Chinese, Korean, Japanese differences

What sets Buddhism apart? (Ego podcast)

What sets Buddhism apart from other religions?

Ego Podcast (Buddhism) Feb. 23, 2025: Buddhism Explained. Experience a wisdom that permanently transforms – not just temporarily soothes. When we hear the word “wisdom,” we often imagine calming, wise sayings that bring a temporary sense of peace.

But the Buddha’s wisdom goes far beyond that. This video explores how the Buddha’s teachings offer a transformative training of the mind/heart -- a real path to ending suffering (disappointment, pain, misery) rather than merely providing comforting words. Discover:

• Beyond the Surface: How conventional wise sayings compare with the deep, practical training offered by the Buddha.
• The Buddha’s approach to identifying suffering as stemming from our own desires and cravings.
• The Real Problem and True Transformation: Why true wisdom demands dissecting (analyzing) the mind to see the real causes of suffering.
• How the Buddha’s insight into the nature of craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana) leads to genuine liberation (nirvana).
• The Training of Wisdom: The role of the Noble Eightfold Path and threefold training (virtue, concentrated calm, and insight) in cultivating lasting inner peace.
• Practical steps to replace superficial wisdom with a transformative, embodied understanding.

TIMESTAMPS

• 00:00 – Introduction: Beyond Wise Sayings
• 03:00 – The Limitations of Conventional Wisdom
• 07:00 – The Buddha’s Diagnosis: Suffering and Craving
• 12:00 – Transformative Training: Virtue, Concentrated Calm, and Wisdom
• 17:00 – Realizing True Liberation and Ending Suffering

Join the journey: If ready to move beyond mere words and into a practice that truly transforms the mind, please like, share, and subscribe for more in-depth explorations of Buddhist wisdom and its practical application. #BuddhaWisdom #BuddhistTeachings #TrueTransformation #Mindfulness #Enlightenment

• Shaolin Master. Four Noble Truths; Ego Podcast (Buddhism), Feb. 23, 2025; Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Buddhist Denominations Explained

WARNING: Narrator mispronounces nearly every Buddhist term he uses as if they were phonetic.

The Buddha vs. Budai vs. Cosmic Amitabha

Strange as it may sound, most of the time when most people say "Buddha," they are NOT talking about the historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama (a.k.a. Shakyamuni), the founder of Buddhism, but rather a cosmic/celestial god called Amitabha or Budai (Putai, Hotei, aka "Fat Happy Buddha," who is not even a buddha but a bodhisattva) or Avalokiteshvara or Guanyin (Kwan Yin, Kwannon, Kannon, Chenrezig) or Prajnaparamita or Bodhidharma or Ksitigarbha or quite often Maitreya (the future buddha) or the Dalai Lama or the Panchen Lama or Padmasambhava or some other Rinpoche.

In the older, more focused Theravada tradition, only the historical person Siddhartha Gautama is THE Buddha, though there have been and will be other buddhas in the past (at least 28 of them) and in the distant future (one of them named Maitreya or Metteyya). All the other figures arise out of the watered-down reform movement that is the "Great Vehicle" (Mahayana) that is a collective term for everything else. And lest anyone should be confused, there are no extant Hinayana ("Lesser Vehicle") schools or sects (like the Sarvastivadins) left, all having been pushed into extinction by the Mahayana movement. Theravada, a back-to-basics movement concerned with what the historical Buddha taught rather than later developments or additions, is not a Hinayana school, but as there are no Hinayana schools left, it gets called one anyway by know-it-alls who are not too concerned with facts or details.

Is Buddhism spoken in every Asian language?

The Buddhist language

It is also crucial to point out that there are at least two Buddhist languages, Pali (Magadhi) and Sanskrit, and the two schools use different ones. This can be confusing because they are so similar. The reason there are two is because Pali was what ordinary people spoke, the lingua franca of the Buddha's day. Sanskrit was exclusively the language of elitist temple priests known as Brahmins, who regarded themselves as the upper crust and a members-only old boys club. Their sacred books, the Vedas, are in this ancient secret language, once spoken only by them, just as Catholic priests (popes, cardinals, bishops, etc.) managed all their official affairs in Latin, leaving Spanish and Italian and other related languages for the commoners. Because ex-Old Vedic Religion Brahmins were dealing with Buddhism, there came to be a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. There are many languages used by Buddhists, according to their country, but one can easily tell if one is dealing with Theravada Buddhism: Its root texts are all in Pali. Now that many Sanskrit terms (like karma, mantra, avatar, ayurveda, mandala, dharma, sutra) have crossed into English, the lines are blurry. Pali must have had many dialects and regional differences. One of the most important is the Gandhari script, Kharosthi, in which the oldest existing Buddhist texts are written. The Buddha was NOT from India but from Gandhara. How can we be sure? There was no India yet, only different kingdoms, republics, and territories that were later united by Buddhist Emperor Ashoka into a single country (Bharat or Great Bharat). This union may have existed before in antiquity, but it did not exist at the time of the Buddha. He was also not from Nepal, as he is now placed. He was a Saka (Scythian, Shakya, Sakka, Sakai) from Gandhara (Afghanistan/Pakistan area). He did travel to, become enlightened in, and teach in proto-India, and out of laziness or not to be pedantic, we call Magadha and Bihar and places he stayed "India." But it is interesting to always bear in mind that it is because he was a foreigner and an outsider that nativists like Sri Shankara who systematized the diverse spiritual traditions of "Greater India" (the whole Indus Valley Civilization and Mahabharata and neighboring areas) that came to be called by the occupying British interlopers "Hinduism" (Indus-ism, all the different and unrelated things people were and are practicing around the Indus river valley) as a whole. Prior to Sri Shankara, there was on consensus or unifying label for disparate views and daily observances. Prior to British influence, there wasn't even the idea of "religion," as most people here and around the world (like the Egyptians and shamans) did not make a distinction between daily life and customs and "religion" or beliefs; they were the same thing, just life.

