Theravada Or Mahayana?

[Xangsamhua]

I have the impression that Mahayana is the preferred vehicle for western people studying Buddhist teaching.

I also have the impression that westerners are less likely to come to Thailand to study or be ordained in the Theravada tradition than they did nearly 40 years ago when I first came this way.

Is there anything in my impressions? Are they accurate, and if so, why?

My wife, a lifelong Buddhist in the Theravada tradition, is showing an active interest in Mahayana now, reading books and checking a lot of websites. That's why I've been thinking about this.

[lannarebirth]

I have the impression that Mahayana is the preferred vehicle for western people studying Buddhist teaching.

I also have the impression that westerners are less likely to come to Thailand to study or be ordained in the Theravada tradition than they did nearly 40 years ago when I first came this way.

Is there anything in my impressions? Are they accurate, and if so, why?

My wife, a lifelong Buddhist in the Theravada tradition, is showing an active interest in Mahayana now, reading books and checking a lot of websites. That's why I've been thinking about this.

I'm not sure if there is anything in your impressions, but I would say they mirror my own impressions.

I think Mahayana may have an appeal to westerners that have dabbled in "new age" religion. It has mystical elements not found in Theravada Buddhism, and might "amaze" them. Additionally I think social "activists" find Mahayana more welcoming, where Theravada tends to focus more on liberation from self. I've got some more thoughts on this, but I'm not sure they're constructive.

[garro]

I became interested in Buddhism during my teens. My first contact came through martial arts, and it was Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. As far as I'm aware, in Ireland at the time, Mahayana was the only show in town. I think quite a few people became involved in Buddhism through martial arts. I had heard about Theravada, of course, but it wasn't until I came to Thailand that I had any contact with it.

[jumnien]

Theravada appeals to me far more; though Mahayana does seem to satisfy my inner Catholic sensibilities.

[CuriousGeorge77]

For my part,  I started off headed toward Mahayana - its was I was exposed to first,  but more and more I'm leaning towards Theravada.   I don't know if I will ever "fully commit" to either one (any anything at all!)  but if I had to choose one these days it would be Theravada.  

That being said,  I have no iompression one way or the other as to which is more prevalent these days,  however,  I would expect that they are both becoming more and more popular,  and also I could go along with your observation that Mahayana is mroe popular than Theravada.  That makes sense to me (although I disagree)

[orchis]

Theravada here. I liked it austere.

[Austhaied]

I take what i like and leave the rest in all forms of Dhamma teachings and Buddhism.

Kind of a "mix and match" of all of them.

Theravada seems more down to earth to me, and keeps things fairly simple. Mahayana seems to go off on many tangents that seem to lead back to basics anyway, so i don't see the point. Each to their own.

I'm getting into a bit of Zen as well lately.

They all have something to offer to the student that is ready to listen.

[Brucenkhamen]

I agree that Mahayana (assuming you include Vajrayana) appeals more to the new agey and social activist types, which makes it more visible.

I'm not sure what the proportion of Theravada to Mahayana in the West is, it probably depends on where you live.

One thing to consider is that the two most popular Mahayana traditions, Zen and Tibetan (actually probably the others too) have come to the West as religions and with most of their religious trappings intact.

Wheras several Theravadin based traditions have shed the religious aspects of the practice, for example the Insight Meditation Society, Goenka, and the Stress Reduction Clinic and the Center for Mindfulness. So in effect this makes Theravada less visible in the West despite the fact that these teaching schools are thriving.

[Xangsamhua]

I hadn't thought of a connection between Mahayana and New Age, as lannarebirth and Brucenkhamen have suggested; however, I see that The Secret, which seems new agey from what I've gathered, seems to have taken the idea "All that we are is the result of what we have thought", attributed to the Buddha, and debased it via an earlier "Law of Attraction" to make it a vehicle for material and egotistic acquisition. The idea is that, if you think you can afford a BMW, you'll get one; if you tell yourself you deserve a promotion, lo and behold, it'll come your way. You can become a "money magnet"!

Maybe I'm not being fair, as I've not read the book (or seen the movie, or bought the T-shirt), but that's what it seems to be from reviews I've read. It's all about acquisition and the glorification of the self. I suppose if one attaches oneself to Mahayana with a view to being more intelligent, insightful, competent and admired, that would be a New Age approach. I gather, though, there's nothing in The Secret about compassion for others and all beings, so someone that goes for The Secret's ethos would find the boddhisattva ideal unattractive, wouldn't they?

