Often the people I’m asked to speak to know very little about Buddhism and Buddhist practice. So I start by talking about the Four Noble Truths because any discussion about Buddhism begins with this fundamental teaching. It is helpful to remind ourselves that this is the very basis of everything that the Buddha talked about.

The Four Noble Truths say that there is suffering, there is a cause to it, an end to it, and that there is a way to that end. What is suffering? Suffering in essence is to be stuck with something we don’t like, or to be separated from something that we like. And what is the cause of suffering? The cause of suffering is craving and attachment, wanting to hold on to what I like, and trying to push away what I don’t like. The end of suffering is simply letting go, laying that down; not trying to push away, not trying to hold on. The way to the end of suffering is through the Noble Eightfold Path. It has three main divisions, or pillars: Prajna – Wisdom, Sila – Restraint, and Samadhi – At-one-ment.

Buddhism is about the Dharma, and Dharma is quite a complicated word. It means a number of things, but in essence the Dharma is about the way things truly are. The way things truly are is that they are subject to change. The Dharma is also about living in accord with that fact of change - with the way things truly are. Thirdly the Dharma is about the Buddha’s teachings, because the Buddha’s teachings also point to this fact: the way things truly are. These are three aspects of the same Dharma. We do not always see this because we are blinded by the delusion of I, my ideas, and my opinions.

I remember once being asked to greet my teacher Venerable Myokyo-ni at the Buddhist Society when she arrived. Being a senior member of the group, I was instructed to go downstairs to meet her and to help her up the stairs. I felt rather good about myself for being selected for this special duty. The car came along, I opened the door and she stepped out. She took one look at me and said, “Where were you last Sunday?” I froze on the spot. I thought to myself, “Where was I last Sunday? What did I miss? Did I have an appointment with her? Did I miss a memorial service?” All this was whirling around in my mind while she looked at me, waiting for my answer. And suddenly I realised that it was just a question and all I had to do was to answer it: “I was visiting some friends in Brighton”. “Fine” she said. “Now help me up the stairs”. This is the problem with delusion. We don’t see things as they are, but rather through a veil of my own judgements.

Looking at this subject of differences within Buddhism we might consider the relationship between the following Theravada, Mahayana, and the development of Tibetan Buddhism. The general approach of the Tibetan tradition comes under the umbrella of the Mahayana, but it has a specific focus: the Vajra-yana (Vehicle of the Diamond Thunderbolt). It also has its own language, Tibetan, as opposed to the Mahayana teachings which are historically set out mostly in Sanskrit and Chinese whilst the Theravada teachings are in the Pali language. It’s useful to have a timeline to get a perspective on their development. The Buddha was born around 500 BCE and the Theravada tradition came out of the Buddha’s main teachings a few centuries later. The Mahayana had its initial seeds also some centuries after the Buddha’s death and it developed over the next 600 or so out of the mainstream teachings. The Tibetans had a number of connections with the developing Mahayana tradition in India, which really took off around 200 CE. What’s interesting is that the Theravada and Mahayana developed in the same place but had disputes over aspects of doctrine. What followed was some discord between them that became less important over time. They seem very different. Theravada developed in South India, whilst Mahayana diffused through China and Japan so these two branches of Buddhism were imbued with very different cultures, although in essence they are based on the same teachings. It’s interesting that Ajahn Amaro, who is the current abbot of Amaravarti, an English Theravadan monastery, felt moved to write an article about the differences, saying that there really isn’t a difference.

Here is what he wrote:

“Even if the fact is 100% provable, if we use it as a weapon (this difference), it becomes, as Ajahn Chah said, ‘Right in fact, but wrong in Dharma’, and sometimes it is devout faithfulness, rather than negativity, that generates such dualisms.”

Ajahn Amaro tells a story about Ajahn Chah who was once visiting England. A woman who had long been connected to the Forest Tradition and had been a student of Ajahn Maha Booha, Ajahn Chah’s Dharma brother, went up to him and said she that was very concerned. She respected his wisdom immensely, but felt uncomfortable taking the precepts and refuges from him because she felt she was being unfaithful to her own teacher, Maha Booha. Ajahn Chah simply replied “I don’t see the problem - both Maha Booha and myself are disciples of the Buddha.” Ajahn Chah goes on to say:

“It’s possible to explore the teachings and various traditions in the spirit of non-partisan openness, and hopefully appreciate the landscape of the way of The Buddha with eyes that are right in Dharma. So through this kind of investigation, we can find ways to resolve these ancient conflicts.”

Although there are always going to be differences between our various traditions there is a root of commonality in what we are all seeking. In the case of Buddhism it is an end to suffering via the Four Noble Truths. Differences grow naturally over time due to changes in customs, place, need and many other factors. They all represent the Dharma and point to the way things truly are and, of course, share the same aim which is to find the the cause and way out of suffering.