Buddhist Denominations Explained | Theravada vs. Mahayana 

(UsefulCharts) There's more than one Buddhism? Yes. There are at least two kinds with big differences. They are called Theravada (Teaching of the Elders, the "elders" being the enlightened monks and nuns who were the immediate disciples of the historical Buddha) and Mahayana (almost a kind of Hinduism, with Brahmins doing a number on the Buddha's teachings to bring them back in line with their Vedas or "Knowledge Books," turning the Buddha from a man who awakened thereby showing we ALL can to him being "Lord Buddha," an avatar or incarnation of Lord Vishnu, one of their major gods). Although everyone gets along, except for newbies who might think they need to take sides when they do not, their aim and practices differ. There is a third kind of Buddhism (Vajrayana, particularly the Tibetan variety, but also Nepalese and Bhutanese, sometimes also called Tantrayana or Mantrayana) and even more (like Japanese Zen/Chinese Chan, Pure Land, Esoteric Buddhism, etc.) except that all of them are lumped under the heading "Mahayana." So the split is 90% Mahayanists vs. 10% Theravadins.

SOURCES

• Skilton, A. (1994). A Concise History of Buddhism. Cambridge: Windhorst.
• Strong, J. S. (2015). Buddhisms: An Introduction. London: Oneworld

CREDITS

• Charts and narration by Matt Baker
• Animation by Syawish Rehman
• Audio editing by Ali Shahwaiz

Theme music: "Lord of the Land" by Kevin MacLeod and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0. Available from incompetech.com

PRODUCT

UsefulCharts tagged product is a World Religions Family Tree Poster ($25.00) usefulcharts.com/products/world-religions-family-tree... Click: blinkist.com/usefulcharts to get 40% off Blinkist’s Annual premium and enjoy the collection. Start a 7-day free trial now. Buy the poster version of the chart: usefulcharts.com.

• Matt Baker, UsefulCharts, 1/12/24; text by Pat Macpherson, Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

The Heart Sutra: Emptiness, an example

The Heart Sutra: Post canonical Buddhist discourse on the profound nature of reality

(Wisdom Tellers) Sept. 27, 2024: This video explores one of Buddhism’s most profound teachings — emptiness (the impersonal nature of all things). The heart in the Heart Sutra is the heart of wisdom. Discover the essence of emptiness, wisdom, and the path to enlightenment as taught in this timeless Mahayana text, chanted the world over with few penetrating its meaning.

#HeartSutra #BuddhasWisdom #MahayanaBuddhism #Emptiness #Shunyata #Enlightenment #Prajnaparamita #BuddhistTeachings #Avalokiteshvara #SpiritualWisdom

An example to explain emptiness

What is this phenomenon? Interaction of factors

If things are empty (without essence) then what is it that exists?

Constituents.

What does not exist?

Anything apart from those core constituents; there is no separate existence.

All is one?

Perhaps, but what is being said is that a thing is not anything (or is no thing) apart from its constituents (mere supporting causes and conditions).

Can you please give me an example? That sounds crazy.

Yes. Go get a candleflame or envision a real candleflame burning. Now ask, Does it exist?

Of course it exists. Why wouldn't it exist?

Where is it?

It's right here, right here in front of me. Don't you envision it, too?

Yes, but what I see right here is wax, wick, oxygen, heat, and a complex process of combustion. I do not find a candle "flame" itself.

Well, all of that is the candleflame, isn't it?

Is it? There are just those five, so where is the "flame"?

What do you mean, "Where is it?" It's right here!

But here are just five things. And the "flame" is the functional integration of these five. It is not a separate thing at all. It's only an illusion arising from the interdependence of these five. When these five are exhausted or fall away, the illusion of the candle "flame" is no more. It ceases.

What ceases? The flame?

No, the illusion. When it ceases one might ask, Where did it go? Did it go up, down, sideways, north, south, inside, outside?

No, none of those apply, do they? It simply went out, out of existence. It was annihilated. Having been born and created when the candle was lit, it died and ceased to exist.

No. It never was. The illusion fell away. It, not having been, could not cease to be. There were those five, which are not the candle "flame," and now they are no more, their functional integration having ceased.

So that's it?

Oh no, it's much more personal. If this can be said of a candleflame and other things (like constituent parts), what if one were to say it of me, myself, and I?

