My guess is the Theravada tradition. It seems true to Goutamas original  goal.TO END SUFFERING .   I think The Tibet schools are way off   base (I still respect them). But seems to dogmatic.  And what's with all the gods and animism and hindu aspects 

I'm compelled to share this.

I don´t know if Shakyamuni ever existed, but i guess yes, he will be from theravada tradition. It doesn´t invalidate the rest of the teachings tho, if we see it as a continuous development, Theravada being a futher development of Jainism and other ascetic practices and vajrayana being a development of Theravada. Sadly i don´t think this is the case all the time.

Most historians  even secular historians believe In the existence of Siddhartha Goutama.and the common   narrative of him quite accurate(excluding the supernatural  birth and all the Mara crap)

You could view Mara as the personification of unwholesome mind states. You could view rebirth as the transmigration of energy. Both these things are happening all the time, right now in your current manifest reality. You don't need to go beyond your senses to see these two areas, but your current here-and-now experience is only a small glimpse of a much grander picture at play. There's never a need to indoctrinate your way into such things though likewise for placing them in the rubbish heap. Maybe keep your mind open. If that's too fearful, look at the fear.

I absolutely  agree.Mara is a representation of buddhas own personal desires he had to fight. I've always seen the correlation  with Jesus praying in the desert when he is confronted  by satan.  Satan tempting him with earthly powers (perhaps jesus was was tempted  to use siddhis for his own ego). But he surrendered to his fate and stayed true to his fate

It seems a bit that you're stating which school you like yourself. I doubt any buddha, Shakyamuni or the ones before and after him, think in sectarian terms but that's just my impression.

I see the different schools as being like different flavours of ice cream. Some people prefer strawberry, some like chocolate, but they all serve the same purpose and suit different people's particular tastes/preferences. For some theraveda will be more appropriate, for some the tibetan approach is more appropriate. There isn't a single school that fits everyone's particular strengths/weaknesses.

In what way would you say that Tibetan Buddhism is way off base? Having done a fair bit of it and Theravada, I have a problem with the tendency towards cultishness, the amount of time spent chanting and the preference for devotion over technical details (though the techniques and some of the teachers don't lack for technical details at all). There is certainly a lot of good to make up for it and the technical principles underlying the whole thing are rock solid, even though it's really hard to see that at first glance. It does look quite weird.

Is your issue with diety yoga? I can't imagine it not looking off-putting. It's a very understandable reaction. I found that it's a fancy visual and auditory vipassana and samatha technique that skillfully makes use of the obviously shamanic front-end. It does a remarkably good job of combining the Theravada techniques of Buddha nussati (recollection of the qualities of the Buddha) or Deva nussati with metta, meditation on changing objects and the sense of self (setting up an imagined self and then dissolving it), something similar to kasina meditation and energy techniques. In other words, it looks Hindu on the surface, but under the hood it's still stuff that can be explained as variations on combinations of Theravada techniques.

Also, Tibetan scholars have retained and developped the Indian Mahayana pholisophy and analysis of non-self to a degree that I think is unparalleled in any other Buddhist tradition, while keeping it practical and useful for meditation. Their non-tantric development of what amounts to samatha, vipassana, energy and visionary techniques is also remarkable. It's a hard tradition for cultural outsiders to make sense of and relate to in terms of other traditions that look more secular on the surface, but the techniques are as rich as anything else that I've seen. There's a lot of cultural baggage to either accept or get past, but if one can do that, Vajrayana has a treasure trove of practices that are actually very compatible with Theravada ideas, objectives and techniques.

As for the animism in Buddhism in general, Theravada is also filled with animism. It's just not presented that way in the West, since most people in the West aren't open to that, which is fine. I personally think that it's fashionable to view the accounts in the Pali suttas of monks in the Buddha's time interacting with devas and other spiritual beings as later additions to the canon or psychological allegories. I'm suspicious of that view. There are lots of modern accounts of Theravada monks and lay meditators who also believe that they perceive and interact with non-physical spiritual beings in the same way as in the suttas.

sects, sects, sects, that's all some buddhists ever think about...

hehe

a lotta guys might think vajrayana was a development of mahayana...

t

probably mctb or ken wilber 

aloha mjr,

   As you say, there is abundant evidence that the buddha existed as an historical figure. The same is not true of jesus, regardless of what historian's "believe."

   In actual history, the stories of jesus' confrontations with the devil were probably influenced by buddhism. Islam is particularly rich in stories about the devil, iblis.

