Which branch of Buddhism rings most true to you?

[Blue3]

My imperfect summaries (anyone else with more knowledge, please elaborate or clarify or correct):




Theravada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
*the oldest version of Buddhism, which began with the Buddha himself in India, and is now only dominant in Southeast Asia (Burma, Thailand, Laos) and Sri Lanka (36% of Buddhists are Theravada Buddhists)
*believe the Buddha was just a man who taught the philosophy, place emphasis on each person being responsible for finding only their own nirvana, more ascetic
*doesn't concern itself whether or not a God or gods exist, it focuses on being a philosophy to end suffering and rebirth and doesn't try to answer other questions
*a person who attains nirvana is called an "arhat"


Mahayana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana
*currently the largest branch of Buddhism, and the dominant branch of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (53% of Buddhists are Mahayana Buddhists)
*a person who is on the path nirvana is called a "bodhisattva," because they are supposed to help others out of compassion and reject their own nirvana until all can be saved from the cycles of life
*much more diverse than Theravada, and has many sub-branches, with some preaching that the Buddha was similar to a god and that there are many other buddhas as well as many other god-like beings (usually adapting to the local religion, whether it's Chinese folk religion or Shinto in Japan or something else) -- it sees Buddha as more of a spiritual king of this world, than a human teacher who died and is now completely gone from this world and its cares

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is like asking which planet is more livable: Venus or Mars.

They are both false. Jesus is the truth!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your map is wrong. Tibetan Buddhism is of the third major branch, albeit the smallest of the three, which is Vajrayana. Also, it came to Tibet directly from India, not from China.


Source: Wikimedia Commons

That said, Theravada seems truest of the three to me as it focuses most on philosophy and least on theology.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Are there no Buddhists in India?

[Santander]

Are there no Buddhists in India?

They are a tiny minority religion, far behind Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Buddhism isn't the leading religion in any state in India, although Sikkim was formerly officially Buddhist before it merged into India.

[anvi]

Scholars are now skeptical whether Theravāda represents the earliest historical form of Buddhism, though it was the most successful early institutionalisation of Buddhist monastic life, scriptures and doctrines.  In Mahāyana, bodhisattvas are not really seen as "gods" in a sense analogous with our monotheistic traditions; they are generally thought to have been originally human practitioners who attained to a kind of "angelic" status once their awakenings were perfected and they took vows to save all suffering beings before being released themselves.  Vajrayāna is also a bit difficult to classify, in the sense that its practices and doctrines can just as easily be viewed as another variety of Mahāyana, and its claims to unique scholastic status, like those of other schools, are internally doxographical.  If one did want to affirm the unique classification of Vajrayāna, it would not necessarily be unreasonable, given its beliefs and practices, to consider Shingon Buddhism, currently in Japan, a branch of Vajrayāna.  Finally, Buddhism in what is today India had fairly extensive religious, philosophical and institutional presence there for a millennium, and then for various reasons from the 7th to the 13th centuries, it declined.  Today Buddhism indeed represents a very small religious presence in India, the largest group of which is Ambedkar Buddhists (established only in the 1950's).

I don't know which tradition in Buddhism I would consider most true to me.  I have, over the years, come to have various philosophical problems with some major themes in South Asian Buddhist thought, even though South Asian Buddhism exhibits incredible intellectual sophistication.  The three philosophers  in Buddhism I like the most, in historically chronological order, are Nāgārjuna, Linji (Rinzai) and Dōgen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are there no Buddhists in India?

Hinduism was able to adapt so that it incorporated most of what makes Buddhism attractive. Between that and the destruction of Buddhist institutions during the Delhi Sultanate it went essentially extinct in the subcontinent.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

This is like asking which planet is more livable: Venus or Mars.

They are both false. Jesus is the truth!

I don't mean to go full-on nerd right here, but Mars is clearly far more "livable" than Venus. although it would be easier to live in the upper atmosphere of Venus (presuming we had floating cities there) than to live on the surface of Mars. as for you assertion that "Jesus is the truth!", how can you possibly know that? there are thousands upon thousands of religions, many of which existed before the advent of Christianity. many aspects of the Bible and even the story of Jesus are clearly "inspired" by previous myths and religious fables. I find it very smug of you to assume that your religion is true when it's not any more veritably "true" than the vast majority of religions, all of which, other than your weird "Hipster Christianity", I would assume you believe to be false.

[TDAS04]

Are there no Buddhists in India?

The map shows where they’re a majority (a few sparsely-populated areas bordering Tibet).

Though the majority of Indian Buddhists live in Maharashtra, where Mumbai is.  They’re a small minority there, but number in the millions nonetheless.

[Blue3]

Your map is wrong. Tibetan Buddhism is of the third major branch, albeit the smallest of the three, which is Vajrayana. Also, it came to Tibet directly from India, not from China.