That's madness!

Madness it may be, but it's true. What is "I" but an illusion arising from five things clung to as "self"?

What five?

Form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.

The self has those.

No, those very things are the self, and there's no separate existence for the self apart from them, because they are the changing constituents of self. They cling to the illusion that there is a "self."

The self clings?

No, there is no self. They (the constituents) cling. Just as feelings themselves feel, and consciousness itself is conscious, so an illusion called "self" arises and is clung to, fearing that it might die and be annihilated, wishing that it could be born and last forever.

Okay.

If they are always changing, what can be said about a "permanent" self that endures from moment to moment or life to life or even enduring unchanged through one life?

It's an illusion?

Yes, it's an illusion. ALL things are empty (and illusory) in this way. Moreover, if the mind/heart can know-and-see this in a flash of clarity and insight, one can be free of clinging, free of rebirth, free of all suffering.

That's what Mahayana Buddhism believes?

No, Mahayana doesn't know what it means. That is to say, most Mahayanists do not know what it says. They imagine it means all sorts of other things, unconsciously clinging to thoughts of a self that will be eternalized and free and everlasting and luminous, all sorts of things held over from the Vedic Brahmanical and Hindu way of seeing things.

What is Mahayana?

Let's ask Asangoham to explain that.

• Wisdom Tellers (Video 1), 9/27/24; CC Liu, Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Bhante (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

What is Mahayana Buddhism? (video)

The Ancient Teachings of Mahayana Buddhism

(Asangoham) While it is difficult to determine the exact date of the emergence of Mahāyāna ("Great Vehicle") Buddhism, it seems to have been some centuries after the passing of the historical Buddha.

The Buddha is believed to have passed away (attained to final nirvana) around 400 BCE. The early texts based on the Buddha's direct teachings, known as the Pāli canon, are the texts Theravāda Buddhism uses as its foundation.

• Theravada means the "teachings" (vada) of the "elders" (theras), who were the immediate first enlightened disciples of the historical Buddha. They heard, recited, memorized, and handed down the Buddha's original words and teachings, the monastic rules and back stories for each, the sutras (discourses) and sayings. The Buddha spoke Magadhi (the language of King Bimbisara's Kingdom of Magadha), and this is Pali, the lingua franca of the area. The Brahmins were the only ones who spoke Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas and later Hinduism. And this is why Mahayana Buddhism is Buddhism in Sanskrit, itself being the Brahminical interpretation of Buddhism slanted and shifted to accord with Brahmanism (the views and religion of Brahmin priests), which was later adopted by Hinduism as its foundation in the Vedas.

It is believed that the later Mahayana tradition developed out of this early form of firsthand Theravāda Buddhism sometime between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. It is by bar the bigger school (90% of Buddhists), encompassing all kinds of Buddhisms apart from those in South and Southeast Asia.

What were the differences, and why did Mahāyāna Buddhism diverge/emerge? Mahāyāna Buddhism was a response to what was perceived as the elitism of the Theravāda tradition, particularly Theravāda Buddhism’s strong monastic tradition, which focused on intensive meditation, morality, monastic rules, and ascetic practices rather than lay people and their daily concerns.

Mahāyāna Buddhism sought to make the Teachings of the Buddha more accessible to ordinary people, not just something for monks and nuns.

It might best be understood as a school of Buddhism that teaches that all people have the capacity to awaken and realize the nature of reality whether in robes or lay clothes.

Mahāyāna Buddhism also tries to emphasize compassion (even over wisdom), a key aspect of the Buddha’s path to enlightenment.

This is illustrated by the Mahāyāna ideal of the bodhisattva, or a "being bent on enlightenment" like the Buddha before he became the Buddha (when he was still the Bodhisattva), who postponed his entrance into final nirvana (complete liberation from all rebirth and suffering) to teach and offer salvation to all living beings -- not just humans, but devas, and animals as well!

• The Dharma, what the Buddha taught, was actually most helpful to devas, judging by how many quickly realized the Truth gained liberation. They admired and listened to the Buddha, who was called "the teacher of gods and men" (the "gods" being devas of various orders and planes of existence and the "men" being humans of all kinds). It is easier for devas to gain insight (clear seeing) and liberation (moksha) if only they can pull themselves away from their pleasurable pursuits and parties and plans and realize that what the Buddha is saying applies to them, too.

Important, too, is that while Theravāda Buddhism recognizes only the Pāli language texts and suttas (sutras) as its official canon, regarding this massive collection as "the true teachings of the historical Buddha," Mahāyāna Buddhism includes texts called agamas and many apocryphal writings and later "sutras" as also the true teachings of, if not this Buddha, other Cosmic Buddhas (particularly Amitabha).

Many of these apocryphal texts are known to have come into existence long after the life of the historical Buddha but are still called the recorded words of the Buddha [which they are not but which may be what he allegedly really meant]. Mahayana constitutes later developments rather than original Teachings.