[RY12]

That's interesting that your wife is reading up on the mahayana xangsamhua, can I assume from your flag that she's Lao or Isaan-Lao? I'd be lucky to get my girl to read anything buddhist, she seems quite content to have her shrine with isaan, hindu, chinese, and thai idols on it while she prays to whatever animist spirits inhabit her exiting world .

I actually prefer her approach, since it is really more authentically thai than anything else, and i have a disposition to view any attempt by foreigners, or thais for that matter, to revive puritanical theravada or mahayanist forms as somewhat artificial... but that's just the view of a cynical american! I actual don't think most philosophy historians would see a tangible difference between the mahayana and theravada; the mahayana, in terms of pure doctrine, is really just a clearer and more personal articulation of the aspects of the enlightenment experience (especially as in Zen, which contains personal sentiments most theravadans would decline to touch). the difference between the schools that attract foreigners are the cultural and societal differences, like, as someone said, social activism's higher presence in the mahayana, or something as base as the mahayana's propensity for prettier robes! there is all that stuff in the mahayana about bodhisatvas and stuff, but that's quite tangential to any real, philosophical differences with the way of the elders. just my humble opinion.

[unomi]

I am not well versed with buddhist script, but from my understanding theraveda has more of the hindu caste flavour to it, whereby there is only so far one can progress in a lifespan. Which also carries over to how people of different statures are viewed.

Theraveda seems to aid rationalization and accept of class and caste, while Mahayana is somewhat more egalitarian.

I take it that the comments on catholism reflect Ratzingers stance on social activism as exemplified by the expulsion of priests in brazil working for social equality?

[Brucenkhamen]

I am not well versed with buddhist script, but from my understanding theraveda has more of the hindu caste flavour to it, whereby there is only so far one can progress in a lifespan. Which also carries over to how people of different statures are viewed.

Theraveda seems to aid rationalization and accept of class and caste, while Mahayana is somewhat more egalitarian.

Clearly you are not well versed with buddhist script as you say. So the question is where did you get such ideas about Theravada?

While I know from the outside looking in the mendicant monkhood as we know it today can look like some sort of spiritual elitism I don't think the Buddha would debunk the caste system of the time just to replace it with another of his own. The ideal of Theravadin is that it is possible for anybody to be free of suffering in this lifetime.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[Austhaied]

I am not well versed with buddhist script, but from my understanding theraveda has more of the hindu caste flavour to it, whereby there is only so far one can progress in a lifespan. Which also carries over to how people of different statures are viewed.

Theraveda seems to aid rationalization and accept of class and caste, while Mahayana is somewhat more egalitarian.

Clearly you are not well versed with buddhist script as you say. So the question is where did you get such ideas about Theravada?

While I know from the outside looking in the mendicant monkhood as we know it today can look like some sort of spiritual elitism I don't think the Buddha would debunk the caste system of the time just to replace it with another of his own. The ideal of Theravadin is that it is possible for anybody to be free of suffering in this lifetime.

They are all just different maps to the same destination...The Void / Nirvana / Enlightenment / Buddhahood, whatever tag you want to pin on it..

[sabaijai]

Mahayana is more popular in general, across all cultures. Much easier to be a bodhisattva than a buddha

But like Kenneth Patchen wrote, "Greater vehicle, lesser vehicle, all vehicles will be towed at owner's expense."

[meatball]

My family is of Mahayana Buddhism, but I prefer Thereveda Buddhism...

Actually Thereveda Buddhism in Thailand incorporated Hindu beliefs into it where as Chinese Mahayana style incorporated some Taoism beliefs into it..

Depends on what style, u prefered. But Buddhism is still the same, with its core essence. The 5 precepts etc.

I think lotsa Westerners are attracted to the Tibetan style of Buddhism (Vajrayana);

Some ppl classify Buddhism into 3 styles, Thereveda, Mahayana and Vajrayana. Some classify into 2 styles, Thereveda and Mahayana (Vajrayana included into Mahayana).

Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayana) incorporated Bon religious belief into it. The famous icon for Vajrayana is Dalai Lama.

I dun have exposure to Vajrayana yet, what I know abt them is from what I read in books and online.

However, from my exposure to Mahayana and Thereveda, I found that Thai Buddhism style (Thereveda) which incorporated some Hindu and Animist beliefs are more mystical or magical.. In that, quite some Ajahns and Luang Phors in Thailand are able to or have the ability of magic where as for Mahayana monks that I came across till now, none of them are versed in magic.

[mizzi39]

I would assume that most people who practice Buddhism in the west adopt a hybrid (me included), both Theravada and Mahayana with an emphasis on Zen practice.

