What are the differences between theravada and mahayana buddhism?

[Dhamma Chameleon]

a bodhisatta makes the determination to take a much longer time developing perfections to a much higher level than someone aspiring to arahantship, or even Private Buddhahood, in order to become a rightly self-awakened Buddha in his final lifetime, motivated by a wish to help countless beings attain awakening. .

My middle way Bodhisattva just delays regular enlightenment for a lifetime or two (or however many they want to hang about for), out of compassion, but does not intend to become a samma-sambuddha. So it's a compassionate pause button on Arahantship as it were. Making this option available to many beings rather than just one per kalpa. It's my personal compromise between Mahayana and Theravada.

[Dan74]

I guess there are various takes on the Bodhisattva Vow within Mahayana, both on what it means for practice, seeing that enlightenment is likely out of reach for most of us in this lifetime, and what it means for those few who are sufficiently advanced.

For a rank-and-file Mahayana Buddhist like me, it can be a great motivator against the sloth and torpor and the fire that help purify practice, to cleanse it of pretence and falsity.

Ultimately, my understanding is that the Vow helps ensure a highly advanced practitioner doesn't pass to Parinirvana, but is reborn. Whether this is due to the Vow itself or some kind of a very minor ignorance, I'm not sure. Ven. Thannisaro's cute thought experiment of all those Bodhisattvas being extremely close to enlightenment and none able to actually fully awaken is I think the least evil that could befall this world..

[Dhamma Chameleon]

For a rank-and-file Mahayana Buddhist like me, it can be a great motivator against the sloth and torpor and the fire that help purify practice, to cleanse it of pretence and falsity.

I can see how the vow can work as a motivator and can be made with good intentions. It's about right speech for me though. How can I in good faith make a promise that I know is impossible? If I know it's impossible, doesn't that make it a false vow? How can I be cleansed of pretense and falsity with a vow that contains a logical fallacy? I don't judge others for it and people can vow away, wonderful if it aids your practice, but I just don't see how a well-reasoning person can make it in good faith. If I understand you correctly you're saying that you don't mean it literally, it's symbolic fire for your practice. In my books that's not a real vow. Now if it said endeavour instead of vow, that would be a different story. It doesn't, but I take it that is what most people mean.

I was the foreign kid in USA class who did not recite the pledge of allegiance because I could not promise that in good faith. My dad said I should do it out of respect, but I couldn't. So this is also just me

[Dan74]

For a rank-and-file Mahayana Buddhist like me, it can be a great motivator against the sloth and torpor and the fire that help purify practice, to cleanse it of pretence and falsity.

I can see how the vow can work as a motivator and can be made with good intentions. It's about right speech for me though. How can I in good faith make a promise that I know is impossible? If I know it's impossible, doesn't that make it a false vow? How can I be cleansed of pretense and falsity with a vow that contains a logical fallacy? I don't judge others for it and people can vow away, wonderful if it aids your practice, but I just don't see how a well-reasoning person can make it in good faith. If I understand you correctly you're saying that you don't mean it literally, it's symbolic fire for your practice. In my books that's not a real vow. Now if it said endeavour instead of vow, that would be a different story. It doesn't, but I take it that is what most people mean.

I was the foreign kid in USA class who did not recite the pledge of allegiance because I could not promise that in good faith. My dad said I should do it out of respect, but I couldn't. So this is also just me

Yeah, I think for most of us, it's an endeavour, more or less earnest. Like the 3 Refuges, actually. How many people, do you reckon, after taking the Refuge, truly only go to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha for refuge?

I respect that it's different for you.

[Gwi II]

Many people have answered, additions from me.

1. Theravādo = originates from the lineage of the
Third Council (Council III from Council II; Council II
from Council I [proved pure]),
2. Theravādo = have a same Vinayo as Council I,
there is no ADDITION or DELETION,
3. Theravādo = using same language as Buddho Gotama,
4. Theravādo upholds Aṭṭhakathā, apart from the
Pāḷi canon (those who like to accuse Aṭṭhakathā [Pāḷi],
they are not Theravādo group),
5. Theravādo has major history books (history in
India is in the scriptures): Mahāvaṃso and Dīpavaṃso.


The great work of G.P. Malala Sekera quotes a
lot the Mahāvaṃso and Dīpavaṃso, THIS IS A
STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE CONTENT IS 95%
reliable (history cannot be 100%).

・ E-budhh likes to criticize the Scriptures, but accepts it.
If wanna criticize, Mahāvaṃso and Dīpavaṃso, it is ok,
if the criticism is correct; IF IT IS WRONG, IT MEANS AN
ACCUSATION (because these two are just "history").