• Script: Matt Mackane
• Voiceover: Andrea Giordani
• Edit: Medo
• Score: Motion Array x Epidemic Music x Original Score
• DISCLAIMER 01: All ideas expressed on this channel are for entertainment and general information purposes only. There is no advice on what an individual should or should not do. Any response made by anyone after hearing this communication is their interpretation and is their responsibility. Ideas expressed by this channel should not be treated as a substitute for medical advice or professional help. If expert assistance or counselling is needed, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
• DISCLAIMER 02: All materials in these videos are used for entertainment purposes and fall within the guidelines of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. If one is or represents the copyright owner of materials used in this video and has an issue with the use of said material, please send an email to doseofquotes02@gmail.com.
• Copyright © 2022 Asangoham. All rights reserved. #mahayana #buddhism #zen #tibetanbuddhism
• Asangoham, Feb. 19, 2023; Dhr. Seven, CC Liu, Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
  

How I see the USA after years in Europe

 

 

How I see the US after living in Europe for five years

(David Wen) Feb. 19, 2023. UNITED STATES - What is America like after experiencing life in Europe? Everything's BIG. Consumerism. Gun violence. Homelessness. Police abuse. "What do you do for work?" This is how I see the USA after living in the Netherlands for five years. Sometimes it takes leaving a place for one to truly understand the pros and cons of that place. There are things I love and dislike about the US. Enjoy this short movie. 🇺🇸🇳🇱 David 📽 

 

OTHER VIDEOS

• 🇺🇸 USA vs. Europe: USA vs. Europe: L...
• 🇳🇱 Dutch Culture Shocks: What are the biggest...

🙏 TO SUPPORT MY WORK: PayPal donations: paypal.me/davidswen. Buy me a coffee: buymeacoffee.com/davidwen 

 

😁 WHO I AM: I'm David, a Californian living in Amsterdam. I make videos about life in the Dutch world, hiking and traveling, and the Camino de Santiago. 🔸 If you live in the Netherlands, I'd love to interview you and hear your story. Email: hidavidwen@gmail.com

Eva the European wanders USA and Mexico

Eva zu Beck, Jan. 20, 2023; Crystal Quintero, CC Liu (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

How I see the USA as a European passing through for 6 months

(Eva zu Beck) Culture shock? What are the differences between the EU (Europe) and the USA (America)? Positive surprises, struggles, regrets?

It's good to quickly learn the local language.

I share my impressions of the United States of America after spending six months traveling through the country. Then I dip into the Mexican United States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos), its actual name, which is in a special niche of North America some call Mesoamerica, which is very different from Central and South Americas. There are many Americas.

 

 

Reckon I should come back? → For exclusive news and behind the scenes, support on Patreon: patreon.com/evazubeck → Thanks to my wonderful supporters on Patreon: More

VedaMela: Yoga, Meditation, Ayurveda Nov. 7-8

VedaMeLA.com with an essay on Buddhist differences by Wisdom Quarterly

Learn some spiritual stuff, groove to music, eat nurturing foods, do some yoga.

Yoga, music, meditation, vegetarian food, kirtan, study, mantra (vedamela.com)

 .

A Celebration of Yoga and the Vedic Arts

• Veda MeLA
• The REEF, 1933 S. Broadway
• Downtown Los Angeles,| Nov. 7-8, 2015

Workshops and Yoga: Sat: 8:45am-6:45pm, Sun: 8:45am-5:00pm
Exhibit Hall: Sat: 10:00am-7:00pm, Sun: 10:00am-6:00pm

Just as Mother India hosts periodic mela or massive spiritual jamborees, so the ancient Vedas and their offshoots -- like yoga and ayurveda -- will be celebrated in the planet's throat chakra, Los Angeles.

  

Did the Buddha follow the Vedas?

Bhante, Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly

The Buddha saw anatta directly.

While the Buddha was not a Hindu nor a Brahmin, modern Hinduism appropriated him and other wandering ascetics who had rejected the Vedas and Vedic/Brahminical traditions, such as Mahavira the founder of Jainism. His father, King Suddhodana, as was common practice around the former IVC, had Brahmin political ministers, astrologers, and advisers.

But the Buddha did more than any other historical figure to invigorate and explain lost Vedic traditions and go beyond them to complete moksha. A Buddhist understanding of such concepts as karma, samsara, rebirth, and the self (atman) differs drastically from popular Vedic concepts. But no one much pays attention to such details.

• DETAILS: The six orthodox schools of Hinduism believe that there is an Ātman (Soul, Self) in every living being, a major point of difference with Buddhism, which explains why this illusion is not actually real -- and if one understands this with insight, enlightenment is the result -- because in an ultimate sense there is neither a permanent "self" nor "reincarnation."

No-Self and Nirvana? How?

See: [KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, pp.246-249, from Note 385 ff.; Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), SUNY Press, p.64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali, anattā, Sanskrit, anātman, the opposite doctrine of ātman central to Brahmanical/Vedic/Hindu thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that living beings [ultimately speaking] have no self, no unchanging essence"; Edward Roer (trans.), Shankara's Introduction, p.2, at Google Books to Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, pp.2-4; Katie Javanaud (2013), Is the Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible with Pursuing Nirvana?, Philosophy Now).
  

