Can someone here please tell me the mayor differences ?
>>17515313
www.google.com
Personally I've tried both. Mahayana puts greater aspect on visualization while theravada puts greater aspect on observing self (thoughts, feelings, body) and reality around you.
>>17515313
Theravada uses the oldest texts, known as Pali Canon, probably traceable to the Buddha Gautama himself, but their philosophy is more simplistic.
Mahayana schools use much later (talking hundreds of years) sectarian counterfeit "scriptures", but their philosophy is somewhat more refined.
>>17515313
To my understanding...
Theravada teachings adhere strictly to those found in the Pali Canon, ostensibly one of the first attempts to commit Siddhartha Gautama's philosophy to writing. I guess it's kinda like "orthodox" Buddhism. Theravada mainly thrives in India and Southeast Asia.
Mahayana is a blanket term for all sects of Buddhism that have been influenced by other religions and philosophies, such as Confucianism, Daoism, or Shintoism. This school tends to be more prominent in China, Japan, and South Korea.
>>17515313
Theravada is only Sakyamuni, Mahayana is a refining through Maitreya and several other enlightened beings (though both only preach Sakyamuni's Dharma).
>>17515774
>Mahayana is a refining through Maitreya and several other enlightened beings
That is like saying like Muhammad "refined" the Gospel because he contacted the archangel Gabriel and Allah and got access to new "revelations". They are the same teaching, believe me, except the old one got corrupted and the new one trumps the old one. It works for a few people, but others might question whether the old doctrine wasn't the authentic one and the new, more recent and innovative teaching isn't the work of men. So, in the struggle for converts and patronage, one sect could claim, "Our sect contains the fullness of truth and the other sect is outdated. Donate, therefore, oh kind nobleman or king, to our sect and not the other one". More amusing is to read about the fight between Bhuddism and Confucionism in China for imperial patronage when Bhuddism arrived, and Mahayana Buddhists rewriting old Taoist material and selling it to the emperor as ancient sutras spoken directly by the Buddha. But I digress. Surely. Enlightened beings. That's what really happened.
In all honesty though, I find it impossible to take the Mahayana literature seriously after reading the Pali Canon.
To begin with, the language. The way the Mahayana sutras try to emulate the language of the Tipitaka, is like reading the work of a talentless epigone. The elegant and concise style found consistently throughout the Pali Canon, its mnemonic and formulaic, almost poetic, form, most suited to recitation and chanting, this style is but poorly parodied by the Mahayana imitators and scholiasts.
In second place, the mendacity of the Mahayana priesthood is appaling, having the Buddha take sides, in their fictitious sutras, in their contemporary sectarian struggles, attributing to him every sort of polemic language and unbecoming posture. So distant is this from the supine, serene diction of the Buddha found in the Pali Canon, that the mask of forgery should fall off to any but the least intelligent readers.
Finally they are objectively late fabrications as atested by any non-biased Buddhist scholar.
>>17515897
>>17516008
I'm not googling all that drama. You're gonna need to produce some sources.
