Ask a Buddhist.

[peruban]

I've read a few threads and found that there are some misconceptions about Buddhism, specifically that Buddhism is a religion in the traditional sense, that they believe in a God, and that the Buddha is the god of Buddhism.

Buddhism does not teach that there is a God, it doesn't even address the issue since Buddhism is not about worshiping a deity. The Buddha never claimed to be anything other than a human being. He taught primarily about the causes of suffering and the emancipation of that suffering. No worshiping of deities or other idols. The Buddha simply taught the way to "enlightenment", a state of complete awareness of all things.

There's a lot more I can say about Buddhism but I created this thread primarily to answer any questions you may have about it. My experience with Buddhism began when I was 17 and studied it extensively for four years. I wrote a few papers and gave a lecture on it for my World Religions course that I took as an elective in college.

So, go ahead and ask. I'll do my best to answer anything on your mind.

[BridgeTheGap]

1. Which kind - Hinayana or Mahayana? n.t

[peruban]

2. Either. They both follow the basic tenets of Buddhism with minor differences in approach.

The distinction between the two is minimal. Hinayana means "small vehicle", while Mahayana means "large vehicle". Small vehicle refers to the path to enlightenment as being a personal journey of self reflection and contemplation. Large vehicle refers to the path to enlightenment through compassion and service to others via actions. The difference is introspection versus outward charity. There is a lot of overlap between the two and they have more in common than they have differences.

These specifics are a little harder to answer than the basic questions I was expecting but I can still field them.

[BridgeTheGap]

5. I have heard that the differences are large and that the primary one

is the belief about the attainment of enlightenment or buddhahood realization. Mahayana says that enlightenment can be attained in a single life time, where as Hinayana says that many lifetimes are required. Also Hinayana emphacizes denial of "earthly" desires, where as Mahayana follows the "middle way" which doesn't require total renunciation of said "earthly" desires.
Mahayana also says that the state of buddhahood already exists within every sentient being, but hinayana says that buddhahood can only be attained over many life times.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. The differences are not so minor, although both schools are recognized as valid

Theravada Buddhism -- the term "hineyana" is offensive and was created as a polemic by Mahayana scholars -- focuses on personal enlightenment. It holds that only the individual can enter Nirvana. By accumilating good karma, a person will eventually be born into a life where they are free to renounce the world and study "the teachings of the elders" (a rough translation of "theravada.") Once they have given up all attachments and have made progress on a course of physical and mental discipline, enlightenment will be achieved and the person will permanently leave the cycle of samsara.

Mahayana Buddhism focuses on the enlightenment of the whole community, thus the term "greater vehicle." Mahayana holds that ordinary people, living ordinary lives, can work towards enlightenment albeit at a much slower pace than one who has renounced the world. Many schools of Mahayana hold that groups, families, even entire communities, are reborn together in life after life and that enlightenment will occur only when everyone in one's group is ready. This teaching makes community involvement and betterment a karmic duty and key to one's own release from samsara. It also leads to the teaching that some enlightened souls can forego Nirvana and instead be voluntarily reincarnated, so as to be teachers to help others. There is a major subschool of Mahayana, called Vajrayana or "Tibetan Buddhism", which combines Buddhism with pre-Buddhist religion.

Both schools are recognized as valid.

[peruban]

13. There are still more similarities between the two than there are differences.

Hinayana is not really a pejorative term, it's just a description Mahayana Buddhists made up in the first few centuries C.E. to describe the approach to enlightenment that was developing. Buddhism, like all religions, developed into multiple forms each time it was encountered by new cultures. In China, it took on a Taoist flavor, in Japan it became Zen Buddhism. The ideas are still all basically the same. It's like telling the difference between a Pentecostal, a Baptist, and a Presbyterian. They all believe in Christ, they just have some minor differences that separate them into different sects. They all study the same Bible and believe in the same God.

The same can be said of Buddhism, each region it traveled to added its own flavor to the mix to make it more suitable for the people there but the essence of Buddhism remains the same in all cases. The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are universally accepted. That is the heart of Buddhism.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Hinayana IS a pejorative term, sorry

While "hinayana" is usually translated into English as "smaller vehicle," it is more correctly translated as "deficient vehicle" or "inferior vehicle." Please see the Wikipedia article for Hinayana.