Instead the popular imagination is littered with harmful falsehoods/feelgood nonsense like: "The Buddha was actually a Hindu"; "the Buddha is a reincarnation of Vishnu"; "Buddhism and Hinduism are kind of the same thing." Never mind that the Buddha rejected the Vedas and central Vedic concepts like "soul" and "reincarnation," and the "true nature of reality."

 

This painting is deep and misleading.

The Buddha's understanding of what happens as we pass away is so different that it needs different terms like anatta and rebirth. The endless Wheel of Life and Death (rebirth) is an unsatisfactory, impermanent, and impersonal process. So final moksha (liberation) means bringing about the end of samsara -- but that's not what Hindus (or most Mahayana Buddhists) are taught.
 
People would rather be reborn in a heaven, even if that means falling again and again into lower worlds full of suffering later. And the thinking is that if we could just make it to Brahma's heaven or "be at one with" Brahman, then we'd be free and enlightened. But actual enlightenment and freedom would not result in that. Such aims are not what the Buddha teaches as Buddhist liberation (nirvana), so how can anyone say the Buddha was a Hindu or a practitioner of Brahmanism or had nothing more to teach than what was already being taught in the world? 

• Buddhist Teachings of Karma, Rebirth, and Samsara

The Buddha revolutionized Indian spiritual thinking and, apart from violent Hindu Nationalist movements, Buddhism and Hinduism get along well. Hinduism considers itself the preserver of the Vedas, which are much older than Hinduism (which began with Sri Shankara only a few centuries ago). The Vedas began with the Indus Valley Civilization near modern India. 
 
Keynote Speakers

Speaker Mallika Chopra

In addition to Ayurveda expert and world spiritual teacher praised by the Parliament of World Religions for work fostering interfaith understanding "Mother Maya" Tiwari's opening keynote on "Living Ahimsa" (Sat., Nov. 7, 12:15-1:30pm), a closing keynote will be delivered by Mallika Chopra on "Living with Intent" (Sun, Nov. 8, 12:15-1:30pm).

She is the founder and CEO of Intent.com, who launched MTV India and launched the Heal the World Foundation. "Living with Intent" is a practical yet deeply personal session to share the wisdom and actionable steps gained from thought leaders and years of exploration.

The Vedas (noun; plural): the most ancient Indus Valley Civilization, Brahminical, and modern Hindu scriptures or sacred text, literally "Knowledge Books" from the Vedic period in India; written in early Sanskrit and containing philosophy, the worship of gods [just like the Judeo-Christian Bible's plurality of gods], and guidance on [biblical style] ritual.

• Mela (noun): a meeting, an assembly, a cultural fair, a spiritual gathering.
• Ayurveda (noun): knowledge of health, longevity, diet, natural healing.
• Veda MeLA is a unique celebration of the massive modern emergence of arts and sciences inspired by the ancient Vedas.

Blossoming in the cultural hub of downtown Los Angeles, Veda MeLA creates an unparalleled educational, inspirational, and safe space for the burgeoning subculture of yogis and Vedic enthusiasts to explore, learn, and grow on every level.

• FEATURING: Globally-celebrated speakers, authors, yogi(ni)s, and social change activists
• Beyond-introductory topics in Yoga, Ayurveda, Jyotish, Vastu, Mantra, Meditation, and Yantra
• In-depth 1.25-hour workshops and yoga classes
• 3-hour immersions with master teachers
• A schedule that supports ease in the experience
• Open concerts during workshop breaks
• An energetically-aligned and beautiful venue with fantastic exhibitors 
• 100% of net profit from our incredible fundraising events go directly to YogaGivesBack and Mother Om Mission! More

Aren't religions more or less the same?

Maya, Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells, Seth Auberon, Wisdom Quarterly

Mother Goddess Kwan Yin, Virg Yin Mary, Bodhisattva of Compassion, Avalokitesvara, the one looks down from on high and hears the cries of the world (Billcoo/flickr.com).

We received a letter to the editor from our most dedicated reader, Anonymous, who was reading Yoga: The Other Eightfold Path (Part I of II). It runs:

"I would graciously suggest that you're falling into the trap of looking at surface-level differences between the two traditions here; the only real dividing line runs through conceptual construct, cosmology and philosophy, when in actuality true understanding involves surrender of worldly notions [because] the truth is beyond any conceptual framework. This is true for both traditions equally."

Thank you, Anon, and yet we propose that there are differences, significant ones. We say there are small differences in these two traditions, and those result in a world of difference regarding the ultimate goal of each, moksha, which may get called the same thing but is not.

Not the Buddha (vaniaragageles/flickr)

The Buddha did not come onto the scene to validate the ancient Vedas, the "Knowledge Books" of the Brahmin priests and modern Hindus. While those sacred texts are lovely and full of wisdom, they are not full of liberating wisdom in the ultimate sense. For example, rebirth onto the plane of Brahma (brahma loka) is still rebirth.

While the Buddha explains how to get there and how to get to all states of existence, he does not recommend going to those states again (as we have so many times in this long "continued wandering on"). Any amount of rebirth is marred by suffering, disappointment, falling away, cycling endlessly in samsara.

