To answer questions about
The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation,
please sign up.
Michelle Wruck
The difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism is the subject of a good deal of debate. There are a number of interesting, scholarly works that address the subject, particularly focusing on the period when the two traditions split. There is little consensus on why the traditions split so the conversation can sometimes end with a general recognition that we'll never really know but Joseph Walser has recently published some new thinking on it that looks promising to me. (I'm still working my way through the book.)
At this point, the distinctions have a lot to do with the way people practice meditation, with differing historical accounts of the history of Buddhism, with reliance on different texts, and with distinct understandings of one of Buddha's core teachings called 'dependent arising' or 'mutually dependent origination,' called simply 'impermanence' or "emptiness" in the Zen tradition.
The Theravada tradition is often seen as more traditional. The primary texts they follow are called The Pali Canon, which is composed of three 'baskets' - the Suttas, the Vinayas, and the Abhidhamma. The Suttas are the recorded conversations the Buddha had while he was alive. They are often referred to as "The Discourses," or "The Early Discourses." The vinayas are Buddha's teachings on how monks and lay Buddhists should live. They include rules about how large your prayer mat should be, how often and what time you should eat, how people should be ordained, and what mistakes should require a monk or nun to be expelled from the Buddhist community. The Abhidhamma is a collection of commentaries on the Vinayas and Suttas.
The reason the Mahayana tradition does not trust the Pali Canon exclusively is because it was not written down until about the 2nd century, AD. Buddha died (we think) around 430 BC. The Suttas and Vinayas were memorized by a man called Ananda, who was not, himself enlightened at the time of Buddha's death, but was the one who recorded and taught all of the teachings at the First Council. People memorized the two sets of teachings and passed them on. This might sound incredible but at the time it was common to pass on teachings in this way. There was no form of writing and so people's memorization abilities were highly practiced.
That said, the texts weren't written down until 5 centuries later. It's understandable that the Mahayana tradition would feel that maybe they had lost some of the essence of Buddha's teachings. What Thich Nhat Hanh says in this book is that by the time the Suttas and Vinayas were written down, there was only one monk who still remembered them and that he was a very arrogant monk. His account makes sense of the earliest historical Mahayana text, the Lotus Sutra, which is laced with accusations against "arrogant monks."
The Mahayana tradition, therefore, argues that what is transmitted in the Pali Canon is "the first turning of the dharma wheel." That is, it is only the beginning of Buddha's teachings. The Lotus Sutra claims that just before Buddha died, he gave the second turning of the dharma wheel, in which he affirmed the non-substantiality of all dharmas (impermanence) and presented the bodhisattva way as superior to the way of the arahant.
The distinction between the bodhisattva and the arahant is primarily one of focus. The arahant strives to emancipate his or her self from suffering, to end their own suffering through meditation practice. Both traditions agree that this must be the starting point for any Buddhist practice. The Mahayana tradition argues that it is not enough to become enlightened for ourselves. Once our own suffering has ended, they say, we must step onto the path of the bodhisattva and work for the end of suffering of all beings. The bodhisattva, therefore, postpones parinirvana so that they can return to Earth to work for the enlightenment of all beings. (Parinirvana is the state of being an enlightened person enters after they die. It means they will never return to Earth.)
The teaching on the insubstantiality of all dharmas is less telling. It's emphasized in the Lotus Sutra and does become an important part of the Mahayana tradition but it's unclear that the Theravada tradition disagrees with it. In the Pali Canon, Buddha clearly argues against attachment to any part of the self, describing each part of the self (the 5 aggregates - form, sensations, perceptions, mental activities or formations, and consciousness) are all dependently arisen. That means that their existence is dependent on something else and therefore they are not permanent. For example, the sensation of smell is dependent on their being something to smell. When that thing is gone, the sensation is also gone. This seems easy enough to understand and see for ourselves but Buddha pushes it pretty far when he argues that our consciousness is also dependently arisen. He leaves no part of the self that is not dependently arisen, which is really pretty radical, even today.
The insubstantiality of all dharmas means that all things, not just the self is dependently arisen. It takes Buddha's teaching in the Pali Canon and applies it to all matter. All things (dharmas) are "empty." Again, it's unclear that the Theravada tradition disagrees about this but it is often held up by Mahayana Buddhists as a distinction between the two traditions.
The Mahayana tradition has many branches including Zen, Tibetan (tantric), and Yogacara. Zen developed in China and East. Tibetan Buddhism argues that there was a third turning of the dharma wheel that led to the development of tantric Buddhism, which is what they practice. I don't know much about it though, so I can't say more than that. The Yogacara tradition interprets Buddha as having said that all things are mental formations, so they end up being a type of "mind-only" philosophy.
