What are the diff's b/t Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism?

Question

Thx in advance!

Freestyle: because this hijabi loves to have knowledge of the world and everyone in it.

Answer 1

The way I see it is that the two traditions are complimentary. It is not a case of EITHER OR. It is a case of a CONTINUUM. We start of with the beginning - the roots (Theravada) and then continue up the trunk into the branches, leaves and flowers ( Mahayana). So the two Traditions can benefit us quite a lot if we have an open mind. If our roots are not strong and well placed (i.e.our knowledge of the Theravadan Teachings is shallow and weak) no way we can grow upwards to benefit from the leaves and flowers. Master Chin Kung gave this example to his Mahayana audience. He told them everyone is busy building high rise buildings. They forgot to build strong foundations and straight away wanted to build the 3rd-10th floor…would those floors tumble down..for sure they will! Likewise it is the case with learning these two traditions. That is one of the reasons why, so many people are quite confused over the issue.

To really comprehend the teachings of Mahayana, one needs to get the concept of the Three Bodies of the Buddha in perspective, Dhammakaya, Sambodhakaya and Nirmanakaya. If not, then it will cause confusion. Why not do a search and see what you can find.

Answer 2

Ah the great vessel and the lesser vessel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html

I see many pages that claim that only mahayana allows ANY individual to become enlightened, but the thereavada seem to believe that too, not sure why such a discrepancy. Makes me think that there's not a whole lot of difference actually:

"There are also some points where they differ. An obvious one is the Bodhisattva ideal. Many people say that Mahayana is for the Bodhisattvahood which leads to Buddhahood while Theravada is for Arahantship. I must point out that the Buddha was also an Arahant. Pacceka Buddha is also an Arahant. A disciple can also be an Arahant. The Mahayana texts never use the term Arahant-yana, Arahant Vehicle. They used three terms: Bodhisattvayana, Prateka-Buddhayana, and Sravakayana. In the Theravada tradition these three are called Bodhis.

Some people imagine that Theravada is selfish because it teaches that people should seek their own salvation. But how can a selfish person gain Enlightenment? Both schools accept the three Yanas or Bodhis but consider the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest. The Mahayana has created many mystical Bodhisattvas while the Theravada considers a Bodhisattva as a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, ultimately becoming a fully Enlightened Buddha for the welfare of the world, for the happiness of the world."

Answer 3

Theravada, which is generally practiced only in countries like Sri Lanka, etc. is considered "Hinayana" Buddhism and is one of the earliest forms of teachings that the Buddha taught and guidlines for practice. Mahayana, which is often referred to as the "greater vehicle" as someone in here put, albeit correctly, doesn't mean that one is "lesser" in some form of "greatness" or such and the other is "better"... what it's referring to is LEVELS of teachings or, again, guidlines for practice.

The Buddha taught his philosophical understandings to people in ways which they could understand, kind of like Mohammed's gift for teaching to the people so they could understand, using allegories, etc. and Mahayana takes his teachings to a different level of "depth". It's like different levels of ANY college course, for example... one has a prerequisite to the other to understanding the upper level? Anyway, all teachings of the Buddha have relevance and EQUAL value and no one teaching is better than the other... having said THAT... there are varying depths to his teachings.

Hinayana Buddhism deals mostly with the basic guidlines for practice to achieve enlightenment (mainly for one's self, but not "selfish"), and Mahayana incorporates the more in-depth "stuff" like bodhicitta (altruistic intention) being a need to getting to enlightenment along WITH the more basic concepts (as those taught in Hinayana) of wisdom. It's deeper understanding of the texts that emerged later.

All have relevance, all will get you to enlightenment, it's just one of those things, like I always say, "that which works for YOU the individual"... what you can understand and of course the bells and smells of the cultural trappings are a reel-in for some too, which ISN'T Buddhism but some people, by their nature get stuck in it.

You can find lots of good info as an overview, if you're interested in understanding us better at www.buddhanet.net or run a search. FPMT is the "foundation for the preservation of the Mahayana Tradition"... etc. Also the books from "complete Idiot's Guides" and the "For Dummies" guides both have a good overview on Buddhism if you want to take a peek through books.

Hope this helps some!

_()_

Answer 4

why would a hijabi want to know this????

Answer 5

No difference they are both nonsense.