I will admit to it being an issue with me, as my studies in Buddhism have been in the Theravada tradition. :hi:

And yes, there are more similarities between Theravada and Mahayana than difference. However, what differences there are are significant. While they share the same beliefs and doctrines, how they are practiced by individuals and the community are significantly different. If you want to draw a comparison from the Christian tradition, a better example might be Pentecostal and Greek Orthodoxy: both share the same core values, but both are totally different as well.

[peruban]

18. I am aware of the wikipedia entry.

But I still don't consider Hinayana a pejorative, though it may have started that way. It is now an acceptable term for the practice of that individual brand of Buddhism and its adherents aren't offended by it. We can disagree on this point, but I think we're both on the same general page.

[Speck Tater]

29. A Theravada monk explains the difference

This is well worth watching for anyone who really wants to know the differences:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owq_ougaikU

Ivory tower academics make a big deal over the differences. Practicing Buddhists like myself see the differences as trivial, and most practicing Buddhists, especially in the west, study teaching from all traditions and consider them equally valid.

What we western Buddhists tend to reject is the superstitions and cultural overlays that various sects have accumulated over the centuries.

[RandomThoughts]

3. Ok I got a question.

I am a Christian as I interpret the teachings of Jesus Christ, but I know alot of my beliefs match what I have heard of Buddhism.

To me more specific, my interpretations of the teachings of Christ match the ideas of non violence, tolerance, peace, and love. And I understand the humor in so many things, and know that suffering exists in life, and is attached in part to want.

Don't know where I learned these, mostly from the days I spend at a park near my house, I don't have any real teachers. Its more like you hear bits and pieces of speeches or thoughts and they just make sense. It is like those same thoughts were things you thought about, or almost already knew, and the others ideas just expand, or give different analogies. Many times I read thoughts of speakers or writers and find I had the same thought at some time already, sort of like its an obvious truth. And it seems the pieces just appear at the right time to form a continuing story. Each thought arriving on its own when needed to answer a question. And many times when I see a story I know the back story to it, the deeper philosophy behind it, even if I have rejected that philosophy, it may have been one I encountered, and considered a distraction, or something trying to lead me away from what I choose to believe.

Just walk around and get lots of thoughts and ideas. I really believe there are spiritual components to this. Actually I know it.

So my question is.

What is the form of learning in Buddhism. is it a structured lesson system from teachers, or is it just people thinking and sharing ideas, and good ideas just appear through the group. In Christianity some believe in something called a word. Where another part of the body of Christ can help give insight into a different persons thoughts. Many times without even knowing it, like it is the spirit that is shared among many helping other parts of the body. Is there something like this in Buddhism?

And is it weird to learn everything without any official teachers. To learn just sitting and walking in the forest and on the beach or just listening to music, within the context of Buddhism?

(edit: I know that martial arts forms are taken from nature, and meditation is big in buddhism, personally I don't meditate, I think, or just look around. Is it weird to have all info just from thinking and bits and pieces scattered across society or the internet? And many times out of context of the original intent.)

One more thing, do Buddist detect the different sides of spirituality in things. Can they feel the dark and light in voices and images, when someone is mad or happy. Is it like the feeling behind the words is what is seen and heard, and the words themselfs mean less then the spirit behind the words?

[peruban]

6. You have a few different questions there so I'll try to address each one individualy.

Buddha lived about 500 years before Christ, so it is extremely likely that Jesus was aware of the Buddha and his teachings. This may be a reason why so many of the principles are shared between the two. Also, when you mention coming across an idea and realizing it's one that you were already aware of, that could be considered a universal truth, one that is self-evident.

In Buddhism, learning is done by studying what the Buddha taught while he was alive. Specifically the four noble truths:

1. The Nature of Suffering
2. The Origin of Suffering
3. The Cessation of Suffering
4. The Way to Eliminate Suffering

And the eightfold path:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

If these guidelines are followed one finds himself directly in line with Christ's teaching.


He never wrote anything himself as far as we know but, like Christianity, his followers wrote down everything they remembered after he died. There are also extensive commentaries to learn from and many great minds have contributed ideas through the millenia. And what greater way to learn about the nature of reality than contemplation of nature itself. That is why Buddhists will often meditate on a specific idea or just clear their minds of clutter to clarify the senses.

Buddhism also does not differentiate between "righteousness and evil". There is only selfishness and selflessness. To be selfish is the closest thing to a "sin" Buddhism teaches. To be selfless and compassionate is the goal of Buddhist practice. It also teaches universality of mind and that there is no difference between the "I" and the "thou". Everything is interconnected like a net.

