Theravada vs Mahayana

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Saaz
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:48 pm

Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by Saaz »

Hello, everyone,

It's quite some time that I'm trying to wrap my head around some differences and commonalities between Theravada and Mahayana teachings. After reading from both traditions (specifically the Zen tradition for Mahayana), I concur that both take roots in the pivotal ideas of Buddha's teaching, although differing in the emphasis put on different aspects; this could reasonably be due to the historical context where these traditions developed.

However, sometimes I struggle in bridging the goal and the respective path of these two traditions. In the Theravada tradition the goal (enlightenment), and the path to reach it, is to me fairly clear. In a nutshell: there are wholesome qualities (Enlightenment factors) that need to be cultivated and unwholesome qualities (Nivarana) that need to be removed and this will lead, along with the right ethics, meditation and wisdom, to different stages of realization ultimately leading to the state of Arahant.
My problems arise when I try to fit in all this the concept of Emptiness (Sunyata). I concur with the interpretation that emptiness is an elaboration of the dependent origination, so from a conceptual level, I see a common ground between the doctrine in the Pali Canon and the later Mahayana literature. However, it seems to me that often, especially in some of the literature on Prajnaparamita and Mahayana sutra (eg Lankavatara, Vimalakirtinirdesa), this leads to a different approach to the actual practice, path and ultimately enlightenment. What I often get from these sutras is a disregard for a gradual path of progression based on the cultivation of wholesome states and the elimination of unwholesome ones and, on the other hand, that the insight into emptiness is a sufficient condition for awakening. This seems to me that, at least theoretically, an insight into emptiness doesn't necessarily need the practice of virtues, right ethics and even meditation, leading to a completely different direction compared to the Theravada Buddhism.

Some ideas that I'm exploring to find some coherence in this are:

1) The insight into Emptiness is equivalent to the first stage of Enlightenment in the Theravada tradition, Sotopanna (the stream-enterer), where ones obtain an intuitive grasp of the dharma (right view). At this point, however, although one has insight into emptiness, many defilements are still present and so are their consequences. One has still to practice meditation and the right ethics if one wants to get rid of the causes of sufferance. Since the Enlightenment is supposedly an irreversible process, it could be argued that once one has the right view the subsequent steps, given time, occur rather spontaneously. This would explain why so much stress has been put on the concept of emptiness and why some Mahayana traditions, like Chan or Zen, seem to give such importance to the insight into Emptiness, often seemingly in contradiction with the teaching of the Buddha (eg it comes to my mind the story of Baso and Nangaku and the polishing of a Tile). It could also be that all the teaching of the Buddha are given as implicit since all these sutras and texts are written by ordained monks...
2) The insight into Emptiness is the ultimate goal and it doesn't necessarily need the practice of virtues, right ethics and even meditation. This would put the Theravada and Mahayana (at least some of the Mahayana traditions) in completely different directions. They would have a common philosophical background but there wouldn't be the possibility of fully finding coherence between the two traditions.

I would appreciate any thought on the matter or suggestions to sources that tackle the issues.

Thanks :namaste:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by Coëmgenu »

Saaz wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:55 pmHowever, it seems to me that often, especially in some of the literature on Prajnaparamita and Mahayana sutra (eg Lankavatara, Vimalakirtinirdesa), this leads to a different approach to the actual practice, path and ultimately enlightenment. What I often get from these sutras is a disregard for a gradual path of progression based on the cultivation of wholesome states and the elimination of unwholesome ones and, on the other hand, that the insight into emptiness is a sufficient condition for awakening.
Do you get this idea of "disregard the gradual path" from the Mahāyāna sūtras or from the teachings of Mahāyāna-derived sects like Japanese Pure Land and Zen? Bodhisattvayāna actually identifies itself as a longer and more grueling path than Śrāvakayāna. The Prajñāpāramitā contains the teachings of the 10 bodhisattva bhūmis. The bhūmis are often ignored in Mahāyāna sects that seek to abbreviate or shorten the long path of aeons of cultivation that is spelled out in the Mahāyāna sūtras, but those sūtras themselves have them and argue for a longer and "even more gradual" path if anything.

Something to keep in mind is that Bodhisattvayāna identifies itself as the path through which Sammāsambuddhas arise. In all of the Dharma as it was inherited by the early Buddhist schools, the Buddha taught the path to Arhatship, not the path to becoming completely identical to him, to becoming a Sammāsambuddha. Now, the Mahāyāna could all be fabricated junk, but the above is what it bills itself as. It bills itself as aiming higher than other paths, whether it does that effectively or not. This necessarily involves a longer period of cultivation and purification.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by DNS »

I see you also posted this at DWM (which is okay of course) where I already responded, so I'll repeat what I posted there:

The differences are not really that severe as some might think. Emptiness in Mahayana is very similar to anatta in Theravada. There is no permanent soul, self or essence in anything. Although it is accepted that there are some physical external realities, these are the most minute things that cannot be broken down any further.