Source: Wikimedia Commons

That said, Theravada seems truest of the three to me as it focuses most on philosophy and least on theology.

Vajrayana isn't universally accepted as distinct from Mahayana.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed, but your map's other inaccuracies other inaccuracies lead me to beieve it was crafted by someone who is a Chinese chauvinist. Besides Tibet getting its version of Buddhism directly from India (granted Chinese Buddhists did try to proselytize Tibet, but were unsuccessful), it ignores that Tibetan Buddhism was the source of Mongolian Buddhism, and it places the Theravada/Mahayana boundary too far west in Indochina.

[°Leprechaun]

Secular Buddhism is the best, but not all Mahayana Buddhists believe in "God".

[SInNYC]

Are there no Buddhists in India?

Back then, Hinduism wasn't really a religion, but more a collection of indigenous practices and philosophies. Everybody just had their primary god, so those Hindus who liked Buddha's teachings just practiced 'Buddhism' (while also worshiping other gods) without calling themselves Buddhists. The concept of conversion just wasnt compatible with Hinduism.

There were theological arguments between various Hindu schools (mostly academic/intellectual),  but the winning school of Hinduism mostly absorbed Buddhism (and Jainism,...) - some critiqued it as just warmed over Buddhism. And for the masses, Buddha was just an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu, so it didnt really make sense to call yourself a Buddhist. And Buddha himself was strongly against being treated as a god.

Hinduism arguably became a religion during the British empire, and there seems to be a 21st century trend to make Hinduism resemble Christianity/Islam (especially by those who criticize Islam most).

[Blue3]

Hinduism is still a collection of indigenous practices, with 4 main varieties: goddess worship, Vishnu worship, Shiva worship, and Advaita which is the philosophy most well-known in the west. Other gods like Ganesha are also popular. The variety of gods is due to the 3 main yoga ways to achieving moksha: Karma Yoga in which you gain moksha by acting without thought of yourself but simply because it's right or you're doing your part in society; Jnana Yoga which is gaining moksha through meditation, realizing deeply in your heart that the essence of your self (atman) is the same as the essence of all living things and the universe itself (brahman), you are the universe, infinite in being/consciousness/bliss, you already have everything you truly want, you've just forgotten; and Bhakti Yoga which is devoting yourself so fully to something (a local god, a national hero, a personal god, an ideal, a traditional Hindu god or Jesus or Allah or Buddha or whoever/whatever) will allow you to lose yourself and join with the greater spirit to gain moksha. And moksha is one of the 4 aims of life, the release from the cycles of life, along with pleasure, prosperity, and social duty.

[°Leprechaun]

In Hinduism, there's also charvaka, although it's considered "heterodox".

[anvi]

We have, unfortunately, almost no texts of the Cārvāka (or Lokāyata) school of thought.  Most of what we know about it was written by its opponents, but the length of time and intensity with which those opponents complain about Lokāyata views may be an indication that they were influential in classical India.  In any case, one thing we can be fairly certain of is that Cārvāka was anti-Brāhmiṇical, and so decidedly not "Hindu."  The school rejected the Vedas as a source of knowledge, rejected Vedic ritualism (and animal sacrifice in particular), rejected the notion of divine beings, the existence of an eternal self or soul (ātman) as well as the idea of karma and rebirth.  Hence, the centuries upon centuries of complaints about them.  It is interesting that some of the opponents of the school, precisely because it advocated for pleasure, success and ethical conduct in the present life alone, gave one of its names (Cārvāka) several pejorative meanings.  One etymological analysis had the school's name as denoting cāru (pleasant) plus vāc (speech), and so Cārvākikas were "sweet talkers," seducing people into worldly delights.  Another pejorative recension of that name analysed the root Sanskrit term as carv (to chew), and claimed that Cārvākikas were "chewers of the soul" (carvatyātmāna) from people.  I kind of like "sweet-talkers" though; the best-named "secular" school of thought ever.  .

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Buddhism believes that the Heaven and Hell is the state of mind and when you die, if you are a Buddhist, true believer, like Christians, you reach enlightenment.

Karma is the same as sin, and if you reach Buddhahood, like Christians, who serve God, next life will be better.

[°Leprechaun]

Buddhism believes that the Heaven and Hell is the state of mind and when you die, if you are a Buddhist, true believer, like Christians, you reach enlightenment.

Karma is the same as sin, and if you reach Buddhahood, like Christians, who serve God, next life will be better.

There is no evidence that the Buddha believed in anything supernatural, in a creator, or in reincarnation. Some people assumed that he did because of the possible influence of Hinduism.

[Kleine Scheiße]

This is like asking which planet is more livable: Venus or Mars.

They are both false. Jesus is the truth!

If your understanding of Buddhism contradicts reverence for Jesus, it's your mindset that's the problem.