   In one common sufi tale, a man is sleeping by an apple tree when a black horse pulls up, and a man dressed all in black jumps off, grabs the man, and starts stuffing rotten apples down his throat. Forcibly awakened and subjected to this treatment, the man wailed, "why are you doing this to me," but the stranger just grimly forced him to eat more rotten fruit. Finally, the man vomited up, along with the apples, a poisonous snake. The horseman then told him he had seen the snake enter the man's mouth and had rushed to help. The man expressed extreme gratitude to his rescuer, who he had at first thought was the very devil.

   In buddhism, mara and the buddha are great friends and often drink tea together.

terry


from thishumanheart.com


Rumi was a 13th-century Sufi mystic whose poetry still resonates today. In ‘The Guesthouse’, he urges us to welcome all experiences, good and bad.

Buddhist teacher Tara Brach talks of ‘inviting Mara to tea‘, a metaphor for facing our shadow side. Mara was a demon faced by the Buddha, who represents

those forces within us that really keep us from knowing ourselves, keep us from loving freely, keep us from really living fully—greed, hatred and delusion.

While the Buddha’s servant tried to chase Mara away, the Buddha reacted by recognizing his presence and inviting him to tea. Brach enourages us to follow suit:

When Mara visits us, in the form of troubling emotions or fearsome stories, we can say, ‘I see you, Mara,’ and clearly recognize the reality of craving and fear that lives in each human heart.

By accepting these experiences with the warmth of compassion, we can offer Mara tea rather than fearfully driving him away. Seeing what is true, we hold what is seen with kindness. We express such wakefulness of heart each time we recognize and embrace our hurts and fears.

As Rumi says, treat everything that arrives as a guest, which ‘has been sent as a guide from beyond’. Even difficulties ‘may be clearing you out
for some new delight’…


The Guest House

(translation Coleman Barks)

This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
As an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they’re a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
meet them at the door laughing,
and invite them in.

Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

Just came to re-think, what I mentioned in my reply, that there has been loads of men and women in the tradition who have attained buddhahood after Shakyamuni, up to our time. People have their own unique karma which leads them to different teachings and teachers, and because of this they all come up with their own truths. Despite of great similarities, not everyone is saying the same thing about everything. So, what did it for Shakyamuni, worked for him and because of this his recommendations would differ from the recommendations of someone else who attained the same stage, say for example some recent Tibetan buddhist master who did very different kind of practice than Shakyamuni (based on what little is known of his practice). Despite of great similarities, the path is always very unique and personal, and therefore, fortunately, there is variety.

I don't know what's up with these translators. I couldn't find lots of what is in this translation, in the original poem.

This is a translation that I found, that is accurate I think. It's a long poem, this is just three verses of it:
(I have seen this many times, that the translation is something very different than the original poem of Rumi)

-- Edit: Now that I checked the full version of poem from the book, the translator has taken the meaning, plus some of the verses, and has created an english poem, to convey the same meaning. Nothing like a translation.

Shinzen, in his SoE audiobook says that the idea of Satan wasn't in Judaism originally, and after Cyrus helped save jews (In Babel I guess), this idea spread among them, from what was in Zoroastrianism, and then it got into christianity, and Islam got it from both of those. In Zoroastrianism, God (Ahora/Ahoura) and Devil (Ahriman) are always fighting, and they have somewhat equal powers, but that relegion says that eventually Ahora will win.

Yes. That´s how it is. 

Great insights guys thanks.    To answere the question about having a problem  with tibetan Buddhism
  I really dont have any problem with it. It seems to have a lot of beauty..... I was raised Roman Catholic. I loved it as a small child but simply didn't have the faith as I got older. It's a religious  based in ritual and blind faith .and full of dogma ... I want spiritual experience .    I want to know what happened  to Paul on the way to Damascus.  Or Isiah ,Daniel,Moses and .any more.  What does it feel like to pray and meditate for days and fast In solicitude. Something  is happening to these men. Their  being transformed. If it was nothing we wouldn't be talking about them now.Buddhism gives a slight better explanation  of the stages that can be experienced much better than most schools of thought...at least to  me.  Although some  catholic  saints do give some good details. and I read the bible in a new light.    All I was trying to point out in the origional post is that theravada seems the most pragmatic  but that's just my opinion.   I believe patanjali  does a good job also.... blag blag blah.... I have a long way to go lol

   I know coleman barks takes some liberties, as he admits, but he generally does stake his translations on the original, unlike some others (not to name names, but his initials are daniel ladinsky).

   People say the same thing about translations of omar khayyam's rubaiyyat, but the ideas are mostly the same and fitzgerald writes much the better english poetry.

   I'm more concerned about conveying the story than I am about being faithful to the original. Beautiful poetry helps convey beautiful truth. Love is lovely.

   Even so, more translations are usually better, if you can't read the original language."Translation" doesn't have to be word for word, and what use is a scholarly translation that no one reads?

   Thanks for knowing the original and sharing your ideas.


terry