So, is there a primer?

[Ruby the Liberal]

Grantcart piqued my interest in a hilarious post talking about the differences in belief about meditation and schools of thought that he called the 'Buddhist War'. This is way out of context, but I kept is as I found it both amusing and informational. I can dig up the link for the context as it was not a slam, but a positive commentary on Big Tent mindsets.

As everyone knows Buddhists are unreleting contentious doctrinaire nitpickers of theological exactness and it will not be long before they will devolve into an unending Buddhist war between the Theravada ("The School of the Elders" ) and Mahayana ("The Great Vehicle" ) Buddhists, and on cue the Zen Buddhists will get pissy and pout.

So, does anyone have a primer about these distinguished paths?

[oxymoron]

1. I can't imagine using Buddhist and War in the same sentence.

I have seen a great deal of respect between the traditions. Yes, there are people, as there are everywhere, that feel theirs is the only correct path. I personally haven't seen a lot of it lately. This group is completely non-sectarian, so there won't be any so-called Buddhist Wars here. I find that term ironic, because Buddhism is the only major religion that hasn't started any real wars.

Buddhism has a rich history of integrating into the various cultures where it is found, so there are many different flavors.

I guess Buddhanet would be a good place to start, if you are looking for a primer. http://buddhanet.net/

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Thanks!

Why I found it funny, from the irony meter perspective - and please do note that I picked that sentence WAY WAY out of context in a conversation about Democratic Big Tent mentality (at the end of the day, we are all on the same side).

Thanks for the link! It is supposed to be really nasty here tomorrow, and that will give me some nice, quiet reading.

[ellisonz]

3. "at the end of the day, we are all on the same side"

I couldn't agree more - this is the only true attachment, and it is no real attachment at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

[MH1]

4. I would start with wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

I don't consider myself on a 'path'. I consider myself quasi-Buddhist/Christian, so not exactly 'Buddhist' in the formal sense. More that I see a high value in the philosophy, and occasionally delve into the writings of various well-known thinkers and teachers.

Before going into paths, the beauty of Buddhism (to me) is that it can be summed up in 12 simple concepts: The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. It is what the various paths/traditions/schools do with these that differentiate them, I think. But just by reading and contemplating on these 12 points, you may find that the world and your way of approaching it will make more sense.

(I've seen better (more elegant) expressions of the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path than is in wikipedia, but that is a nice genericized version, and fine for a starting point. As with anything else, Wikipedia is only for starting. You never know who might have vandalized something the second before your browser called the page.)

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Thank you!

[Newest Reality]

6. Well, this is not a primer ...

Yet, understanding of the critical mind and wise discrimination can be a potential illumination.

One can start with a comparison between direct experience and abstractions related to doctrine and scholarly approaches. My understanding of Buddhism is that it is not a religion, despite how some insist on making it so or framing the teachings in ways that bring in terms like "theological" where they don't seem to apply. In a teaching where the founder claims no godhood, nor does he expect you to simply believe what is taught without careful examination and testing for proof, how can Buddhism be, at its core and intent, be religious as we understand the term in the West?

My understanding is that the philosophical relationships and arguments between the various schools are the smoke from the fire of the central tenets. Those tenets are centered on the practice of nothing more or less than direct realization without mediator and the rest is merely either a by-product of ignorance or wisdom in relationship as abstractions "about". Anything about what is can be satisfied by direct awareness of the Moon that the fingers are pointing to. Some fingers might point to abstractions and more illusions, yet, that can be useful.

It is rather easy to conceptualize from afar about what the various schools are and how they interact, yet one would find more insight by actually living in the context of those who live a life as nuns, monks and teachers in community. We may all realize that the dynamics of human interaction can be a challenge where living what we believe, even know, is put to the test.

From our vantage point, what might have significance is not just the show going on between various flowers and weeds in the field, but the essence of the beauty, the nectar, the color and the realization, the vibrancy and clarity of the life that may be understood uniquely by each one of us. It is a path, no matter. Then, it is also a pathless path. Then it is neither. Ahh!

To consider the various schools of thought as aspects of one mandala allows us to apply insight and wisdom to those relationships, just as we do in our daily life of practice, living and experiencing. If every part of a mandala was the same, it would simply be a bland circle; a disk with simply an inner aspect and an outer. The mandala is a fitting metaphor with which we can expand our perspective with acceptance and gather the delicious fruits of Awakening to what he are all along.

Best wishes for well-being on your journey.

[grantcart]

7. lol in the future I intend to start a thread on Theravada Bhuddism so that people can talk

about it and learn about it.

I think it would be useful if the different schools would each start one thread that would discuss points particular to their school.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. Useful and instructive

[lindysalsagal]

9. Not an expert by any means

but I can tell you spirituality is sort of like a amusement park. Each person arrives with their own needs for their own reasons and chooses to get on the ride that seams like a good starting place for them.

No one can tell you where you belong or where to get off.

In recent years many people have found the writings and lectures of Eckhart Tolle as a good bridge from the regular american experience to spirituality. His is an amalgamation of alot of eastern ideas and concepts, without any metaphysical dieties or divine intervention. A good starting place is the Power of Now. That will sort of clean your palate and prepare you to think or feel or perceive in new ways.

Personally, my experience with local, hometown buddhism was a no-go. The young monk wasn't ready and they recalled him back for more training after he threw me out for asking one question.

So, just like anything else, the practitioners are the greater part of it for someone new. So, if one flavor doesn't resonate with you, just try another.

Also, the Dali Lama had many books at bookstores that can get you going.

Lots of ways in, and then you find your own way around.

I like the freedom from the common western guilt/shame/punishment paradigm that spirituality offers. I'll never go back, but I really can't tell you which brand of eastern philosophy I follow.

It's all good!