A large part of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism mirrors Christianity in many respects and its practice is based on religious beliefs, which include ceremonies, superstitions, and conformity.

Although Zen may be part of Mahayana, its practice is based on philosophy, therefore it is not categorized as a religion. Even many book stores will separate Zen writings from other (religious) books on Buddhism.

I do not feel that anyone has to conform to a certain "style' of Buddhism to achieve a Buddha mind and Buddha heart. A person should use what works for them personally, and ignore what doesn't.

The Buddha certainly was not a conformist, and people who follow in his footsteps should not be conformists either, but hey to each is own.

My wife is Thai, and therefore practices Thai Buddhism. My son is half Thai and will be raised with Buddhist principles, but like I stated in another post, there will be no emphasis placed on animism.

What is Thai Buddhism anyway? Is it really Theravada, or is it its own unique hybrid.

Edited September 23, 2008 by mizzi39

[Genghis]

Some of it is for historical reasons. Theravada was introduced to Europe, esp Britian, through colonialism first. America encountered Mahayana first, through East Asian immigrants. In academia, this distinction continues to exist-- the UK is a hotbed of Theravada scholarship, while the US has a far greater number of Mahayana, and more recently, Vajrayana scholars.

In my country, America, Vajrayana seems to be by far the most popular. Such may be the result from the visibility of the Dalai Lama and the trendy status Vajrayana has acquired. A Theravada monk and professor once asked me why Vaj was so much more popular than Ther in the US, and I replied "Everyone in America knows who the Dalai Lama is. I don't know a single American that knows who the Sangharaja of Thailand is." Vajrayanists have done a fantastic marketing job in my country.

[bankei]

I think in many 'western' countries it is Tibetan Buddhism that is the most popular. If you look at a list of Buddhist organisations in Australia for example, you will probably find more Tibetan than anything else. It seems most of the practitioners are western too - with there being few Tibetan immigrants. Tibetan Buddhism is also getting popular in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and even in Thailand. And look at all the so called Buddhist hollywood actors - most of them claim to be Tibetan Buddhists - Segal, Gere etc. I haven't heard of any star with an interest in Theravada. Any bookshop selling Buddhist books in the west would have more Tibetan type books than others.

Zen also seems popular - lots of Books too. Chinese Mahayana seems to only appeal to ethnic Chinese - mostly.

I think in the city i live in, Sydney, there are probably more Theravadin temples than any other. These are mostly used by ethnic groups for cultural purposes. There are a few Western Theravadin monks, but they don't seem too keen on the 'tham bun' aspects of the popular religion.

The Tibetan groups don't really have temples, they have 'centers' - run courses etc.

[Genghis]

I think in the city i live in, Sydney, there are probably more Theravadin temples than any other. These are mostly used by ethnic groups for cultural purposes. There are a few Western Theravadin monks, but they don't seem too keen on the 'tham bun' aspects of the popular religion.

I think that's partially due to Graeme Lyle, one of the founders of the first Buddhist group in Sydney and a Theravadin. He's still around in Sydney (working at u of sydney) and a great guy to get to know, so I've heard. He organized the Vesak celebrations there a couple of years ago. I think he's still doing it.

[Groongthep]

Theravada Or Mahayana?, Which is preferred among Westerners?

I find this question interesting not so much for what it asks but for how it is phrased. "Which is preferred among Westerners?" gives the impression that one is talking about a leisure time activity or a popular trend rather than a spiritual path. It seems akin to asking " Suni or Shia? Which is preferred among Peruvians?" or " Protestant or Catholic? Which is preferred among Chinese?" I don't think "preference" has anything to do with searching for truth. One should seek truth wherever truth may be. If popularity has anything to do with why someone would follow a Mahayanan path over a Theravadin path or vice versa then that person really needs to re-evaluate their motivation for following any path at all.

[sabaijai]

Theravada Or Mahayana?, Which is preferred among Westerners?

I find this question interesting not so much for what it asks but for how it is phrased. "Which is preferred among Westerners?" gives the impression that one is talking about a leisure time activity or a popular trend rather than a spiritual path. It seems akin to asking " Suni or Shia? Which is preferred among Peruvians?" or " Protestant or Catholic? Which is preferred among Chinese?" I don't think "preference" has anything to do with searching for truth. One should seek truth wherever truth may be. If popularity has anything to do with why someone would follow a Mahayanan path over a Theravadin path or vice versa then that person really needs to re-evaluate their motivation for following any path at all.