We have, unfortunately, almost no texts of the Cārvāka (or Lokāyata) school of thought.  Most of what we know about it was written by its opponents, but the length of time and intensity with which those opponents complain about Lokāyata views may be an indication that they were influential in classical India.  In any case, one thing we can be fairly certain of is that Cārvāka was anti-Brāhmiṇical, and so decidedly not "Hindu."  The school rejected the Vedas as a source of knowledge, rejected Vedic ritualism (and animal sacrifice in particular), rejected the notion of divine beings, the existence of an eternal self or soul (ātman) as well as the idea of karma and rebirth.  Hence, the centuries upon centuries of complaints about them.  It is interesting that some of the opponents of the school, precisely because it advocated for pleasure, success and ethical conduct in the present life alone, gave one of its names (Cārvāka) several pejorative meanings.  One etymological analysis had the school's name as denoting cāru (pleasant) plus vāc (speech), and so Cārvākikas were "sweet talkers," seducing people into worldly delights.  Another pejorative recension of that name analysed the root Sanskrit term as carv (to chew), and claimed that Cārvākikas were "chewers of the soul" (carvatyātmāna) from people.  I kind of like "sweet-talkers" though; the best-named "secular" school of thought ever.  .

Seconding all of this. I would also recommend a study of the (limited) scholarship available on the Ajivikas. They were an interesting troupe with a reading of karma which, if nothing else, provides for good metaphysical thought-experimentation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mahayana. Theravada's epistemological humility isn't enough to balance Mahayana's increased emphasis on compassion for others.

Also, the idea that there's no evidence that the Buddha believed in reincarnation is hilariously false.

[anvi]

The Buddha certainly believed in rebirth, though for him it was the rebirth of psycho/moral karmic "leftovers" rather than the rebirth of a spiritual self or soul.  The belief is at the very heart of the Buddhia's conception of the "twelve-limbed" (dvādasāńga) cycle of "causally conditioned co-arising" (paticcasamuppada).  The two "extremes" of life and thought, according to the Buddha's teaching, were "eternalism" (natthitāvāda) and "annihilationism" (ucchedavāda).  The "eternalist" believes in an eternal spiritual self, even in what the Buddha took to be the complete experiential absence of such as self.  The "annihilationist" believes that there is only one physical life for each individual, which rejects what the Buddha regards to be the truth, namely that psycho-moral tendencies and the consequences that attach to them remain after an individual life and are reborn to reap the consequences of those acts.  This affirmation of rebirth is everywhere in the Buddha's teachings as reported in the Pāli Scriptures, in the Acela Sutta, the Nidānasaṃyutta, the Kaccānagotta Sutta, the Avijjapacaya Sutta, the Kammavagga Sutta, and many other places.  

It is part of the complexity of modern Buddhism that some very influential thinkers in modern Theravāda, and certainly some Western aficionados of Buddhism, want to read the Buddha as rejecting all the metaphysics of karma, divine beings, ghostly or demonic beings, and so on.  The 20th century Thai monk and philosopher Buddhadasa was one, suggesting, to the great consternation of the Thai orthodoxy, that we should now understand karma and rebirth in a metaphorical sense.  B.R. Ambedkar, the great 20th century caste reformer and India's first minister of law who converted to Buddhism late in his life considered karma and rebirth an ancient superstition to be abandoned.  These tendencies have a lot of support among Western "secular Buddhists" as well.  I certainly don't believe in karma and rebirth in anything like their traditional senses.  But if the Pāli Scriptures contain anything like the most reliable renditions of the historical Buddha's teachings, he most certainly believed in rebirth, and would have considered it a definitive departure from "right view" for anyone not to believe in it.

[Blue3]

Mahayana. Theravada's epistemological humility isn't enough to balance Mahayana's increased emphasis on compassion for others.

Also, the idea that there's no evidence that the Buddha believed in reincarnation is hilariously false.

Not reincarnation as we think of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mahayana. Theravada's epistemological humility isn't enough to balance Mahayana's increased emphasis on compassion for others.

Also, the idea that there's no evidence that the Buddha believed in reincarnation is hilariously false.

Not reincarnation as we think of it.

That depends on how "we" think of reincarnation, doesn't it?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is Buddhism in Japan called SGI, and its the more common form that is in the US, but since Covid 19 has affected things, that sect of Buddhism has taken a hit, as well as the Priesthood whom separated from SGI, due to disagreement between building Ikeda Auditoriums and Temples.

All Religions that requires attendance to Church has taken a hit during Covid 19, due to Televangelism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There is Buddhism in Japan called SGI, and its the more common form that is in the US, but since Covid 19 has affected things, that sect of Buddhism has taken a hit, as well as the Priesthood whom separated from SGI, due to disagreement between building Ikeda Auditoriums and Temples.

All Religions that requires attendance to Church has taken a hit during Covid 19, due to Televangelism

...fascinating. Every word of this is both coherent and at least arguably true.