In fact, the Buddha gave an analogy referred to as the "jewel net theory" which goes like this: Imagine a net the size of the universe made of an infinite number of jewels. Next imagine that each jewel has an infinite number of facets that reflects every other jewel in this net. These jewels represent human consciousness and the fact that we are merely reflections of everything around us. In other words, the fundamental flaw in conscious thought is the misconception that I am "in here" and that you are "out there". There are no true boundaries between things, everything is dependent on everything else for existence.

So, to harm another is to harm one's own self. And to harm one's own self is selfish because your life doesn't really belong to you, it belongs to everything else and destroying life is tantamount to destroying one's self. This is why most Buddhists are strict vegetarians and practice a strict code of non-violence. Sound familiar? That's because truth is truth, regardless of the source and its self-evident nature makes it ring true to the mind as if it were already known.

Finally, you mention the Word, which I believe is also referred to as the Holy Spirit. The Buddhist version is the clarity and awareness of all things and the bliss that follows from attaining these states through introspective contemplation. The Buddha is a supreme human being and his spiritual influence can help one attain enlightenment, or spiritual salvation, to put it in Christian terms.

I hope I addressed all your questions. If I missed something or if you have additional questions just post away.

[RandomThoughts]

10. Answered most questions.

One more thing,

Yes, the Holy Spirit is our only real teacher, but it can encompass the whole body of Christ, which can work through others of faith, his angels, and saints.

I guess I was wondering if Buddhist believe they are taught by spirit, like we are taught by Jesus. Or is it more that Buddha had the ideas, and they are passed by official teachers and texts.

So would the global consciousness be spiritual force a Buddhist learns from?

[peruban]

17. Yes, there is a spiritual force that bestows knowledge and clarity.

You have to remember, however, when speaking about the differences and similarities between Christianity and Buddhism we have to account for the translation of concepts. Your questions are posed in what I like to call "Christianese", or using the verbage of Christianity. There are many parallels but they have different names and relations in Buddhism.

One way to think about it is the way a teacher of mine once put it, "Mankind is the missing link between apes and Human Beings". You can say that the Buddha became a Human Being when he attained enlightenment. He transcended this plane of existence and is now at one with the "Universal Mind/Consciousness", i.e. in "Heaven" or "with God". And, like in Christianity, you can pray for wisdom, clarity, and purity of thought. The Buddha and all those who have become Buddhas can help guide you along the way to enlightenment and prosperity.

As a side note, the Holy Spirit is a tool for salvation, but we also have scripture to follow as a guide.

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Buddhism holds that its teachings are self-evident

Siddharta Gautama's enlightenment was not the result of a divine revelation or a "crack" in the veil of illusion that allowed reality to flash through for a moment; it was the result of him sitting down, looking at the problems of life and thinking about them in a detached, impersonal way.

It is possible to study Buddhism without teachers, gurus, lamas or anything like that. It is much easier, though, if you are part of a community. Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism place great emphasis on the sangha, the community of monks and nuns who are on the personal path to enlightenment and who are usually organized into a communal or semi-communal monastary. In areas without a large Buddhist population, the sangha will be a Buddhist community center or even just a few families and individuals. Almost always, regardless of the size of the sangha, there will be someone who serves as a teacher.

I'm not sure what you mean by "official" teachers; only Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) place any great value on orthodoxy and even there, most Protestant denominations require only "ordination of the spirit" with no need for formal education in the Christian tradition. In most religions, a teacher is anyone who is knowledgeable enough to teach others.

Buddhism is not dualistic, so questions about "dark and light" are meaningless in a Buddhist context. In general, Buddhism does not recognize good or evil, only those things which move one towards enlightenment and those things which move one away from enlightenment. Most of what a Christian would call good falls into the first category: compassion for others, high regard for life. Most of what a Christian would call evil falls into the second category: greed, lust, gluttony, lack of concern for others. Some schools of Buddhism acknowledge a spirit world, but many do not.

[RandomThoughts]

12. Interesting

I think our religions use different syntax for good and evil. light/dark or moving closer to enlightenment, versus moving further away. Or love versus everything else.

What does Budhism say about judgement of others?

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. That depends on the school of Buddhism, and what you mean by "judgement"

Could you define your terms, please.

[RandomThoughts]

16. The only way I can explain is to say what I think it means.

I am not saying I am right, but this is my best guess at judgement.

