Except according to Wikipedia, Mahayana had no identifiable genesis. From what I recall, my professor told me that the Mahayana was a synthesis of Indian Buddhism and Chinese Taoism - which was quite understandable since there were many parallels in the 2 traditions from a conceptual point of view and many Taoist terms were used in the first translations of Buddhist Sutras.
From the Wiki Mahayana article: Mahāyāna Buddhism originated in India, and some scholars believe that it was initially associated with one of the oldest historical branches of Buddhism, the Mahāsāṃghika.
The reference I used was Dumoulin, Heinrich Zen Buddhism: India and China also note the Second Buddhist Council
It is commonly held that Zen came from the meetings of Indian Buddhist monks with the Daoist monks. that synthesis took place over a 500 year period based on certain Mahayana texts with the founding of Zen attributed to Bodhidharma — a possibly fictitious figure.
Which is a large part of the reason that the Mahayana is largely synonymous with Chinese and Japanese Buddhism - that and the current demographics.
Actually at this point I’m not sure what your point is since Theravada as a branch of Buddhism is largely irrelevant with only 100M followers. In terms of any it’s teachings, I suppose there might be some subtle differences but I don’t see that anyone here would or even should care about those to the extent that they haven’t already been subsumed within one version or other of practice within Mahayana Buddhism.
The Insight Meditation Society is Theravadin and has been around for a long time. Their teachers have contributed a lot to Buddhism in the US and are contributing to the work in neuroscience.
That’s nice. Still not sure what point you’ve been trying to make.
For the first time in history, all strains of Buddhism are present in one country. The common thread in the non-immigrant Buddhist population is meditation. Now a former president and a current US Senator are meditating and introducing Buddhist thought into the political sphere. An Episcopalian bishop of a major US city does zazen. A Catholic monastic community keeps their meditation cushions close. It is a new phenomena, forty to fifty years is a short time. A Tibetan has said the country will be Buddhist in three hundred years. This is potentially the beginning of a new era.
Huh? That hardly makes the US unique in the annals of recorded history. The only difference is that we respect freedom of religion to extent that such practices will be tolerated without the fear of period purges. In China and Japan monasteries were tied to political power and therefore couldn’t escape changes in the political landscape. Here aside from the fact that this isn’t an issue, even if it were, as it is with Christian churches, they would still be insulated.
I was always draw to Tibetan Buddhism, i did a lot of reading, though my first exposure was in Thailand where it’s all Theravada. I went to Dharamsala in India, and visited the Tibetan community in Ladahk. Ended up taking a course at a monastery outside Kathmandu called Kopan.
Of course, here in my home town I go to a Vietnamese Temple because it’s convenient and I like the ambiance.
I don’t tell people much, unless asked directly. Although it totally confuses the Jehovah’s witnesses and Mormon’s that come to the door with pamphlets. They just sort of stand there, not quite knowing what to say!
They use to come to my door too. I remember they brought some special readings on a 2nd visit. But I do not think they understood. A long time ago, I was given a Mormon “Golden” Book but I have never read it. I have been a long term Zen lay practitioner at a monastery. I visited a Shambhala group for a short time but found it wordy. However, they were serious practitioners.
I have gotten pretty good about who might be interested depending on a brief conversation but I do not wave it around, even though quite a few people are now familiar with Buddhism.
It makes it very unique, maybe not compared to Europe where the same thing may be happening.
Buddhism has unique features in different cultures e.g. Tibet has reincarnation, Zen does not in the same way. From the Chinese came lineage charts partially because of their ancestor worship. I mentioned earlier Theravadin monks of Cambodia did not talk to Mahayana monks in Vietnam until the Vietnam war. There are shamanistic practices that do not appear outside of their own country that are showing up in the US. Until it all settles and people figure out how the cultural differences influenced the teachings, it will be a confused American Buddhism.
In this country, it is primarily a lay practice with the presence of women in the role as teachers and the emphasis on engaged Buddhism. Those are unique features when compared to the previous Buddhist cultures. Not only are all strains here but the people who have converted to Buddhism are for the most part talking to each other.
Saying that Buddhism is evolving is a very different thing and has nothing to do with the original distinction I made between branches, but OK.
The phrase often used is, “Buddhism fills the container it finds itself in.”
I started reading authors like Thich Nhat Hanh and Pema Chodron years ago. They presented buddhist principles in a simple way that, as a layperson new to the ideas, I could begin to wrap my head around and apply to my life. When I first began looking into Buddhism as a sort of design for living, I was specifically looking for a way to end my substance addiction and my overall suffering. I was trying to understand myself and my place in life.
I know some of the history, but I am not even close to a scholar, nor do I wish to be. I never say much about my practice. It’s not the lay people that concern me, it’s the scholars who want to tell me and people like me that I’m not a “real Buddhist”. I find that very un-Buddhist like, and frankly discouraging for those who are expressing an interest in Buddhism.
Do you think it’s necessary for a person to learn all of the history and have a teacher and a sangha in order for their understanding to grow and be able to find some peace throughout the trials of life?
Absolutely NOT!!! The people who say you do will be reborn as dung beetles.
Thank you, deltasigma.
The main theme that interested me in Buddhism was to not be bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, rather to use any and all new ideas as a guide, not to be taken as absolute truth. It seems to me that when one tells another they are “doing it wrong”, it would appear that they are rather bound to their thoughts.
The concept of non-attachment is major theme in Buddhism, but from my observation many grasp very tightly to their own interpretation of correct practice. It appears contradictory to me. And weird.
At any rate, learning to be a *passive observer *of my desires (specifically getting drunk and high) was what enabled me to end my very serious substance addiction. It went from there, and learning and applying Buddhist ideas/practices will continue to shape my life.
Well, that’s religion for you.
I am really very happy to hear this. I think one reason I relate to the story of the Buddha is that, before he found Buddhism, he was never satisfied. He grappled with the big questions of existence and why there is so much suffering in the world. I came to Buddhism with the same sense of frustration. So when people talk about Buddhism helping them to live with more contentment, I feel like that’s the whole point of it all. People do not come to Buddhism because they are content. We are all seekers grappling with something.
There’s a really good documentary on Netflix instant about The Buddha. I think it’s called ‘‘The Buddha.’’ It tells the story of his life through the myths and legends about him, and it is very moving.
“Absolutely NOT!!!” of course, even subscribing to that notion you could end up as a dung beetle.
another way of looking at it: a sangha and a teacher could be helpful. I have heard practice described as the hardest you will ever do. to me that is an understatement.
there is a benefit in having a dedicated place and practicing with like minded people. There is also an added effect of just being part of collective group.
There is benefit from just practicing, most people I know practiced on their own for several years before becoming a student. Of course, there is no right way but there is a lot of misunderstanding. It is a twenty five hundred year old tradition that has been refined to the present day. To me, it is waste to not use that.
It is important to remember, even the Buddha sought out the best teachers of his day.
Just remember to question your teachers. Buddhism is all about experience not about theory. If it doesn’t ‘feel’ right, reassess.
Are you referring to this video? if so, I would agree that it is excellent.
I would agree. The truth is though, that I am always a part of a collective group. My belief that we are all interconnected means that even though I am alone, I am part of the whole. Always.
This makes sense to me. I have met many a dogmatic Buddhist, which gives me that sniggly feeling. If I’ve learned anything from my not so learned practice, it’s to pay attention to that sniggly feeling. Observe it.