Hope that helps!
At this point, the distinctions have a lot to do with the way people practice meditation, with differing historical accounts of the history of Buddhism, with reliance on different texts, and with distinct understandings of one of Buddha's core teachings called 'dependent arising' or 'mutually dependent origination,' called simply 'impermanence' or "emptiness" in the Zen tradition.
The Theravada tradition is often seen as more traditional. The primary texts they follow are called The Pali Canon, which is composed of three 'baskets' - the Suttas, the Vinayas, and the Abhidhamma. The Suttas are the recorded conversations the Buddha had while he was alive. They are often referred to as "The Discourses," or "The Early Discourses." The vinayas are Buddha's teachings on how monks and lay Buddhists should live. They include rules about how large your prayer mat should be, how often and what time you should eat, how people should be ordained, and what mistakes should require a monk or nun to be expelled from the Buddhist community. The Abhidhamma is a collection of commentaries on the Vinayas and Suttas.
The reason the Mahayana tradition does not trust the Pali Canon exclusively is because it was not written down until about the 2nd century, AD. Buddha died (we think) around 430 BC. The Suttas and Vinayas were memorized by a man called Ananda, who was not, himself enlightened at the time of Buddha's death, but was the one who recorded and taught all of the teachings at the First Council. People memorized the two sets of teachings and passed them on. This might sound incredible but at the time it was common to pass on teachings in this way. There was no form of writing and so people's memorization abilities were highly practiced.
That said, the texts weren't written down until 5 centuries later. It's understandable that the Mahayana tradition would feel that maybe they had lost some of the essence of Buddha's teachings. What Thich Nhat Hanh says in this book is that by the time the Suttas and Vinayas were written down, there was only one monk who still remembered them and that he was a very arrogant monk. His account makes sense of the earliest historical Mahayana text, the Lotus Sutra, which is laced with accusations against "arrogant monks."
The Mahayana tradition, therefore, argues that what is transmitted in the Pali Canon is "the first turning of the dharma wheel." That is, it is only the beginning of Buddha's teachings. The Lotus Sutra claims that just before Buddha died, he gave the second turning of the dharma wheel, in which he affirmed the non-substantiality of all dharmas (impermanence) and presented the bodhisattva way as superior to the way of the arahant.
The distinction between the bodhisattva and the arahant is primarily one of focus. The arahant strives to emancipate his or her self from suffering, to end their own suffering through meditation practice. Both traditions agree that this must be the starting point for any Buddhist practice. The Mahayana tradition argues that it is not enough to become enlightened for ourselves. Once our own suffering has ended, they say, we must step onto the path of the bodhisattva and work for the end of suffering of all beings. The bodhisattva, therefore, postpones parinirvana so that they can return to Earth to work for the enlightenment of all beings. (Parinirvana is the state of being an enlightened person enters after they die. It means they will never return to Earth.)
The teaching on the insubstantiality of all dharmas is less telling. It's emphasized in the Lotus Sutra and does become an important part of the Mahayana tradition but it's unclear that the Theravada tradition disagrees with it. In the Pali Canon, Buddha clearly argues against attachment to any part of the self, describing each part of the self (the 5 aggregates - form, sensations, perceptions, mental activities or formations, and consciousness) are all dependently arisen. That means that their existence is dependent on something else and therefore they are not permanent. For example, the sensation of smell is dependent on their being something to smell. When that thing is gone, the sensation is also gone. This seems easy enough to understand and see for ourselves but Buddha pushes it pretty far when he argues that our consciousness is also dependently arisen. He leaves no part of the self that is not dependently arisen, which is really pretty radical, even today.
The insubstantiality of all dharmas means that all things, not just the self is dependently arisen. It takes Buddha's teaching in the Pali Canon and applies it to all matter. All things (dharmas) are "empty." Again, it's unclear that the Theravada tradition disagrees about this but it is often held up by Mahayana Buddhists as a distinction between the two traditions.
The Mahayana tradition has many branches including Zen, Tibetan (tantric), and Yogacara. Zen developed in China and East. Tibetan Buddhism argues that there was a third turning of the dharma wheel that led to the development of tantric Buddhism, which is what they practice. I don't know much about it though, so I can't say more than that. The Yogacara tradition interprets Buddha as having said that all things are mental formations, so they end up being a type of "mind-only" philosophy.
Hope that helps!
Erjon 7
It's the Indian tradition of Buddhism.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more