The major differences between the three branches of Buddhism

[roger]

I've read that there are three main branches of Buddhism- Theraveda (example is Vipassanna);  Mahayana (Zen is an example); and Vajrayana (Tibetan).

 

Can anyone explain the major differences between these to me?

 

I tried finding out on the Internet, but I found the explanations overly scholastic and difficult to understand.

 

Thanks!

 

Btw, there's a book called Essential Buddhism by Jack McGuire that explains the three branches. Does anyone know if it's good?

[doc benway]

14 hours ago, roger said:

I've read that there are three main branches of Buddhism- Theraveda (example is Vipassanna);  Mahayana (Zen is an example); and Vajrayana (Tibetan).

 

Can anyone explain the major differences between these to me?

 

I tried finding out on the Internet, but I found the explanations overly scholastic and difficult to understand.

 

Thanks!

 

Btw, there's a book called Essential Buddhism by Jack McGuire that explains the three branches. Does anyone know if it's good?

 

I don't know about the book.

Briefly -

Theravada, most popular in southeast Asia, focuses on the Pali canon of scriptures (the oldest Buddhist writings) and emphasizes personal, individual liberation.

Mahayana, most popular in northern Asia, includes the Pali canon and later writings, particularly those on emptiness, Buddha nature, and the way of the Bodhisattva. Here the emphasis is on personal liberation as a means to support all sentient beings in their transition towards ultimate liberation.

Vajrayana is a subset of Mahayana, although some list it as a third branch, which emphasizes energetic practices of self-transformation, as opposed to the sutric approach of renunciation, in order to achieve more rapid personal liberation with the ultimate goal of helping all sentient beings to be liberated from suffering. It's primarily found in the Himalayas and is based on writings known as Tantras.

I hope that's helpful.

[Apech]

16 hours ago, roger said:

I've read that there are three main branches of Buddhism- Theraveda (example is Vipassanna);  Mahayana (Zen is an example); and Vajrayana (Tibetan).

 

Can anyone explain the major differences between these to me?

 

I tried finding out on the Internet, but I found the explanations overly scholastic and difficult to understand.

 

Thanks!

 

Btw, there's a book called Essential Buddhism by Jack McGuire that explains the three branches. Does anyone know if it's good?

 

 

Within Mahayana there are two main philosophical schools - Madhyamika and Yogacara (or Citta Mattra).  The first focuses on the emptiness of all phenomena and the second (which includes Zen) focusses on Mind as the reality behind everything.

 

 

[Jeff]

29 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Within Mahayana there are two main philosophical schools - Madhyamika and Yogacara (or Citta Mattra).  The first focuses on the emptiness of all phenomena and the second (which includes Zen) focusses on Mind as the reality behind everything.

 

 

I think this is a very important point.  

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

I think this is a very important point.  

 

Why do you think it is important, Jeff?

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Why do you think it is important, Jeff?

 

Because it is sort of a fundamental difference of view/approach.  I think it was an important point for you to highlight.

[Apech]

29 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Because it is sort of a fundamental difference of view/approach.  I think it was an important point for you to highlight.

 

 

Thanks I shall therefore elaborate another detail

 

This applies to Tibetan Buddhism mainly (possibly only).

 

Most schools of Tibetan Buddhism i.e. all Sakya and Gelugpa uphold the sceptical view of Madhyamaka which essentially refutes any thing as being ultimately real - so all possible postulates as to what may be underlying reality such as Atoms, or even consciousness and energy and so forth as conceptual and empty of self-existence.  This is based in a strict interpretation of Nagarjuna's middle way and four fold refutation.

 

The Yogacara school (which means 'the way of yoga') - founded by the great Asanga this school takes as its basis yogic realisation (i.e. meditative realisation) of Mind as the self-existent basis of everything.  It is this approach which is the basis for Ch'an and Zen - which are actually Chinese and Japanese versions of the Sanskrit Dhyana (Pali Jhana) which refers to states of meditative absorption.  Mind here does not mean what we mean by 'its all in the mind' and so on - but 'citta' which is more like a field of consciousness or mind-substance.  There was some penetration of this approach into Tibet although the official history records that 'Zen' was defeated by the proponents to the gradualist Lam Rim approach and died out.