Ultimate liberation he called nirvana to distinguish it from what other dharmic traditions were calling "liberation" (moksha). They could all be called the same thing, and many times they are, but that does not mean they are the same thing. The Buddha made it very clear that there are not arhats, liberated persons, in other traditions -- and that is because of the way he was defining enlightenment and liberation. When one knows and sees nirvana, it will become clear that there are many difference. The Buddha Dharma is unique, and if it were not he would not have set forth a Noble Eightfold Path to it.

The god Avalokitesvara

He could have just gone by what so many before him had taught. Jesus is alleged to have said that he did not come to change "the Law" (one definition of dharma in the sense of the regularity or order of reality) as understood in Judaism, not a jot or tittle. The Buddha did come to change the old Brahminical order, present something new, reveal the meaning of old teachings and traditions.

Other traditions often do not even have the same goal as the Buddha set forth as the ultimate aspiration. Most are satisfied with rebirth in heaven and state that as their ultimate goal. Then what follows in their teachings goes along with that. Buddhism teaches the path to the heavens (sagga), various physical worlds of the Sensual Sphere, worlds of splendor of the Fine Material Sphere, and even rarefied Immaterial Sphere worlds beyond all physicality, gross and subtle. None of those worlds is liberation, not one of those worlds -- although they may rightly be called "heaven" -- is completely free of suffering/disappointment.

Understanding why -- given that those worlds are so much more delightful and filled with pleasures beyond our comprehension, far superior strands of sensuality -- is central to the Buddha's message. "ALL conditioned existence is unsatisfactory" is a famous and misunderstood teaching. It does not mean that everything is unpleasurable, but rather that every conditioned state, and there are countless worlds categorized as 31 general planes of existence, is ultimately impermanent, impersonal, and unsatisfactory. No matter how great, glorious, and seemingly stable, it will ultimately disappoint because that is the true nature of existence (tilakkhana), marred by these Three Characteristics of Existence.

To say that all religions generally teach the same things is self-evidently true: Just look, they go on about morality, about the nature of the world, about ceremonial rites and rituals, about the unseen beings, about the sky overlords, about the subterranean nasties, about the immanent, about how cool wearing robes in the summer is, but all that is trivial. When it comes down to it, What is every teaching defining as the highest, as its ultimate goal, as its aim and antidote to suffering?

We suffer, right? The Buddha went to great lengths to define what exactly "suffering" means. It is misleading in English, but not so in Sanskrit and Pali where it is called dukkha. It really means unsatisfactoriness, unsteadiness, disappointment. It's not the aspect of pain so much as the lack of fulfillment. It's not that there's no pleasure, which so many of us thirst (tanha) for. There's plenty of pleasure in this sensual human world, and much much more in the sensual heavenly worlds within this sphere (kama loka), the lowest of three general spheres.

The heavens are beautiful (Danni Nahason/flickr)

When those sensual pleasures disappoint, what then? They are pleasurable, they can be experienced, grasped, clung to, delighted in...then what? An addict can be an addict all s/he wants. The thing addicted to will not keep giving what it once gave even when we are doing the exact same thing we always did. That is to say, it will disappoint.

The health of this youthful body will give way and let me down, and one's heavenly (celestial/space) body, even though it is much more beautiful, radiant, and long lasting, will eventually become exhausted as well. Why? It is because it is based on karma (deeds), which is what gave rise to it.

As that good karma is exhausted, and it may take a very long time to exhaust (with each citta, of which there are trillions, getting a turn to produce a similar result or vipaka and phala), that body or form, too, will fall away. Then what? There's plenty more karma, plenty more results to bear, and you know most of karma's results -- born of greed, aversion, and delusion over countless lives -- will be unpleasant, unwelcome, unlovely.

The Buddha offers something other traditions do not and cannot offer: a final way out, an actual solution, a permanent antidote. But you have heard the other religions; they claim the same thing. "Come here for your 'liberation.' Heaven's going to be great!" This wise master knows all, sees all, tells all. It's the Kalama Sutra all over again. Whom to believe?

Just as that sutra says, Does greed (craving, sensual passion, base aspirations, avarice, thirst) arise in a person for that person's own good, for the good of another, for the good of the community? How is it with you? And how about hatred (aversion, anger, ill will, malice, resentment, resistance, revulsion)? Well then what about delusion (wrong views, ignorance, not knowing, misunderstanding, hallucinations, perversions, confusion)?

If you agree, from your own experience and understanding, that these three are harmful not only when arising in you but when arising in others as well, then you might agree that nongreed, nonhatred, and nondelusion are antidotes, are good, are preferable, are the path to liberation. What is nongreed, nonhatred, and nondelusion? We may call these:

• giving (letting go, sharing, renouncing)
• loving kindness (friendliness, nonaversion, fearlessness, concern)
• enlightenment (wisdom, knowledge, understanding).

The three are categories (just as greed, hatred, and delusion are three categories not three things, which is clearer in Pali lobha, dosa, moha and the Sanskrit terms, which are multivalent like our word "aloha" or "dude"), and no one would have ever thought to define them with a single equivalent term.

