QUESTION from Claudia: What is the key difference(s) between Theravada and Mahayana traditions? Why is Theravada called the lesser vehicle? Someone said recently that Theravada school was less developed than the Mahayana because it did not go to advanced states of mind-developing.
ANSWER from BC: The Buddhist world is generally divided into two major schools, the Mahayana (great vehicle), and the Hinayana (small vehicle). These terms originated with the rise of the Mahayana to distinguish them from the other school, and it has become widely considered impolite to call someone “Hinayana.” But I’ll use the terms here. Roughly 65% of Buddhists today are affiliated with Mahayana. The rest belong to the Theravada school to which I belong.
The Mahayana was an innovative movement that grew in India in the first millennium. Before that time Buddhism had differentiated into many geographically and (as a result) somewhat doctrinally dispersed sects, which with time blended back together. Of the early sects only Theravada has kept its identity, certainly because of its early isolation in Sri Lanka, from whence it spread into SE Asia. Traditionally the doctrinally distinct Mahayana is considered to have developed from the early Mahasanghika sect in eastern India. It may have had more than a single point of origin, but Mahayana became over the centuries a pan-Buddhist movement. Within any sect, region, or monastery you might have found some Mahayanists and some Hinayanists living together and getting along happily, as pilgrims from China were surprised to find. Mahayana was even influential in the Theravada sect at one time but later died out.
Mahayana was the innovator, and emphasized three main things that distinguished it from the older Hinayana: (1) the status of the Buddha as not as a normal human, but as a kind of cosmic being, something along the Jesus model. (2) The higher ideal by which instead of awakening to escape the cycle of rebirth, it is more praiseworthy to forego awakening in order to be reborn with all of the virtue and compassion that will have come with high practice attainments. Why squander all that virtue on awakening, when you can use it to help make the world a better place in future lifetimes? A Bodhisattva is someone who follows this path. This is why the Dalai Lama has been reborn fourteen traceable times. (3) The idea of emptiness, that nothing in the world exists from its own side, but only through human conceptualization.
I think (1) reflects the general need of people to embellish. It’s pretty much harmless, and may encourage wholeheartedness in Buddhist practice. (2) is actually present and respected in Theravada, apparently as a remnant of the early Mahayana influence on Theravada. I think it is beautiful way to frame one’s own Buddhist practice, even for those who disbelieve in rebirth. (3) is a very significant factor in wisdom practice, and insight meditation. The Buddha taught emptiness, but predicted that it would be the first of his teachings to be forgotten. The Mahayana emphasis may be a revival of this teaching, but it is not taught in Mahayana quite the way the Buddha taught it.
There are other doctrinal divides in current Buddhism aside from Mahayana-Hinayana. Mahayana has many subschools with doctrinal differences, and some schools that might be considered Dhamma-lite. Tibetans consider themselves to be Mahayanists, but adhere also to what they consider to be an even higher teaching: Vajrayana, influenced historically by Hindu Tantra in Kashmir. I do not know enough about Tibetan Buddhism to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Vajrayana enhancement, but this might be the source of the “advanced states of mind development” that Claudia’s interlocutor mentioned. Alternatively, she might be like many practitioners who regard whatever school they belong to as “the best.”
I should add a word for those who are dismayed that Buddhists don’t always agree on Dhamma. First, the core purpose of Dhamma is found throughout the Buddhist world: practice aimed at developing human character in its twin aspects of virtue and wisdom through behavioral and contemplative training aided by deep control of mental faculties, aimed at awakening. Second, the Buddha anticipated variation and innovation: he defined the Dhamma not as what he personally taught, but as that which achieves that purpose.
Two interesting follow-up questions would be: (1) Is Theravada really Hinayana? (2) Was the Buddha a Hinayanist or a Mahayanist?
Please reply to keep the conversation going with relevant knowledge, insights or follow questions. Or pose a new question be emailing BC directly at bhikkhu.cintita@gmail.com.
Leave a Reply