 

The 'problem' arises in the practice of the Tantras.  Some Buddhist Tantras affirm the self-luminous Buddha-nature which is actually a Yogacara teaching and obviously vajrayana practitioners do rely on meditative experience as the basis of their understanding of ultimate reality.  So even tho' they may belong to a Madhyamaka system when engaged in tantric practice they are more like yogacara in many ways (although they would probably refute this saying buddha-nature is just a provisional term and not a statement about what is real.

 

But even more interestingly there is a minority Madhamaka view called Zhentong or Great madhyamaka which was upheld by the third Karmapa and the Jonan school which is terms 'empty of other' - and takes the self-luminous mind or buddha-nature as ultimately real and that everything else is empty hence buddha-nature is empty of other.  This view was persecuted especially by the Gelugpas and they forcibly converted whole monasteries away from this 'heresy'.  However it does live on in some Karma Kagyu teachers to this day.

 

Although the Zhentong view is taught as a development of Madhyamaka - it is also possible to see it as a kind of advanced Yogacara where citta (mind) is replaced by the continuum of buddha nature which is the union of emptiness and luminosity.  this explains why Mikyo Dorje having first taught Zhentong later 'dismissed' it as Yogacara.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by Apech

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Thanks I shall therefore elaborate another detail

 

This applies to Tibetan Buddhism mainly (possibly only).

 

Most schools of Tibetan Buddhism i.e. all Sakya and Gelugpa uphold the sceptical view of Madhyamaka which essentially refutes any thing as being ultimately real - so all possible postulates as to what may be underlying reality such as Atoms, or even consciousness and energy and so forth as conceptual and empty of self-existence.  This is based in a strict interpretation of Nagarjuna's middle way and four fold refutation.

 

The Yogacara school (which means 'the way of yoga') - founded by the great Asanga this school takes as its basis yogic realisation (i.e. meditative realisation) of Mind as the self-existent basis of everything.  It is this approach which is the basis for Ch'an and Zen - which are actually Chinese and Japanese versions of the Sanskrit Dhyana (Pali Jhana) which refers to states of meditative absorption.  Mind here does not mean what we mean by 'its all in the mind' and so on - but 'citta' which is more like a field of consciousness or mind-substance.  There was some penetration of this approach into Tibet although the official history records that 'Zen' was defeated by the proponents to the gradualist Lam Rim approach and died out.

 

The 'problem' arises in the practice of the Tantras.  Some Buddhist Tantras affirm the self-luminous Buddha-nature which is actually a Yogacara teaching and obviously vajrayana practitioners do rely on meditative experience as the basis of their understanding of ultimate reality.  So even tho' they may belong to a Madhyamaka system when engaged in tantric practice they are more like yogacara in many ways (although they would probably refute this saying buddha-nature is just a provisional term and not a statement about what is real.

 

But even more interestingly their is a minority Madhamaka view called Zhentong or Great madhyamaka which was upheld by the third Karmapa and the Jonan school which is terms 'empty of other' - and takes the self-luminous mind or buddha-nature as ultimately real and that everything else is empty hence buddha-nature is empty of other.  This view was persecuted especially by the Gelugpas and they forcibly converted whole monasteries away from this 'heresy'.  However it does live on in some Karma Kagyu teachers to this day.

 

Although the Zhentong view is taught as a development of Madhyamaka - it is also possible to see it as a kind of advanced Yogacara where citta (mind) is replaced by the continuum of buddha nature which is the union of emptiness and luminosity.  this explains why Mikyo Dorje having first taught Zhentong later 'dismissed' it as Yogacara.

 

 

Excellent overview.  Thank you.  Which way do you come out on it?

[Apech]

34 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Excellent overview.  Thank you.  Which way do you come out on it?

 

 

I practise Mahamudra which fits neatly with Zhentong

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Thanks I shall therefore elaborate another detail

 

This applies to Tibetan Buddhism mainly (possibly only).