Space beings from the sky (godisnotwhite)

And we say that if you find these teachings in other traditions -- Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and that little J religion...oh yeah, Jainism -- follow it. It's saying something very good, very useful, very profitable, very beneficial. Buddhism does not have a corner on the market of truth. There is lots of truth, lots of good, in religions and nonreligions. Modern people hate religion, the phoniness, the hypocrisy, the greed, the hating, the lying and delusion.

But you'll travel long before you hear about this. Instead, religions and religieux are obsessed with god, gods, magic, invisible beings, supernormal feelings, great foods, lovely traditions, special days. And when they get right down to it, and they do sometimes although usually in a monastic constant, what do they offer as a solution? Magic? Grace? God's mood that day? What the Hades is going on?

Will people understand the passage explaining why the Buddha did not see any ennobled ones, any enlightened persons of the first, second, third, or fourth grade (stage) outside of this Dharma?

 

Even if it sounds delusional, arrogant, or misleading, it's key to understanding why Buddhism is different. It's different from all the Indian and Asian traditions around it, including the Christianity that originated in the Near East from origins in Mithraism, Zorastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism (diverse Veda-based teachings), and Judaism.

All of these traditions mingled and mixed between India and Israel. (See Holger Kersten). Israel's religions were inherited from the same milieu in more ancient times, Sumerian, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian. Judaism is not as old as all that but it is rooted in those very old stories, mythologies, and histories. One may think Judaism is the progenitor of Christianity, and that is certainly what we are taught and told we have to believe, but after noticing its uncanny parallels with Buddhism, it becomes clear that most of the rest of Christianity was appropriated whole cloth from the Mithraic mystery cults. And the wonderful Essenes, who get called Jewish like they were just being temple Jews, were definitely influenced by Buddhist monasticism completely foreign to Judasim. It came from the "Wise East," that is, Central Asia, India, and the Far East.

Finally, Anonymous, the real point may actually be, Should we emphasize or de-emphasize differences? Answer: There is a time for both. As people, as humans, we're all family, a sisterhood of the traveling planet, a brotherhood that shouldn't be fighting. Let's forget about the differences!

Of course, on the surface things seem different, and of course deeper in they seem the same. We are saying, Look even deeper than that! See there? See those tiny tiny differences, as small as nanoparticulate arrangements of molecules, an arm here and extra oxygen there? On the macro scale, they make all the difference! We don't say this out of ignorance based on a superficial understanding, for on the surface they seem almost identical and even use the same words and concepts. It's when one investigates that one sees how almost completely different they are.

It's like Catholicism, which is currently the largest religion in the world. How does anyone understand Catholicism without studying and understanding Hinduism? Catholicism is like a mishmash of nonsense -- until one sees it in the light of Hindu concepts. Hindu concepts are not Buddhist concepts, though they may give lip service and masquerade as such with "Lord Buddha" getting a place of honor, just the way Catholicism calls the Buddha, yes the historical Buddha, "Saint Josophat" (from the way the Buddha referred to himself in former births striving for supreme enlightenment as the Bodhisat, Pali Bodhisatta, Sanskrit Bodhisattva).

 

The Buddha (Nippon_newfie/flickr.com)

Buddhism is very different than Raja (Ashtanga) Yoga, and no one by simply following the deeper tenets of Raja Yoga would ever get to the goal of Buddhism -- nirvana -- without Buddhism. But they would get to many great things the rishis saw, and they might well mistake those things for the things the Buddha was talking about, and they would be mistaken. To make sure they see clearly and avoid the mistake and diversion along the path, we're keeping our eyes on the deep differences and pointing them out. Feel free to take it for what it's worth, and if it helps you to see it as all more or less the same and not worth distinguishing, do that. In fact, why not send in an article on how they're the same?

Theravada Buddhism (video)

Wisdom Quarterly (ANALYSIS)

The video ends with time for a short personal meditation guided by music (TheBuddhaLight).

This video attempts to describe the earliest existing Buddhist school, the Theravada ("Teaching of the Elders"). Its description, however, suffers from common mistakes:

The tradition is not part of the Hinayana ("Lesser Vehicle") schools that Mahayana ("Great Vehicle") Buddhism sought to ridicule, such as the Sarvastivada, which were successfully wiped out and replaced by Hindu-influenced Mahayana. But as the oldest tradition closest to the defunct schools, explaining the deep philosophy and facts of this major Buddhist lineage.

Buddha at Sukhothai, Thailand (Aidan McRae Thomson/Flickr.com)

The Northern School/Southern School distinction is also misleading. Hinduism went everywhere Buddhism, but in most places did not catch on, except as a major unnamed influenced in Mahayana.

Theravada began in India, spread to the Indian island of Sri Lanka (the southern tip of the subcontinent), and spread east to encompass pocket from Israel (a metropolitan place far in the west) to Vietnam (far in the east). Two empires in particular helped it spread, Asoka's empire of Greater India (Maha Bharat) and the Khmer empire now limited to Cambodia). Jesus (St. Issa) was influenced by Theravada and Mahayana (see Holger Kersten) and his teaching seems to serve as the basis for Christianity.