Judgment: When one person claims to know of another's fault, and claims a better place because of that others fault.

Do Buddhist claim the ability to decide if another is further along in enlightenment for some ranking, or system of hierarchy. Do they believe that thinking oneself better is mostly ego, and usually not relevant, and not looking clearly enough on ones own challenges. Is the concept of 'better then' frowned on.
(edit: not trying to be judgemental :), question came out with my belief inside the comment.)

As apposed to justice where order is maintained by the needed revealing of failures, or learning where a failure can be observed and pointed out to help better a person that is in a place where he will receive it in that way.



I have very little knowledge of Buddhism, but some of the things you have posted are revealing to events that have been similar in my own life, and things I have encountered in Christianity.

[peruban]

23. Judgement assumes there is a right or wrong.

Which Buddhism does not claim to teach. There are many stories of humility and incorrect assessment of others in Buddhist texts. Humility is a key issue for Buddhism. After all, one can not feel both compassion and sympathy for others if you consider them inferior to yourself. That is condescension, not compassion. Pride is a form of selfishness because it raises you above your peers. Buddhism teaches that we are all equal and that within everyone lies the dormant potential of becoming a Buddha, so no ranking or hierarchy is established. We are all walking along the same path heading to the same place, so it's pointless to look down on others. That is a selfish trait, if anything.

[RandomThoughts]

26. I understand that

Thats is pretty much what I believe.

Of coarse I fail to always put it in action. <-- bragging on my humility :)

[peruban]

27. No shame in that.

Like I said, where all on the same bus, someof us may just be seated closer to the exit that others.

It reminds me of a story I was once told:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A monk is traveling to a monastery. As he travels he stays at an inn where he meets a local drunk. Finding out about the monk's pilgrimage the drunkard asks him to ask the head monk at the monastery how many more lifetimes he would have to endure before attaining enlightenment. The monk agrees to ask.

On his way again he finds an ascetic living in poverty by a river trying to gain enlightenment. He stops to talk to the ascetic and is asked to pose the same question the drunkard posed. The monk agrees to do so and carries off on his way.

He goes to the monastery and asks the head monk about these two men. On his way back he runs across the ascetic again who is eager to find out the answer. He begs the monk to tell him what he found out in the monastery and the monk says, "You will have three more lives before attaining enlightenment." This frustrates and enrages the hermit who has been eating roots, leaves, and drinking and bathing in the river for ten years trying to cleanse and purify himself for Nirvana. Enfuriated he grows hysterical and begins to cry. The monk consoles him and then goes on his way.

Stopping back by at the same in, he runs into the same drunk as before who says,"Oh, by the way, did you find out how many more lifetimes I have until I reach Nirvana?" The monk says that he did and points through a window to a tree growing outside and says, "As many leaves that are on that tree, that is how many lives you will have to go through before attaining enlightenment."

To his surprise, the drunk becomes overwhelmed with joy and says, "Is that all? That's wonderful!". "In that case," says the monk, "you're already there."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't exactly the way I heard the story told but it's the best I remember and it pretty much covers the gist. The path to enlightenment is different for everyone and obsessing over enlightenment is a hindrance to attaining it, much like what was said in another post.

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. Using "judgement" in that sense, then no

I refer you post #21; peruban's response is well stated.

Enlightenment is not a static point; there is no one place where you can point and say, "There is moksha, and I am ten feet away." And there is certainly no way to say, "There is moksha, and you are 12 feet away." Worrying about how close you are to enlightenment or being concerned about how close someone else is to enlightenment is proof that you are not ready for it, as worry and concern are attachments that hold you back.

If you want a good introduction to Buddhism, its origins and its early teachings, you may want to look at Karen Armstrong's book, Buddha. Armstrong is a religious scholar, well respected for her work. It would probably be more accessable than a "seeker's" book on Buddhism, as it provides explanations rather than teachings.

[RandomThoughts]

28. Worrying about how close you are to enlightenment.

I had that same thought It was a post on Daniel and Replicator Sam from Stargate (7 months ago).

Anyway Remember the episode where Replicator Sam was trying to learn to ascend?
It was like Sam the Replicator was always trying to find how to ascend. But Daniel just lived his life trying to make the best choices, not worring about some perceived end, but just 'being', as he did his best. It was like Sam the Replicators obsession with trying to find Ascension missed the point of it. So in her own striving, she made her goal unattainable.

hehe :)

Seeker's are Buddhism? Didn't know that either, but have a few thoughts on a few elements about that term. I believe it is used in other beliefs also, heard it in a few other areas.