 

Most schools of Tibetan Buddhism i.e. all Sakya and Gelugpa uphold the sceptical view of Madhyamaka which essentially refutes any thing as being ultimately real - so all possible postulates as to what may be underlying reality such as Atoms, or even consciousness and energy and so forth as conceptual and empty of self-existence.  This is based in a strict interpretation of Nagarjuna's middle way and four fold refutation.

 

The Yogacara school (which means 'the way of yoga') - founded by the great Asanga this school takes as its basis yogic realisation (i.e. meditative realisation) of Mind as the self-existent basis of everything.  It is this approach which is the basis for Ch'an and Zen - which are actually Chinese and Japanese versions of the Sanskrit Dhyana (Pali Jhana) which refers to states of meditative absorption.  Mind here does not mean what we mean by 'its all in the mind' and so on - but 'citta' which is more like a field of consciousness or mind-substance.  There was some penetration of this approach into Tibet although the official history records that 'Zen' was defeated by the proponents to the gradualist Lam Rim approach and died out.

 

The 'problem' arises in the practice of the Tantras.  Some Buddhist Tantras affirm the self-luminous Buddha-nature which is actually a Yogacara teaching and obviously vajrayana practitioners do rely on meditative experience as the basis of their understanding of ultimate reality.  So even tho' they may belong to a Madhyamaka system when engaged in tantric practice they are more like yogacara in many ways (although they would probably refute this saying buddha-nature is just a provisional term and not a statement about what is real.

 

But even more interestingly there is a minority Madhamaka view called Zhentong or Great madhyamaka which was upheld by the third Karmapa and the Jonan school which is terms 'empty of other' - and takes the self-luminous mind or buddha-nature as ultimately real and that everything else is empty hence buddha-nature is empty of other.  This view was persecuted especially by the Gelugpas and they forcibly converted whole monasteries away from this 'heresy'.  However it does live on in some Karma Kagyu teachers to this day.

 

Although the Zhentong view is taught as a development of Madhyamaka - it is also possible to see it as a kind of advanced Yogacara where citta (mind) is replaced by the continuum of buddha nature which is the union of emptiness and luminosity.  this explains why Mikyo Dorje having first taught Zhentong later 'dismissed' it as Yogacara.

 

 

Thank you! I didn't know of the word "zhentong" and I have struggled to express this realization.

[Apech]

20 hours ago, roger said:

I've read that there are three main branches of Buddhism- Theraveda (example is Vipassanna);  Mahayana (Zen is an example); and Vajrayana (Tibetan).

 

Can anyone explain the major differences between these to me?

 

I tried finding out on the Internet, but I found the explanations overly scholastic and difficult to understand.

 

Thanks!

 

Btw, there's a book called Essential Buddhism by Jack McGuire that explains the three branches. Does anyone know if it's good?

 

Hi,

 

Back to the original question.

 

Mahayanists talk about three vehicles - Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle), Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Vajrayana (Diamond Vehicle).  However Theraveda would not use these terms because they regard the Mahayana to be a departure from the Sutra teachings preserved in the Pali Canon.

 

Some Mahayanists might describe Theraveda as Hinayana but this would be a mistake - since the schools that are referred to in this way in Mahyana texts have died out.  However there is some element of validity because the view of these traditions is that the path is to escape Samsara (cyclic existence of suffering) and enter Nirvana never to return.  So it is a kind of linear view - but no less valid in itself and viewed by Mahayanists as being true in a limited fashion.  Escape from samsara through the elimination of the mental attachments and poisons such as afflicting emotions is thought to take many life times - but since existence is suffering there is no other 'purpose' than the pursuit of the state of Arhat or liberation.

 

Mahayana practitioners take a slightly different view which builds on the first view.  They argue that while the Buddha was liberated from Samsara he did live and teach in the world and exhibited the positive qualities of compassion and wisdom.  To reflect this we should also cultivate these positive qualities to benefit sentient beings.  Again this is a long process taking many, many lifetimes and is called the way of the bodhisattva (awakened being).  They would claim that the Mahayana view is more expansive and positive than the Hinayana view - and that it is more 'relaxed' in that the view of the path is less focussed on self-liberation but more on the understanding that samsara and nirvana are two sides of one coin and that both are sunya - that is empty.