The Three Wise Men (or Kings) from the East were Buddhist monks in search of a tulku (reincarnating lama). This is not to say that this actually happened, just to say that it became part of the mythology around Jesus ("Zeus' son" according to St. Constantine at the Council of Nicea). The search for the Messiah seems to be the search for the Buddha-to-come Maitreya. As Kersten's scholarship reveals, there was a well established Jewish settlement (trading outpost) in Kashmir, India to which Jesus traveled with a Silk Route trading caravan.

The countless similarities between Buddhism and Christianity (even as it was reshaped and made almost unrecognizable by the Greek and Roman empires) in both the Greek Orthodox and European Catholic monastic traditions is no accident at all. But what Christianity teaches is far more a Chinese-style imperial Mahayana, a covert kind of Hindu conception rooting it back to Sumerian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian astrotheologies.

Jordan Maxwell reveals the shocking truth about Jesus and most religion
fed to us: Astrotheologically, it is the same old Sun and star worship.

Theravada differs from most religion in that it attempts to uphold the message of the historical Buddha. Mahayana, by contrast, takes the old Hindu (and Vedic civilization) pantheon and rebrands it as countless buddhas. The gods of old were extraterrestrials from heaven with their own back stories. Mahayana kept these gods, but by calling them Buddha this and Bodhisattva that, all the same worship continued.

The historical Buddha brought something altogether new to the practice of spirituality. A reliance on oneself as a lamp and an island guided by the Enlightened One (while he lived and taught and established a dispensation), the Teaching of Enlightenment (the Dharma), and those who had successfully followed that Path and confirmed its efficacy (the noble Sangha).

While Mahayana is much more about devotion and looking outside oneself for worldly success and a heavenly rebirth -- just like most of the religions of old -- with an emphasis on the wonderful Divine Feminine (Mother Goddess) Kwan Yin (Christianity's Virg Yin), Theravada kept to a more focused aim: enlightenment in this very life and final nirvana within seven lives.

The first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) used to be the focus of both traditions. But Mahayana philosophically veered far from it to a sort of messianic complex (everyone is a bodhisattva, and bodhisattva vows are the only acceptable career for new Buddhists to take, for anything else would be "selfish." And all the Buddha's original disciples, the theras (elders) who were arhats (enlightened in this very life) must, by implication, be "selfish dummies" relying on "expedient means."

And the Buddha himself could not have really entered final nirvana (parinirvana) because that could be interpreted as "selfish." The bickering between modern Mahayana and "Hinayana" apologists can get absurd. There was no division in ancient times when Mahayana ideals were closer to the root tradition.

(seattle.ibtimes.com)

But Hinduism (which was really Vedic Brahmanism before Adi Shankara came along long after the Buddha to create it) was always hostile to the Buddha's liberating message and human potential. It always preferred a heaven-centric philosophy, relying on Great Brahma, supplicating devas (light beings from space and nature), and centering around a hierarchical-patriarchal (often quite sexist) temple establishment.

What does Theravada offer instead? Imperfectly it tries to retain the Buddha's original message. Asked if he were a god (extraterrestrial deva), a yakkha (powerful extraterrestrial being), or what, he answered simply, "I am awake" (buddha simply meaning "Awakened One"). He had not relied on the gods or come as a heavenly "savior."

Starting here and rooted here on the human plane, he found the Path to freedom from all suffering. This Path is not limited to humans but also is the way for devas, brahmas, and all beings. Other beings generally do not have the opportunity to strive all the way to the final in the present life, but all would benefit along the way.

Humans and lower devas (within the Sense Sphere) are the ones the Buddha focused on teaching because they are capable in this very life of gaining absorption (purifying serenity) and liberating insight by following the guidance of the Three Gems (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha). Mahayana has made each of these three something else:

The "Buddha" has become countless buddhas, any king or philosopher or messiah; the Dharma has become 80,000+ teachings (mixed with Confucianism, Taoism, and even the Brahmanism the Buddha rejected); the Sangha has become any Buddhist "community." Is it any wonder Mahayana practice looks very little like the historical Buddha's dispensation?

Mahayana is wonderful. It is rich and cultural. It is philosophical and exalted. And it has the best art.

But if one would seek enlightenment (understanding it to be a very unselfish thing to free oneself from greed, hatred, and delusion and help and inspire others to do the same) in this life, one would certainly investigate Theravada and the unimaginable riches of the Pali Canon.

Pali is the exclusively-Buddhist language. It is closest to the Prakrit or Magadhi language the historical Buddha spoke, while the brahmin priests around him had their secretive Sanskrit for mantras and aloof scholarship, which served a role quite like Latin in the Catholic Church.

Zen has been a push to return Mahayana Buddhism to its essentials -- just sitting to reach satori (an epiphany). But most Americans misunderstand what "Zen" means and take it to mean a free-for-all without rules or guiding ideals when it is anything but that in Asia.

It is therefore no wonder that Zen Buddhism, according to Wisdom Quarterly, the most popular type of Buddhism in the West and in America in particular. (See the myth-shattering work of UCLA's Prof. Buswell a former Zen monk in Korea who also studied Theravada monasticism).

Famous Women of Buddhism