As above. Hope to read some intro or basic of the different types/traditions of Buddhism (excluding Mahayana). Hope not too long for reading.
Thanks.
Just curious, why excludes Mahayana ?
Originally posted by Fantagf:As above. Hope to read some intro or basic of the different types/traditions of Buddhism (excluding Mahayana). Hope not too long for reading.
Thanks.
There is a very good book titled "The Buddha and his teachings - by Ven Narada". I got a hardcopy of this book.
The link can be found here
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/budtch/budteach00.htm
The book talks about historical Buddha and his teachings to his contemporaries, from birth to his Enlightenment, to his Parinibbana (death) from Theravada point of view. It's really a good read, a bit deep.
If you prefer a lighter material, you can the works of Ven Dhammananda which is widely available on the net.
i ever read a simple and thin book on Life of Buddha - written very beautifully by a Japanese writer...that makes the Buddha a real living human and not just scriptures here and there....
The one paragraph i recalled vividly was the moment (after enlightenment) when Buddha rushed back to see his dying father....he eventually shed tears on his father's feet (away from visibility of his disciples)...while his wife hid in her room crying with their only son..pointing out of the window saying: "Son, go and greet your father"...and her little son asked:"Mother, please go with me together"..and she replied:" No, son, you go...for your father is now the enlightened one..i cannot show my emotions to him before his disciples.."
This is the nearest human account of the life of Buddha....
After Buddha enter paranibbana, Buddhism was slowly developed into two main schools: Theravada & Mahayana but eventually all schools of Buddhism taught the same thing - Both taught about the four noble truth and the noble eightfold path etc.
Originally posted by Isis:After Buddha enter paranibbana, Buddhism was slowly developed into two main schools: Theravada & Mahayana but eventually all schools of Buddhism taught the same thing - Both taught about the four noble truth and the noble eightfold path etc.
Did Buddha forsaw the split into Theravada and Mahayana schools after his death? since he is omniscience, surely he would have known about this isnt it. did he utter any words on the split?
personally, i believe Buddhism is best understood to gain surprising insights from human accounts and perspectives than pure readings of only his teachings....
i think that is more rewarding....
Originally posted by Rooney9:Did Buddha forsaw the split into Theravada and Mahayana schools after his death? since he is omniscience, surely he would have known about this isnt it. did he utter any words on the split?
Of course Rooney,
His Final Words already tells us all
"Subject to change is all thing,Strive on with dilligence"
Doesnt need any lengthy sutra , the words is very clear to me
Originally posted by Weychin:
Thanks. Will go and read. I have gone to the www.accesstoinsigh ....... pretty good.
Originally posted by Fantagf:As above. Hope to read some intro or basic of the different types/traditions of Buddhism (excluding Mahayana). Hope not too long for reading.
Thanks.
You have to be more precise.
What school of Mahayana are you excluding? There is all kinds of schools in Mahayana Buddhism. Zen, Pure Land, Tien Tai, Hua Yen, Esoteric, etc.
Tibetan/Vajrayana Buddhism is also considered Mahayana.
Basically: all traditions apart from Theravada is Mahayana Buddhism.
Since only Theravada Buddhism is the non-Mahayana school of Buddhism, how can you ask about 'different types/traditions of Buddhism excluding Mahayana'? There is only Theravada outside Mahayana.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You have to be more precise.
What school of Mahayana are you excluding? There is all kinds of schools in Mahayana Buddhism. Zen, Pure Land, Tien Tai, Hua Yen, Esoteric, etc.
Tibetan/Vajrayana Buddhism is also considered Mahayana.
Basically: all traditions apart from Theravada is Mahayana Buddhism.
Since only Theravada Buddhism is the non-Mahayana school of Buddhism, how can you ask about 'different types/traditions of Buddhism excluding Mahayana'? There is only Theravada outside Mahayana.
Please don't blame me as I am not a buddhist and don't know that it is so complicated. I am just finding out more about buddhism. mo ming qi miao!
Originally posted by Fantagf:Please don't blame me as I am not a buddhist and don't know that it is so complicated. I am just finding out more about buddhism. mo ming qi miao!
I see. Then I suggest you be open to the different traditions including Mahayana, find out what they are about first before making your decision.
I highly recommend starting out with some introductory Buddhist materials, please do check out
What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada by Walpola Rahula
Available in many major bookstores. These introductory books covers what is fundamental to all traditions of Buddhism.
Also recommendable is Buddhism Plain and Simple by Steve Hagen and The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. Mindfulness in Plain English, Updated and Expanded Edition by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana is highly recommended for beginners on Meditation.
If you are looking for very short articles on the various schools of Buddhism, check out http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/u/historymajorschools.htm
Some articles worth reading by Dr Tan Kheng Khoo -
35. A Touch of Zen.
Originally posted by Rooney9:Did Buddha forsaw the split into Theravada and Mahayana schools after his death? since he is omniscience, surely he would have known about this isnt it. did he utter any words on the split?
Personally, it does not matter to me whether he had forsee the split or not.
Excerpts from Ajahn Chah Dhamma talk...
Ditthi-mana is a harmful thing. Ditthi means "view" or "opinion". All forms of view are called ditthi; seeing good as evil, seeing evil as good... any way whatsoever that we see things. This is not the problem. The problem lies with the clinging to those views, called mana; holding on to those views as if there were the truth. This leads us to spin around from birth to death, never reaching completion, just because of that clinging. So the Buddha urged us to let go of views.
If many people live together, as we do here, they can still practise comfortably if their views are in harmony. But even two or three monks would have difficulty if their views were not good or harmonious. When we humble ourselves and let go of our views, even if there are many of us, we come together at the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha ( the Monastic Order, or those who have realised the Dhamma).
It is not true that there will be disharmony just because there are many of us. Just look at millipede. A millipede has many legs, doesn't it? Just looking at it you'd think it would have difficulty walking, but actually it doesn't. It has its own order and rhythm. In our practice it's the same. If we practise as the Noble Sangha of the Buddha practised, then it's easy. That is supatipanno - those who practise well; ujupatipanno - those who practise straightly nayapatipanno - those who practise to transcend suffering, and samicipatipanno- those who practise properly. These four qualities, established within us, will make us true members of the Sangha. Even if we number in the hundreds or thousands, no matter how many we are, we all travel the same path. We come from different backgrounds, but we are the same.
Even though our views may differ, if we practise correctly there will be no friction. Just like all the rivers and streams which flow to the sea...once they enter the sea they all have the same taste and colour. It's the same with people. When they enter the stream of Dhamma, it's the one Dhamma. Even though they come from different places, they harmonise, they merge. But the thinking which causes all the disputes and conflict is ditthi-mana. Therefore the Buddha taught us to let go of views. Don't allow mana to cling to those views beyond their relevance.
Dharma appears in diversity, yet having the same taste of liberation.