 

Vajrayana is the Diamond Vehicle of Tantra where a more direct approach is taken through working with meditation 'deities' which represent aspects of the awakened mind or buddha nature.  This is based on energetic transformation of the mind and mind content through the practise of sadhanas - so your ordinary mind is transformed into the enlightened mind.

 

There are also the 'direct' paths in Tibetan Buddhism of mahamudra, dzogchen and lamdre.

 

BTW vipassana is actually a meditation technique which is basic to most Buddhist practice but was exclusively promoted as a stand alone meditation by someone called Goenka - (in my humble opinion it, like all secular mindfulness, is to be avoided, but that is just my opinion).

 

 

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, Brian said:

Thank you! I didn't know of the word "zhentong" and I have struggled to express this realization.

 

 

It is sometimes spelled Shentong also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shentong

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

It is sometimes spelled Shentong also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shentong

Yep, read it! You dropped the breadcrumbs and I followed to a string of wonderful resources.  This aligns with my personal awareness/understanding.

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

Yep, read it! You dropped the breadcrumbs and I followed to a string of wonderful resources.  This aligns with my personal awareness/understanding.

 

I would agree.  Shentong is for those who actually dive and explore...

 

[Apech]

Shentong teachings are very beautiful and profound.

[Apech]

A concise explanation of the Zhentong lineage and texts can be found here in pdf form :

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5634b2fae4b03ef968053606/t/568154e440667a315367456e/1451316452889/THEGREATMADHYAMAKAbooklet1994_000.pdf

 

 

[rex]

In a nut shell (label -  path -> themes/practices):

1. Sutra - path of renunciation (Theravada, Mahayana ) -> 4 Noble Truths, 8 Fold Path, 12 Links of Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Loving Kindness, Compassion, Calm Abiding, 6 Paramitas/Perfections, Vipassana, Vow of individual liberation (Theravada), Vow of Universal Liberation (Mahayana), Buddha Nature (Mahayana).
2. Tantra - path of transformation (Vajrayana  - subset of Mahayana) -> Ngondro/Preliminary Practice, Deity Yoga (various classes of), Pure Perception.
3. Dzogchen/Mahamudra - path of self liberation -> uncontrived, unaltered natural state, innate purity and primordial emptiness.

This is a very simplified presentation, ignoring sectarian issues and differences between the schools. Each path has as its foundation the path before it and also includes it in its own special way. So for example. Tantra automatically relies upon and incorporates Sutra.

[roger]

I enjoyed reading everyone's replies, and they surpassed my expectations. I feel that I have a pretty good idea about some of the different schools of Buddhism now.

 

Thanks to each of you.

 

 

[doc benway]

On 7/11/2017 at 0:20 PM, Apech said:

 

 

Thanks I shall therefore elaborate another detail

 

This applies to Tibetan Buddhism mainly (possibly only).

 

Most schools of Tibetan Buddhism i.e. all Sakya and Gelugpa uphold the sceptical view of Madhyamaka which essentially refutes any thing as being ultimately real - so all possible postulates as to what may be underlying reality such as Atoms, or even consciousness and energy and so forth as conceptual and empty of self-existence.  This is based in a strict interpretation of Nagarjuna's middle way and four fold refutation.

 

The Yogacara school (which means 'the way of yoga') - founded by the great Asanga this school takes as its basis yogic realisation (i.e. meditative realisation) of Mind as the self-existent basis of everything.  It is this approach which is the basis for Ch'an and Zen - which are actually Chinese and Japanese versions of the Sanskrit Dhyana (Pali Jhana) which refers to states of meditative absorption.  Mind here does not mean what we mean by 'its all in the mind' and so on - but 'citta' which is more like a field of consciousness or mind-substance.  There was some penetration of this approach into Tibet although the official history records that 'Zen' was defeated by the proponents to the gradualist Lam Rim approach and died out.