WITHOUT HISTORY, RELIGION WILL NOT BE STRONG.
In MN 91 (I have memorized it), it is said that Brāhmayu
Brahmins are experts in HISTORY (HINDU RELIGION).
Now, Hinduism has many sectarian (Hinduism is 5,000
or 6,000 or 7,000 years old or more). If (in the past),
history had been preserved, history has been preserved,
sectarian in Hinduism will not RAMPANT!

In short, "history" DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY,
has a great influence on RELIGION (if we look
at the case of Hindus [in fact, in all religions,
it is very likely (I'm afraid of lying to say 100%
even though I am very sure) it is also the same]).



President Soekarno (Indonesia's first President),
"Never ever forget history."



Note: don't underestimate my statement about
the "history of Buddhism", the history of Buddhism
in SRI LANKA, MUST BE LEARNED by Theravādins,
over the world, from elementary school to high school.
Prevention is better than cure, RELIGIONAL HISTORY IS
PREVENTION! Mahāvaṃso and Dīpavaṃso must be
studied, as the HISTORY OF BUDDHISTS (SPECIALLY
Theravādins).



* Please ask Mahāyana to get a better answer,
If u wanna know (about) Mahāyana.

[Suddh]

those who like to accuse Aṭṭhakathā [Pāḷi],
they are not Theravādo group

So what approach do you think those in the Theravādo group should take when the commentary directly contradicts the Suttas and Vinaya?

Here's what the Buddha says monks should do when they hear an elder/thera claim something to be Dhamma-Vinaya:

There the Blessed One addressed the monks, “Monks, I will teach you four great standards. Listen and pay careful attention.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded to him.

The Blessed One said, “There is the case where a monk says this: ‘Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the suttas and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this monk has misunderstood it’—and you should reject it. But if, on making them stand against the suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they stand with the suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this monk has understood it rightly.’

“Then there is the case where a monk says this: ‘In a monastery over there dwells a Saṅgha with well-known leading elders. Face-to-face with that Saṅgha I have heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ …

“Then there is the case where a monk says this: ‘In a monastery over there dwell many learned elder monks, well-versed in the tradition, who have memorized the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā.35 Face-to-face with those elders I have heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ …

“Then there is the case where a monk says this: ‘In a monastery over there dwells a learned elder monk, well-versed in the tradition, who has memorized the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Mātikā. Face-to-face with that elder I have heard this, face-to-face have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ His statement is neither to be approved nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his words and make them stand against the suttas and tally them against the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they don’t stand with the suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is not the word of the Blessed One; this monk has misunderstood it’—and you should reject it. But if, on making them stand against the suttas and tallying them against the Vinaya, you find that they stand with the suttas and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: ‘This is the word of the Blessed One; this monk has understood it rightly.’

“Monks, remember these four great standards.”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN16.html

Theravāda simply means that we view our elders as worth listening to - particularly the 500 arahants who convened the First Council, and whose account of that council contains no mention at all of the aṭṭhakathā or abhidhamma being recited. If you accept another version of history than that, you're approving of an amended version of our religion's history, and are disrespecting the elders who recorded the first council in the Culavagga.

As the Buddha himself makes clear here, only the Suttas and Vinaya as recorded in that council are to be viewed as authoritative. Outside of that, being a follower of the Buddha requires that we investigate what we hear from our elders - including those who composed the commentaries - in light of what is contained in the Suttas and Vinaya.

Thus contrary to what you say, whoever refuses to reject the commentaries when they contradict the Suttas or Vinaya is not a true follower of the Buddha. Mahānāmo's attitude should serve as an example:

“There is the case, lord, where a certain Dhamma issue might arise, with the Blessed One on one side and with the Saṅgha of monks, the Saṅgha of nuns, the male lay followers, the female lay followers, & the cosmos with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, its generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk on the other side. Whichever side the Blessed One would be on, that’s the side where I would be. May the Blessed One remember me as one with such confidence.”
[The Blessed One said:] “When he speaks in this way, Godha, what do you have to say about Mahānāma the Sakyan?”
“When he speaks in this way, lord, I have nothing to say about Mahānāma the Sakyan except that (he is) admirable & skillful.” SN 55:23

The fact is that the commentaries, despite providing many helpful and enlightening contributions, often contradict the Buddha, the Suttas and Vinaya. Whoever refuses to accuse them when they do so takes sides against the Blessed One.