Buddhism Vs Theravada

1045 Words 5 Pages
In general, Buddhism can be divided into two streams, namely: (1) "Theravada", which put greater respect to the Bhikhu and clinging to the understanding of the doctrine / teachings of Buddha literally. Attainment of Buddhahood consciousness to arrive at a more directed to the self; and (2) "Mahayana", which appeared approximately at the end of the first century BC, more emphasis on the achievement of Buddha consciousness for oneself and for others, as done by the bodhisattvas.
The fundamental difference between the two schools is that the flow of Theravada teaches that earthly desires should be avoided or suppressed as strong as possible, whereas Mahayana seeks to look more positively to earthly passions with trying to steer towards the better. In its development, Theravada known as the "flow of Buddhism South Line" that developed in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and Indonesia, while the Mahayana is "Buddhism Northern Line" that
…show more content…
So, whether Buddhism does not have an authority, religious ceremonies, theology, tradition, grace and supernatural things, it is also a religion? Answer Buddha in contrast to most opinions of the interpreter. Buddhist philosophy is basically not be pessimistic. For example, an observer can describe the ongoing situation in a very bleak. However, the new pessimistic nature will arise if the observer was to express his opinion about the possible grave situation can be repaired or not. Buddha convinced that the situation can be improved. Buddha himself sacrificing his entire life just to prove how that prosperity can be achieved. This was evidence that optimism is fundamental-that the lives of individuals and communities are in a very bad state entirely (sorrow) that there must be a way out-a practice religious

Related Documents

Related Topics