 

The 'problem' arises in the practice of the Tantras.  Some Buddhist Tantras affirm the self-luminous Buddha-nature which is actually a Yogacara teaching and obviously vajrayana practitioners do rely on meditative experience as the basis of their understanding of ultimate reality.  So even tho' they may belong to a Madhyamaka system when engaged in tantric practice they are more like yogacara in many ways (although they would probably refute this saying buddha-nature is just a provisional term and not a statement about what is real.

 

But even more interestingly there is a minority Madhamaka view called Zhentong or Great madhyamaka which was upheld by the third Karmapa and the Jonan school which is terms 'empty of other' - and takes the self-luminous mind or buddha-nature as ultimately real and that everything else is empty hence buddha-nature is empty of other.  This view was persecuted especially by the Gelugpas and they forcibly converted whole monasteries away from this 'heresy'.  However it does live on in some Karma Kagyu teachers to this day.

 

Although the Zhentong view is taught as a development of Madhyamaka - it is also possible to see it as a kind of advanced Yogacara where citta (mind) is replaced by the continuum of buddha nature which is the union of emptiness and luminosity.  this explains why Mikyo Dorje having first taught Zhentong later 'dismissed' it as Yogacara.

 

 

 

On 7/11/2017 at 1:43 PM, Apech said:

 

Hi,

 

Back to the original question.

 

Mahayanists talk about three vehicles - Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle), Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Vajrayana (Diamond Vehicle).  However Theraveda would not use these terms because they regard the Mahayana to be a departure from the Sutra teachings preserved in the Pali Canon.

 

Some Mahayanists might describe Theraveda as Hinayana but this would be a mistake - since the schools that are referred to in this way in Mahyana texts have died out.  However there is some element of validity because the view of these traditions is that the path is to escape Samsara (cyclic existence of suffering) and enter Nirvana never to return.  So it is a kind of linear view - but no less valid in itself and viewed by Mahayanists as being true in a limited fashion.  Escape from samsara through the elimination of the mental attachments and poisons such as afflicting emotions is thought to take many life times - but since existence is suffering there is no other 'purpose' than the pursuit of the state of Arhat or liberation.

 

Mahayana practitioners take a slightly different view which builds on the first view.  They argue that while the Buddha was liberated from Samsara he did live and teach in the world and exhibited the positive qualities of compassion and wisdom.  To reflect this we should also cultivate these positive qualities to benefit sentient beings.  Again this is a long process taking many, many lifetimes and is called the way of the bodhisattva (awakened being).  They would claim that the Mahayana view is more expansive and positive than the Hinayana view - and that it is more 'relaxed' in that the view of the path is less focussed on self-liberation but more on the understanding that samsara and nirvana are two sides of one coin and that both are sunya - that is empty.

 

Vajrayana is the Diamond Vehicle of Tantra where a more direct approach is taken through working with meditation 'deities' which represent aspects of the awakened mind or buddha nature.  This is based on energetic transformation of the mind and mind content through the practise of sadhanas - so your ordinary mind is transformed into the enlightened mind.

 

There are also the 'direct' paths in Tibetan Buddhism of mahamudra, dzogchen and lamdre.

 

BTW vipassana is actually a meditation technique which is basic to most Buddhist practice but was exclusively promoted as a stand alone meditation by someone called Goenka - (in my humble opinion it, like all secular mindfulness, is to be avoided, but that is just my opinion).

 

 

 

Great posts!

Thank you for that.

 

Forgive me for being critical but I would urge caution whenever using the word 'real' in the context of Buddhism, particularly Madhyamaka. Empty does not refute realness, it refutes an independent, inherent mode of existence. One can equally look at the mode of one's existence as empty (sunya) or full (pratiyasamutpada). Different sides of the same coin. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I think the point is worth making because so many people new to the concepts misinterpret them as nihilistic.

 

I couldn't agree more about Goenka's approach but I'm interested in hearing more about your concerns with secular mindfulness in general.

 

 

[Apech]

24 minutes ago, steve said:

 

 

Great posts!

Thank you for that.