The biggest difference is in the bodhisattva vows whereas in Theravada the goal is nirvana in this life or in some future life. Even there, it is not that different. Except for some who over-estimate their attainments, for the most part, most Theravadins recognize that they will not attain full awakening in this life and hope for a better rebirth where they will attain nirvana. And in this sense, it might be very close to Pure Land Buddhism and other forms of Mahayana.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by cappuccino »

DNS wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:09 pm There is no permanent soul, self or essence in anything.
Find where this is stated, anywhere at all

:shrug:

This doesn’t have to mean there is a self
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by DNS »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:04 am
DNS wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:09 pm There is no permanent soul, self or essence in anything.
Find where this is stated, anywhere at all

:shrug:
Sabbe dhammā anattā
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by cappuccino »

DNS wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:13 am Sabbe dhammā anattā
all dharmas are not self


not… no self
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by bodom »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:04 am
DNS wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:09 pm There is no permanent soul, self or essence in anything.
Find where this is stated, anywhere at all

:shrug:

This doesn’t have to mean there is a self
Would you like me to split this off and start a new topic cappuccino? This has the potential to derail the thread off topic and Id like to nip it in the bud before it does.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by cappuccino »

bodom wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:17 am Would you like me to split this off and start a new topic cappuccino?
Already over
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by bodom »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:18 am
bodom wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:17 am Would you like me to split this off and start a new topic cappuccino?
Already over
:anjali:

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Rambutan
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:35 pm

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by Rambutan »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:04 am
DNS wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 4:09 pm There is no permanent soul, self or essence in anything.
Find where this is stated, anywhere at all

:shrug:

This doesn’t have to mean there is a self
Hahahaha
User avatar
Rambutan
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:35 pm

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by Rambutan »

cappuccino wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:15 am
DNS wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:13 am Sabbe dhammā anattā
all dharmas are not self


not… no self
The self of not-self
Hahahaha
User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4210
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: USA West Coast

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

Saaz wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:55 pm [...]
I would appreciate any thought on the matter or suggestions to sources that tackle the issues.
Thanks :namaste:
The only distinctions are ones of emphasis: which steps on the path are essential; the ordering of them and motivation for treading the path.

This little book, which can be read online or downloaded for free, is by the Dalai Lama, wherein he comments on texts of Atisha & Tsongkhapa. The latter two taught a stages of the path system that influenced Buddhist India & most of Central Asia for around 1000 years. It will answer all major questions, with no sectarianism. In fact sectarianism is clearly impossible when every teaching is seen as beneficial for some person, at some point, during some lifetime.

https://www.lamayeshe.com/article/illum ... ightenment
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by nmjojola »

[L. 130 | 140] 2 August 1964

[…]

it is true to say that the Mahāyāna concept of nirvāna is separated by an abyss from the nibbāna of the Pali Suttas.

The question hinges on the scandal of the world's relativity, or variety, (which stubbornly resists all our efforts to reduce it to a single Whole)

[…]

here is a passage from the Prajñāpāramitā on the Mahāyānist avidyā:
Objects exist only insofar as they do not exist in reality. Insofar as they do not exist they are called avidyā, which means 'non-knowledge'. Common and ignorant people are attached to these things because they do not receive guidance (teaching) on this subject. They picture to themselves all these objects as existing, whereas in reality no one (nothing) exists.


Finally, a verse from the Pali Suttas:
Sankapparāgo purisassa kāmo
Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke
Sankapparāgo purisassa kāmo
Titthanti citrāni tath'eva loke
Ath'ettha dhīrā vinayanti chandam.
(A. VI,63: iii,411)

Thought and lust are a man's sensuality,
Not the various things in the world;
Thought and lust are a man's sensuality,
The various things just stand there in the world;
But the wise get rid of desire therein.


[…] the variety of the world […] for the Mahāyānist it is ignorance; and […] the aim is to overcome the world, […] by attainment of knowledge. Unlike the […] the Mahāyānists, the Pali Suttas teach that the variety of the world is neither illusion (māyā) nor delusion (avidyā) but perfectly real. The attainment of nibbāna is certainly cessation of avijjā, but this leaves the variety of the world intact, except that affectively the variety is now uniformly indifferent. Avidyā, clearly enough, does not mean to the Mahāyānist what avijjā does in the Pali Suttas.