Alan Watts, in his essay 'The Supreme Identity', argued very convincingly that for most people choice of religion came down to following what their parents believed. But for those who chose differently, it was largely a matter of aesthetics, ie, which trappings appealed to them most, regardless of the philosophical claims they might make. It would be difficult to quantitatively test this theory, obviously, but it somehow rings true when I watch how Buddhist-inclined westerners become enraptured with this or that sect.

[Brucenkhamen]

I find this question interesting not so much for what it asks but for how it is phrased. "Which is preferred among Westerners?" gives the impression that one is talking about a leisure time activity or a popular trend rather than a spiritual path. It seems akin to asking " Suni or Shia? Which is preferred among Peruvians?" or " Protestant or Catholic? Which is preferred among Chinese?" I don't think "preference" has anything to do with searching for truth. One should seek truth wherever truth may be. If popularity has anything to do with why someone would follow a Mahayanan path over a Theravadin path or vice versa then that person really needs to re-evaluate their motivation for following any path at all.

For that to be a valid point one sect would have to be true and the rest wrong.

Most people see different Buddhist sects as different ways to the same destination, so as Sabajai points out deciding between them becomes more a matter of personal preference, aesthetics, or style.

[Groongthep]

I find this question interesting not so much for what it asks but for how it is phrased. "Which is preferred among Westerners?" gives the impression that one is talking about a leisure time activity or a popular trend rather than a spiritual path. It seems akin to asking " Suni or Shia? Which is preferred among Peruvians?" or " Protestant or Catholic? Which is preferred among Chinese?" I don't think "preference" has anything to do with searching for truth. One should seek truth wherever truth may be. If popularity has anything to do with why someone would follow a Mahayanan path over a Theravadin path or vice versa then that person really needs to re-evaluate their motivation for following any path at all.

For that to be a valid point one sect would have to be true and the rest wrong.

Most people see different Buddhist sects as different ways to the same destination, so as Sabajai points out deciding between them becomes more a matter of personal preference, aesthetics, or style.

That any one sect is true and the rest wrong was not the point I was trying to make. I agree that the different sects teach different paths to the same destination, but the Buddha said that we don't have to believe anything he said just because he said it. That would hold true for the teachings of the different sects as well. He said we should, by means of the eightfold path and in particular meditation, find out on our own what the truth is. To me that means that as spiritual seekers of enlightenment (or God or truth or whatever term you wish to use) one should look at the teachings of all sects and religions as well as our own insights and follow our own path to that destination based on our own investigation. To ask the question "What do westerners prefer? Mahayana or Therevada? seems to me to imply that a choice has to be made. It doesn't. When, as Sabaijai noted, some Buddhist-inclined westerners become enraptured with this or that sect based on aesthetics or style or (as I have seen in a few westerners) because they feel one sect is more currently popular or "cool" it misses the point altogether and becomes rather shallow.

[Samuian]

, "Greater vehicle, lesser vehicle, all vehicles will be towed at owner's expense."

Quote of the Millennium!

This concept of Schools, branches has degraded into "which Club you're with?" thing... and thus doesn't help much to liberate the self, but to entangled it even further in the net of delsusion!

The Gautama supposed to have said: "na itti, na itti"! Not this, nor that! and always supposed to have pointed "check it out yourself, be critical, if you meet me, kill me!"

Edited October 22, 2008 by Samuian

[sabaijai]

I find this question interesting not so much for what it asks but for how it is phrased. "Which is preferred among Westerners?" gives the impression that one is talking about a leisure time activity or a popular trend rather than a spiritual path. It seems akin to asking " Suni or Shia? Which is preferred among Peruvians?" or " Protestant or Catholic? Which is preferred among Chinese?" I don't think "preference" has anything to do with searching for truth. One should seek truth wherever truth may be. If popularity has anything to do with why someone would follow a Mahayanan path over a Theravadin path or vice versa then that person really needs to re-evaluate their motivation for following any path at all.

For that to be a valid point one sect would have to be true and the rest wrong.

Most people see different Buddhist sects as different ways to the same destination, so as Sabajai points out deciding between them becomes more a matter of personal preference, aesthetics, or style.

That any one sect is true and the rest wrong was not the point I was trying to make. I agree that the different sects teach different paths to the same destination, but the Buddha said that we don't have to believe anything he said just because he said it. That would hold true for the teachings of the different sects as well. He said we should, by means of the eightfold path and in particular meditation, find out on our own what the truth is. To me that means that as spiritual seekers of enlightenment (or God or truth or whatever term you wish to use) one should look at the teachings of all sects and religions as well as our own insights and follow our own path to that destination based on our own investigation. To ask the question "What do westerners prefer? Mahayana or Therevada? seems to me to imply that a choice has to be made. It doesn't. When, as Sabaijai noted, some Buddhist-inclined westerners become enraptured with this or that sect based on aesthetics or style or (as I have seen in a few westerners) because they feel one sect is more currently popular or "cool" it misses the point altogether and becomes rather shallow.