 

Forgive me for being critical but I would urge caution whenever using the word 'real' in the context of Buddhism, particularly Madhyamaka. Empty does not refute realness, it refutes an independent, inherent mode of existence. One can equally look at the mode of one's existence as empty (sunya) or full (pratiyasamutpada). Different sides of the same coin. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I think the point is worth making because so many people new to the concepts misinterpret them as nihilistic.

 

I couldn't agree more about Goenka's approach but I'm interested in hearing more about your concerns with secular mindfulness in general.

 

 

 

Thanks for the correction - I guess that I meant sva-bhava for 'real' as in self existing.  But all the translations of these terms are inexact.

 

As far as secular mindfulness I have two objections.  One is that it is lifted from buddhism without context - as dharma is the three fold path of meditation, ethics/morals and learning or study.  While I am very much of the practice lineage I have realised that without the right motivation (bodhicitta) and understanding the view there are no conditions for the practice of mediation to ripen and bear fruit.  Some basic ideas like karma and rebirth need to accepted (even if provisionally).  At least this is how I have been taught along traditional lines.  And it is my experience also.

 

The second reason is that meditation is a tool for awakening - which is a long and difficult path and not for the faint hearted - the idea that it can be a nice relaxation or a form of therapy is I believe misguided.  I think there are some well publicised cases where this has all gone wrong leading to some troubling results.  You do need to learn to relax in order to sit properly - but you don't sit in order to relax.  

 

I realise these concerns are my personal view and I don't want to put people off seeking help where they can find it.  But I think it's very much the case of buyer beware.

 

 

[johndoe2012]

A bit off topic but I remember Namkhai Norbu mention he was well trained in Madhyamaka but when he met his Guru then he saw reality as it really was and that the Madhyamaka training was a shallow intellectual understanding. 

 

(my remembrance of his words, not the exact words he used). 

 

Regarding Goenka I went to one of his retreats. The retreat was fine but I had a hunch the method was chosen and then citations from the sutras were cherry picked to support Goenka's view. 

[SeekerOfHealing]

Most of information here are generally okay from academic sense of view, but about Theravada - they are wrong in teaching way of jhanas that's why it takes life-times. Go for Suttavada and you will achieve in one life time the right experience of nibbana.

[Apech]

46 minutes ago, SeekerOfHealing said:

Most of information here are generally okay from academic sense of view, but about Theravada - they are wrong in teaching way of jhanas that's why it takes life-times. Go for Suttavada and you will achieve in one life time the right experience of nibbana.

 

 

Can you tell us what Suttavada is?

 

 

[SeekerOfHealing]

Suttavada = based mainly on Majjhima Nikaya as the only necessary source of teachings to attain nibbana while other nikayas are supplemental. It was old buddhist sect who was based directly on sutta without any interpretations or commentaries. 

 

Theravada = interpretations (mostly hindu like) of buddhism that's why most of theravadans do not even try to practice as it would take too long to attain even first jhana. 

 

 

Varjayana is very good if you have luck to have the highest teachings but you will never get them as westerner - forget it. You will be put into endless nyndro which is bs and other basic practices which are not needed for higher practices. (I have luck to have those and totally never did anything lower as nyndro etc.)

Edited July 16, 2017 by SeekerOfHealing

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, SeekerOfHealing said:

Suttavada = based mainly on Majjhima Nikaya as the only necessary source of teachings to attain nibbana while other nikayas are supplemental. It was old buddhist sect who was based directly on sutta without any interpretations or commentaries. 

 

Theravada = interpretations (mostly hindu like) of buddhism that's why most of theravadans do not even try to practice as it would take too long to attain even first jhana. 

 

 

Varjayana is very good if you have luck to have the highest teachings but you will never get them as westerner - forget it. You will be put into endless nyndro which is bs and other basic practices which are not needed for higher practices. (I have luck to have those and totally never did anything lower as nyndro etc.)

 

I think you may mean ngondro.  The ngondro is not endless - which is kind of the point of them, although they do take a long time.  It is a mistake that you do not practice the 'highest teachings' in the ngondro - the word 'preliminary' is ver confusing.

 

However I am interested in this Suttavada - is this what you practise???