- Nanavira Thera
DiamondNgXZ
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:40 am

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by DiamondNgXZ »

Saaz wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:55 pm Hello, everyone,

It's quite some time that I'm trying to wrap my head around some differences and commonalities between Theravada and Mahayana teachings. After reading from both traditions (specifically the Zen tradition for Mahayana), I concur that both take roots in the pivotal ideas of Buddha's teaching, although differing in the emphasis put on different aspects; this could reasonably be due to the historical context where these traditions developed.

However, sometimes I struggle in bridging the goal and the respective path of these two traditions. In the Theravada tradition the goal (enlightenment), and the path to reach it, is to me fairly clear. In a nutshell: there are wholesome qualities (Enlightenment factors) that need to be cultivated and unwholesome qualities (Nivarana) that need to be removed and this will lead, along with the right ethics, meditation and wisdom, to different stages of realization ultimately leading to the state of Arahant.
My problems arise when I try to fit in all this the concept of Emptiness (Sunyata). I concur with the interpretation that emptiness is an elaboration of the dependent origination, so from a conceptual level, I see a common ground between the doctrine in the Pali Canon and the later Mahayana literature. However, it seems to me that often, especially in some of the literature on Prajnaparamita and Mahayana sutra (eg Lankavatara, Vimalakirtinirdesa), this leads to a different approach to the actual practice, path and ultimately enlightenment. What I often get from these sutras is a disregard for a gradual path of progression based on the cultivation of wholesome states and the elimination of unwholesome ones and, on the other hand, that the insight into emptiness is a sufficient condition for awakening. This seems to me that, at least theoretically, an insight into emptiness doesn't necessarily need the practice of virtues, right ethics and even meditation, leading to a completely different direction compared to the Theravada Buddhism.

Some ideas that I'm exploring to find some coherence in this are:

1) The insight into Emptiness is equivalent to the first stage of Enlightenment in the Theravada tradition, Sotopanna (the stream-enterer), where ones obtain an intuitive grasp of the dharma (right view). At this point, however, although one has insight into emptiness, many defilements are still present and so are their consequences. One has still to practice meditation and the right ethics if one wants to get rid of the causes of sufferance. Since the Enlightenment is supposedly an irreversible process, it could be argued that once one has the right view the subsequent steps, given time, occur rather spontaneously. This would explain why so much stress has been put on the concept of emptiness and why some Mahayana traditions, like Chan or Zen, seem to give such importance to the insight into Emptiness, often seemingly in contradiction with the teaching of the Buddha (eg it comes to my mind the story of Baso and Nangaku and the polishing of a Tile). It could also be that all the teaching of the Buddha are given as implicit since all these sutras and texts are written by ordained monks...
2) The insight into Emptiness is the ultimate goal and it doesn't necessarily need the practice of virtues, right ethics and even meditation. This would put the Theravada and Mahayana (at least some of the Mahayana traditions) in completely different directions. They would have a common philosophical background but there wouldn't be the possibility of fully finding coherence between the two traditions.

I would appreciate any thought on the matter or suggestions to sources that tackle the issues.

Thanks :namaste:
Find a passage from Mahayana where they say no need to practise morality and meditation.

I don't think you can. Mahayana also has 4 noble truths, noble 8fold path. They emphasise on morality, meditation and wisdom, all the same. It's just different entry point if you don't go deep into Mahayana, you might miss these. Mahayana indeed tends to have more emphasis on the wisdom part of perception of emptiness (no self) nature of all phenomenon. Yet this doesn't negate morality at all.

You go deep into Theravada, you'll find no self insight is basically just like the emptiness teachings in Mahayana. Theravada also has the emptiness teachings. The world is empty. Empty of what? Of self.

The emphasis on emptiness is better done when one has very very very strong basis in morality and deep meditation practises, then it's useful. Or else it can be easily misused by beginners to think: no self, no responsibility, no morality, which is wrong view. In other words, emptiness teachings are deep, advanced, not for beginners. Don't linger there if you're not ready yet, or don't have good teachers to clear potential misunderstandings.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Theravada vs Mahayana

Post by Dan74 »

I was with you until you said that because of the emphasis on sudden realization, there is no importance given to ethics, cultivating wholesome qualities, etc.

This isn't accurate at all in my experience practicing under a number of Zen teachers. Ethics are important in all Buddhist schools and this is reflected in many Mahayana sutras. In the Complete (Perfect) Enlightenment Sutra, for instance, it is taught that for one who has not relinquished sensuality, any attainment will only serve Mara. Many Sutra emphasize the 6 Paramitas (Mahayana equivalents of the Brahmaviharas).


But yes, practice can be quite different. It doesn't need to be completely reconciled, nor can it be for most of us, since the deeper differences relate to very advance stages of practice.
_/|\_
Post Reply