That wasn't quite Watts' point. As I recall, he meant that although we may profess a preference according to philosophical differences, beneath the surface it's more of an aesthetic choice than a philosophical or ethical one. One might go a step further and say philosophical preferences may somehow be linked to aesthetic judgments. Shallow? Absolutely. But Watts might challenge the 'deep' thinker to prove otherwise.

[Groongthep]

I find this question interesting not so much for what it asks but for how it is phrased. "Which is preferred among Westerners?" gives the impression that one is talking about a leisure time activity or a popular trend rather than a spiritual path. It seems akin to asking " Suni or Shia? Which is preferred among Peruvians?" or " Protestant or Catholic? Which is preferred among Chinese?" I don't think "preference" has anything to do with searching for truth. One should seek truth wherever truth may be. If popularity has anything to do with why someone would follow a Mahayanan path over a Theravadin path or vice versa then that person really needs to re-evaluate their motivation for following any path at all.

For that to be a valid point one sect would have to be true and the rest wrong.

Most people see different Buddhist sects as different ways to the same destination, so as Sabajai points out deciding between them becomes more a matter of personal preference, aesthetics, or style.

That any one sect is true and the rest wrong was not the point I was trying to make. I agree that the different sects teach different paths to the same destination, but the Buddha said that we don't have to believe anything he said just because he said it. That would hold true for the teachings of the different sects as well. He said we should, by means of the eightfold path and in particular meditation, find out on our own what the truth is. To me that means that as spiritual seekers of enlightenment (or God or truth or whatever term you wish to use) one should look at the teachings of all sects and religions as well as our own insights and follow our own path to that destination based on our own investigation. To ask the question "What do westerners prefer? Mahayana or Therevada? seems to me to imply that a choice has to be made. It doesn't. When, as Sabaijai noted, some Buddhist-inclined westerners become enraptured with this or that sect based on aesthetics or style or (as I have seen in a few westerners) because they feel one sect is more currently popular or "cool" it misses the point altogether and becomes rather shallow.

That wasn't quite Watts' point. As I recall, he meant that although we may profess a preference according to philosophical differences, beneath the surface it's more of an aesthetic choice than a philosophical or ethical one. One might go a step further and say philosophical preferences may somehow be linked to aesthetic judgments. Shallow? Absolutely. But Watts might challenge the 'deep' thinker to prove otherwise.

Although I find philosophical discussions interesting it would be rather pretentious of me to describe myself as a “deep” thinker and I don’t think I would be up to the task of addressing a hypothetical question from Allen Watts as to whether philosophical points of view are derived from one’s aesthetic preferences or whether one’s aesthetic preferences are derived from one’s philosophical point of view. Besides, it strays somewhat from the more specific original question of which school of thought do westerners tend to prefer; Mahayana or Therevada? My point was that that ascribing to any one particular sect really doesn’t make that much difference as progress along the path is determined more by right thought, right effort, right concentration and right action than by any choice of style or aesthetic. I am by no means trying to imply that there is anything wrong with being a member of a Tibetan school, a Thai Therevadin school, a Zen school or whatever school because as Brucenkhamen said most people see them (correctly, I believe) as simply different ways to the same destination. I do feel however, that it is important not to get too caught up in the trappings and dogma of any one sect or religion because, as history has shown us time and again that can lead to many problems. Similarly, as I mentioned in my post above, I have observed some westerners chose one school of Buddhism over another on what appeared to be the basis of that school being the trendy “flavor of the day”. These people often tend to link their membership in these particular sects to certain political causes as well. I don’t claim to be smart enough to determine if this linking of Buddhism to politics is good or bad and I’m sure there have been many other threads on this subject.

I believe that westerners who have not been brought up in Buddhist families and hence have not been so constrained by family or culture to follow the teachings of any one particular Buddhist sect are in some ways more fortunate than many Asians in that they can more easily investigate the teachings of all sects and religions and determine for themselves the way most suited to their own nature as I believe the Buddha suggested we do. If I remember right it was in his last sermon when he said, “Be a light unto yourself”.

[camerata]

One thing I've noticed with quite a few Westerners getting into Buddhism is that they are looking for a spiritual community to be part of. They don't care much which flavour of Buddhism it is as long as it is near their home and offers some community activities for lay persons. Perhaps this is why SGI is so popular in the USA - plenty of group chanting.