed a more devotional aspect to Buddhism and not one that is so analytical.

And today, in the West many are drawn to the Dalai Lama as you say and also the beautiful mandalas, the statues, the yab-yum images, the poetry, the arts, the infusion of the arts is more closely associated with Zen and Mahayana then it appears to be with Theravada. Also, for some, there is an attraction to the para-military type training of Zen with the Dharma combat, koans, the kyosaku (stick), etc.

And then in Theravada we have no drinking, no sex (at retreats), not much emphasis on the arts, no singing or dancing (at retreats), and lots of renunciation. But of course there is the happiness and joy that comes from non-attachment, but as I mentioned before, for those not advanced in the Dhamma / Dharma, this can be hard to see.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by christopher::: »

David N. Snyder wrote: And then in Theravada we have no drinking, no sex (at retreats), not much emphasis on the arts, no singing or dancing (at retreats), and lots of renunciation. But of course there is the happiness and joy that comes from non-attachment, but as I mentioned before, for those not advanced in the Dhamma / Dharma, this can be hard to see.
Also less sex-with-student scandals and stories of alcoholism in regards to prominent teachers.

I dunno. The neighbor's grass is often greener, in our minds.

:heart:
"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
User avatar
Guy
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:05 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Guy »

Sorry all for going off-topic but...
bodom wrote: Lets not forget there are Theravadins who are on the bodhisatta path practicing for Buddhahood. The bodhisatta path is by no means restricted to Mahayana and is open to Theravadins as one of three vehicles to enlightenment, as arahat, paccekabuddha and sammasambuddha.
..As an aside, does anyone know of anybody who is consciously striving to become a Pacceka Buddha?
Four types of letting go:

1) Giving; expecting nothing back in return
2) Throwing things away
3) Contentment; wanting to be here, not wanting to be anywhere else
4) "Teflon Mind"; having a mind which doesn't accumulate things

- Ajahn Brahm
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Are we a bunch of sour, grim killjoys?

Post by Goofaholix »

David N. Snyder wrote:Actually, both. I didn't mention it in my previous post, because I don't recall the exact source, but there is a scholarly, historical book where the author (perhaps Gombrich?) suggests that Buddhism may not have become this popular (as it is today) were it not for the Mahayana. This is because the masses in Asia 1,000 to 2,000 years ago needed a more devotional aspect to Buddhism and not one that is so analytical.
What might be of interest, I've read a little bit about the history of Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia (though it was a while ago and I may be mixing things up).

In all three countries Mahayana Buddhism and/or Hinduism came first, the reason Theravada Buddhism became the prevailing religion is that those who brought Theravada Buddhism from Sri Lanka targeted the rulers and the country converted from the top down.

Not sure what conclusions to draw from that. Even today though you see elements of Mahayana Buddhism, Hinduism, and Animism in the local practice.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Post Reply