Edit
Thanks for the book refrence but I got so much stuff I am working around in my head, I don't think I could add more sources, got years of stuff backlogged, and wanting to think on, but keep getting side tracked with new thoughts. Almost useless in conventional society as it is already.

I get new stuff to learn and think on every time I surf net, its like its not even random on the internet anymore, its like it is page after page of the same story. I sometimes surf around wiki for hours, its like a continual story.

[peruban]

21. Buddhism does not encourage judgement of others.

Since no man can know what lies in another man's heart it is impossible to be that man's judge. Ultimately, we are our own judges. Only by our actions and inactions can we be found to be considered selfish or selfless. That's about as close to judgment as Buddhism allows.

[peruban]

20. You seem to have a good grasp of Buddhism, my friend,

It's nice to see that, and thank you for your input, it has made me think a little harder and encouraged me to do some more research.
:toast:

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. Thanks

As I said elsewhere in the thread, I studied Theravada for a while.

[RagAss]

39. It would seem that the state of detachment is the key to it all.

Getting there is the tough part.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. In Buddhism, is it recommended that you have a guide

or teacher on the path? Is it initiatory in nature, as Sufism is? Or is reading the Dhamapada and other such works and putting their concepts in practice enough? And would you kindly refresh my memory on the Eightfold Path? Thank you.

[peruban]

8. No guide, teacher, or sensei is needed.

You can be a Buddhist community of one, but it's always nice to have peers and more experienced adherents to learn from and find encouragement. I myself have never met with other Buddhists and there is not really a monastery you can go to for services like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. There is no initiation like baptism or bar mitzvahs, one simply chooses to follow the teachings of the Buddha and they can call themselves Buddhists. Buddhism also does not conflict with any religion so one can belong to a proper religion while still being Buddhist. I myself consider myself a Buddhist Catholic, I find no conflict between the two whatsoever. I use Buddhism to reinforce my Catholic morals and I use Catholicism for ritual worship of a God and community.

And as for the Eightfold path:

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

My favorite introductory book on Buddhism is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. It covers the basic and universal aspects of Buddhism in a very clear and concise manner, fewer than 150 pages. You can find it on Amazon.com. The next book you may want to check out is "A Buddhist Bible" edited by Dwight Goddard, also available at Amazon. That one has actual Buddhist texts and sutras and is a heavier presentation of Buddhist teachings.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. That is my understanding, too

An analogy I like says that Buddhism is a road; the Buddha did not build it, he only rediscovered it. The problem is, the road is strewn with boulders, has a number of potholes, is bordered by very tall, thorny hedges, and it is the middle of the night with no moon and a cloudy sky hiding the stars. An individual can navigate the road by himself, but only slowly. A guide, who knows where to find the gaps in the hedgerow and has learned where the obstacles are, can be a big help in making progress.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. Thank you

It has been a while since I have studied Buddhism, but it is, indeed, a good guide from which to live. I regularly chant the last lines of the Heart Sutra--there is a Dance of Universal Peace that becomes a practice in which you let go until you only have left the Buddha Nature.

I find this whole thread really refreshing, and appreciate your posting it.

[ZombieHorde]

32. What is the difference between a teacher and a sensei?

[peruban]

35. This is not a Buddhism question.

This is a question for a dictionary, try dictionary.com.

[ZombieHorde]

37. It was my understanding that 'sensei' is simply the Japanese word for 'teacher'.

At least that is what my Japanese professor told our class.

As for your other answers, I wish to think about them.

[peruban]

38. I believe that's correct.

Without researching it further, I'm sure your Japanese professor knew what he was talking about.

[juno jones]

19. I too am a subscriber to Buddhist philosophy

although my own religion is best described as somewhat pagan.

You might be interested in these articles, called 'Pagan Dharma': http://www.hermetic.com/webster/index.html
Sam Webster is an interesting fellow and spiritual seeker who has studied pagan and Thelemic philosophy and practice Some time ago he dropped much of it to study Buddhism. Tibetan, mostly, IIRC.

These articles talk about the changes made to Pagan thought as it collided with Buddhism. The incorporation of the philosophy: 'An' it harm none', compassion, and an awareness of other sentient beings on this planet to most paths of Pagan thought are among several interesting additions which exposure to buddhism has signalled the growth and rebirth of these religions.

