#mahayana

[unpopradicalism]

- Baozhi with an internal Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva emerging as he reaches enlightenment, Heian Period (from 794 to 1185). - Paprika, Satoshi Kon, 2006.

[hillbillybubbeleh]

Me, grateful: *meditation* Me, perplexed: *meditation* Me, anxious: *meditation* Me, irritated: *meditation* Me, excited: *meditation* Me, sad: *meditation* Me, stuck: *meditation* Me, changing: *meditation* Me, sick: *meditation* Me, well: *meditation* Me, every morning: *meditation* Me, every night: *meditation*

[bodhi-devotee]

this house is starting to feel like home :)))

[makapatag]

one thing i really like about buddhism--particularly mahayana buddhism--is that it understands context, so in my mind it's a very "human" religion. mahayana doesn't tell you to live up to impossible standards but rather, to actually attain what was once thought impossible through whatever means you have. by any means necessary is very applicable to mahayana buddhism.

in the lotus sutra, the buddha states something along the lines of "if a person needs an arhat to be saved, i will appear in the form of an arhat" and proceeds to list down several other forms they might take to save someone, right down to "if they need a common person to be saved, then i will appear in the form of a common person." now, buddhism has been soteriological from the start (it's all about emancipation from the wheel of rebirth after all) but that sutra passage only really served to highlight the major message of the entire sutra: the use of skillful means.

so to me this means buddhism accepts contexts. it doesn't require you to do 180,000 prostrations, it doesn't require you to be a perfect peerless meditative god, it doesn't require you anything that you cannot do at all. it doesn't matter: you will become a buddha all the same. that last bit makes it even better: since in buddhism emancipation means becoming a buddha, when sakyamuni "saves" you he only really supercharges your enlightenment so you can get to it easier, or if another buddha saves you (like amitabha) he whisks you off to his pure land sukhavati so that you can focus a thousand kalpas on just enlightenment without having to be hungry, thirsty, or oppressed.

the majority buddhism in my country is mahayana--it used to be some form of esoteric buddhism during the classical period but that has long since vanished away. though the fact that there has been avalokitesvara images found somewhere in batangas makes it a very spiritual thought to become a buddhist in a country that has partial buddhist roots.

it's mahayana because the buddhism that was brought back here during/after colonization was chinese buddhism. which is dominated by amitabha/pure land buddhism. now one of the most important deities/bodhisattvas in chinese buddhism is guanyin 觀音 (bodhisattva of compassion, who is a strange sinicized version of avalokitesvara). you'll still find her statues in the philippines, especially in parts most concentrated with chinese immmigrants. in one corner of binondo you will see a street shrine with guanyin, mother mary, and jesus christ beside each other, and with passersby offering incense to all three of them.

so since guanyin (who, by the way, is sometimes syncretized to essentially be "chinese mama mary" because religion in religious countries is very bumfuck evades taxonomy) is the most popular bodhisattva in the PH, when tibetan lamas arrived here to teach vajrayana, they adapted a lot of chenrezig rituals even though chenrezig isn't really overtly huge in tibetan buddhism. so now when you go to vajrayana pujas in manila, they almost always have some semblance of chenrezig invocation, and its common to have chenrezig pujas.

another upaya-kaushalya thing i noticed is that buddhism doesn't really do like mass every sunday. but since filipinos have been doing sunday mass for around 300 years now they adapted and now we have sunday pujas because the common filipino expects some sort of religious commitment on sunday

i think buddhism could be a huge boon to socialist movements. cutting through the ego, emphasis on emptiness (that is, nothing has inherent nature, which is essentially mystical materialism), and an emphasis on a sort of helping each other to gain merit would really benefit everyone. especially since unlike christianity they don't force other local religions or local people to change for them, but rather, they retrofit themselves into the local space, adopting the principle of skillful means to help everyone realize their buddhahood.

[eating-izabella]

Buddhism in Uganda

[this-is-anti-religion]

tengo una pregunta, ¿exiten dioses en el budismo? te pregunto porque en algunos lugares dicen que es una religion atea, y en otros que si hay dioses pero tambien siguen el ciclo de reencarnacion. escuche que hay distintas ramas del budismo, ¿en cuales hay dioses y en cuales no? ¿es corecto decirles a estos seres dioses?

Using Google Translate so forgive me if it's off at all!

j333k asks: I have a question: do gods exist in Buddhism? I ask because some sources say it is an atheistic religion, while others claim there are gods, though they also follow the cycle of reincarnation. I’ve heard there are different branches of Buddhism; in which ones do gods exist, and in which ones do they not? Is it correct to call these beings "gods"?

Yes! Gods (called devas) exist in Buddhism, but they are not immortal or like, supreme creators. They live long, happy lives in heavenly realms due to good karma, but they are still subject to rebirth and can't grant enlightenment.

All three of the major branches (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) recognize the existence of the gods, as they are rooted in the earliest Buddhist texts. But different branches may place differing amounts of emphasis on the devas. I know some branches see them more as elevated divine spirits (similar to Kami in Shinto) rather than actual celestial beings.

And, of course, individual Buddhists may be entirely atheistic or simply not worship any of the devas. And that's okay too!

[percyquest]

[whencyclopedia]

The Evolution of Buddhist Schools

Buddhism, founded by the Buddha around the 5th century BCE, soon diversified into various schools after his death. Though the Buddha opposed hierarchical leadership, his followers institutionalized his teachings, leading to divisions. The three main branches today are Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, each claiming to preserve Buddha’s true vision but differing in practice and interpretation.

Key Facts

Buddhism began around 563–483 BCE with Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

After his death, followers split into three main schools:

Theravada ("School of the Elders") claims to maintain Buddha’s original teachings.

Mahayana ("Great Vehicle") emerged as a response, emphasizing a broader path beyond self-liberation.

Vajrayana ("Diamond Path") developed mainly in Tibet, focusing on natural, less rule-bound practice.

All schools embrace the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path but interpret and practice them differently.

Despite differences, they share a common goal of harmony and compassion, known as Ekayana ("One Vehicle").

Historical Context

Buddha instructed no formal leadership after his death, but his disciples quickly organized to preserve his teachings. Early unity gave way to disagreements on doctrine, causing fragmentation into distinct schools. These schools evolved across regions like India, Southeast Asia, and Tibet, adapting to cultural contexts.

Historical Significance

This early division shaped the rich diversity of Buddhism worldwide. Different schools emphasize unique practices but share core philosophies, allowing Buddhism to remain adaptable and influential. Today, their coexistence illustrates Buddhism’s capacity for inclusivity and spiritual harmony, engaging both religious and secular followers.

Buddhism’s history teaches us that even a movement founded on unity can grow diverse yet remain centered on shared values of compassion and enlightenment.

Learn More: A Short History of the Buddhist Schools