Buddha sure gets around. :)

[peruban]

25. It was my understanding

That the term "pagan" referred to any non-Abrahamic derived faith, including Buddhism. Do you mean pre-Christian European mythology, as in the Romans and the Greeks, or do you mean the modern re-emergence of Celtic style nature worship? What specifically do you mean by "pagan". Sorry to ask before checking out your link, I just wanted your take on it.

[juno jones]

40. Mostly the term 'pagan' seems to attach itself to multi/polytheistic religions.

buddism seems to be more of a philosophy than a religion per se. Buddha is not a god, yet his system encompasses both the minimalist zen and an obviously pagan system like Bon-style Tibetan buddism. IFAIK ,Buddism is not necessarily pagan. Or anything else.

Abrahamic religions like to use terms like 'Pagan' and 'Heathen' to differentiate between themselves and all other Non-Abrihamic religions (never mind they can't even agree to see each other as people either). It's not necessarily accurate. Just broad.

Basically what I found interesting was the author is trying to point to is the assimilation of buddist thought into paganism, and the sucess that later meditations and workings had when encorporating compassion and consciousness into it. Much of the really interesting theory stuff isn't until the second half.

Paganism is a very wide expression. The celtic and nordic types are the loudest and probably the most identifiable. I consider myself a pagan in outlook, but in practice I use a lot of kaballah based meditations. However, when I began exploring mysticism, buddist teachers and influence were always there. The influence of buddism on some of western religions's most overlooked branches is most evident.

Compassion- do unto others- that is the whole of it. The rest is just commentary.


If you are curious enough to go there:
Sam Webster is an interesting bird. I've had the privelege of listening to him on a few occasions. He has an amazing mastery of knowledge of religious systems, etc. He mostly writes on buddism nowadays, I had to work to dredge the articles up.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. That usage reflects a lot of outdated, highly biased and thoroughly discredited scholarship

In scholarly circles, "pagan" is avoided completely. Nowadays, the word is usually used to mean "neo-pagan," ie describing either a modern, nature based religion such as Wicca or a modern revival of an ancient religion such as the worship of Isis or Zeus.

[ZombieHorde]

31. Thanks for the invite.

For the sake of clarity, I will start with some assertions.

1) The Dali Lama is a Mahayana Buddhist.

2) Mahayana Buddhists forgo Nirvana so that they may help others.

3) The Dali Lama is living Buddha, he is enlightened in the Buddhist sense of the word.

Are the above assertions correct? It seems to me that only two of them can be correct.

I am going to stop here so that my future questions, if I have any, can be based off of the answer to my question above.

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. Well...

The Dalai Lama is a technically Vajrayana Buddhist. Although Vajrayana is part of the Mahayana school, it is a distinct group. The differences, however, are primarily ones of practice rather than doctrine.

Mahayana holds that some individuals who attain enlightenment are so moved by compassion that they will voluntarily reincarnate life after life to be teachers and mentors, at least for a time. Mahayana also teaches that everyone is already a buddha and that the purpose of forgoing the attachments of the world is to help you realize your "buddha-self." (Note on case: Buddha, with a capital "B," is properly used only to refer to the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, or as part of a name or title. The first situation is to distinguish the first person in this cycle to reach moksha from those who have followed, and the second situation is just proper capitalization rules in English. When referring in general to someone who has attained enlightenment, as you did, a lower-case "b" is used.)

Believers teach that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of Chenresig, the Buddha of Compassion. After attaining enlightenment, he refused to enter moksha (the departure from the cycle of existence) and instead reincarnated as Gendun Drup in or around 1391. All subsequent Dalai Lamas are subsequent reincarnations; the current is held to be the 14th. In this regard, yes, the Dalai Lama is a buddha.

I'm curious about how only two of these can be correct.

[peruban]

36. It's based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Nirvana.

I think the poster was seeing a conflict between being enlightened while choosing to remain in physical form.

[peruban]

34. Your questions are flawed.

#1 is incorrect and #3 should be more properly worded The Dali Lama is A living Buddha, one of many. But given what's already in this thread you should be able to answer your own questions there. Restate your question in another way so I can answer it more properly. If you're getting at the idea that one can not be enlightened AND forgo Nirvana for the sake of helping others you have the concept of Nirvana wrong. Nirvana is not a destination but a state of being.