THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THERAVADA AND THE MAHAYANA

the_difference_between_theravada_and_the_mahayana

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THERAVADA AND THE MAHAYANA

Running Head: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THERAVADA AND THE MAHAYANA
1

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THERAVADA AND THE MAHAYANA
8

The difference between Theravada and the Mahayana

Name:

College:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

It is very important to know the historical background of Theravada and Buddism before discussing the difference between the two religions. We need to look back at the coming up and development of the two forms of religion.

Buddha was born around sixth century B.C. After becoming enlightened at the age of thirty five up to the age of 80 years, he spent most of his time teaching people and preaching. He was indeed one of the most powerful and energetic person who ever existed. He slept for only two hours per day (Winternitz, 1985, p. 30; Roy, 1972, p. 21).

Buddha spoke to all kinds of people he met including the kings and queens, farmers, intellectuals, beggars Brahmins and many others. His teachings were full of experiences and mentality of his targeted audience. He taught Buddha Vaccana and by then, nothing called Mahayana or Theravada existed (Ancient Indian Scripts, 2000; John, 1994, p. 90).

After coming up with the order of nuns and monks, the Buddha laid down some rules that were supposed to be adhered to. These rules were known as “Vinaya” and were meant to guide the order. His other teachings were called “Dhamana” and included his sermons and discourses to the monks, lay people and the nuns (Prebish, 2009, p. 23; Keown, 1998, p.12).

Some months passed by after the Buddha’s “mahaparinibbana” and his close disciples held a council at Rajagaha. An elderly and much respected monk by the name Maha Kassapa was the one presiding over the council. Two key personalities who were very important were present at the council and they were Vinaya and Dhamana. Ananda was one of the closest and a constant friend of Buddha for a period of twenty five years. Full of remarkable memory, Ananda managed to recite Buddha’s words. The other character was Upali who remembered all the rules of Vinaya (Loy, 2002, p.65; Shreej, 2000, p. 20).

At the first council, only two sections (Vinaya and Dhamana) were recited. Despite lack of opinion on Dhamana, there was a little discussion concerning the rules of Vinaya. At the council, Dhamana was divided into a number of sections with each section having its own elder and students to memorize the rules. Dhamana was then passed from teacher to student in an oral manner. Dhamana rules were recited on a daily basis by groups of individuals who usually crossed checked themselves to make sure that no additions or omissions were made (Buddhist Bark Texts, 1999, p. 30; Willys, 1990, p. 55).

After about one century, the second council was convened to shed light on some rules of Vinaya. There was little need to alter the rules 3 months after the Buddha’s Parinibbana due to insignificant economic, social or political changes that characterized that short period of time. However, after about hundred years, some monks realized the urge to alter some small rules. Monks of orthodox origin said that nothing needs changes while on the other hand insisted on the changing of some rules. Eventually, some monks departed the council and went on to come up with Mahasanghika which was believed to be the great community (Berkwit, 2004, p. 34; Wallace, 2001, p. 78). Despite being called the Mahasanghika, it was not recognized as Mahayana. In the second session of the council, matters pertaining to the Vinaya rules were dealt with and there was no issue of controversy concerning the Dhamana rules was reported (Thomas, 2004, p. 21; George, 1999, p. 22).

In the third century B.C, during the rein of Emperor Asoka, the 3rd council was held to discuss the difference in opinions among the different sects of bhikkhus. At this session, the differences were not specific to Vinaya but also linked to Dhamana (Groner, 1993, p. 30; James, 1990, p. 10). At the end of the council the president known as Tissa Moggaliputta created a book known as the Khathavattu contesting the heretical, false perceptions and hypotheses held by some parties. The teaching accepted and approved by the third council was known as Theravada (Subhadra, 1985, p 22; Bernard, 1981, p. 90).

After the 3rd council, the son of Asoka by the name Mahinda Ven came up with Tripitaka to Sri-Lanka together with the commentaries narrated at the third council. The scripts brought to Sri-Lanka were kept up to date without any form of alteration. The same scripts were written in Pali on the basis of Magadhi language commonly spoken by Buddha. Mahayana never existed by then (Buddhist society, 1990, p. 55; Halbert, 1989, p. 45).

Mahayana was introduced between the 1st century B.C and 1st century A.D along with Saddharma Pundarika of the good law. Mahayana became clearly defined by the 2nd century. Nagarjuna came up with Mahayana thinking regarding Sunyata and showed that everything is negated in a small text known as Madhyamika-karika (Nyunt, 2002, p. 20; Hezron, 1996, p. 40).

The difference between Theravada and Mahayana is basically rooted to the fundamental teachings. In real sense there are no big differences between them. The major difference that exists is the Bodhisattva ideal. Many people believed that Mahayana belongs to the Bodhisattva hood which consequently brings about Buddhahood whereas Theravada belongs to Arahantship. It is important to know that Buddha is also an ally of Arahant (Gibbs, 1996, p.45; Josh, 1992, p. 16). A disciple can be an Arahant as well. The scripts by Mahayana did not use the term Arahant-yana, Arahant car. They used the terms that include; Sravakayana, Prateka-Buddhayana and Bodhisattvayana. These three are known as Bodhis in the Theravada tradition (Markham, 2009, p. 12; Richard, 2006, p. 28).

Some people believe that Theravada is selfish since it teaches that individuals must look for their own salvation. However, the question is raised on how a selfish individual can become civilized. The two institutions agree the three Bodhis or Yana but recognize Bodhisattva idea as the major one. The Mahayana came up with numerous spiritual Bodhisattvas whereas the Theravada recognizes Bodhisattva as human amongst people who dedicates his whole life for the attainment of ideal situation, eventually becoming a fully civilized Buddha for the interests of the world (Wilcockson, 2004, p. 22; Beryl, 2000, p. 31).

In terms of location, the difference between Mahayana and Theravada is that Theravada is located in the Southern part of Thailand, Sri-Lanka, Cambodia and South East Asia. On the other hand, the Mahayana are located on the Northern parts of Tibet, Japan, Mongolia, Korea and some sections of south east Asia (Morgan, 1986, p. 40; Joel, 1978, p. 19).

The difference in terms of Buddhas is that the Theravadas have a historical Buddha known as Gautama and past Buddhas only. The Mahayana has Gautama Buddha and Amitabha among others. Theravada texts are known as Pali Canon only while Mahayana texts include the Theravada texts and other many Sutras. In the perspective of goal of training, Theravada use Arhat while the Mahayana uses Buddhahood through bodhisattva-path. Theravada Bodhisattvas are known as Maitreya while the Mahayana use Maitreya and Avalokitesvara, Ksitigarbha, Samanthabadra and Mansjuri (Hirakwa, 1993, p. 30; Simpson, 1986, p. 44)

On the issue of Trikaya, Theravada had small emphasis especially on dharmakaya and nirmana-kaya unlike the Mahayana who emphasized, and the Samboga kaya or reward body. About the original language, Theravada used Pali while the Mahayana used Sanskrit. Tripitaka is used to supplement the local language in Pali during language transmission by the Theravada while the texts were translated into the local language by the Mahayana (Phuoc, 2010, p. 33; Fred, 2001, p. 30).

About the disciples, Theravada describes historical disciples in scriptures whereas in Mahayana various Bodhisattvas are not historical figures. There was only one surviving school in Theravada while none existed in Mahayana. Concerning the Mudras and Mantras, some are similar regarding the use of Parittas in Theravadas, while Mahayana stressed on Vajrayana which is sometimes used in other institutions of learning. The Limbo was rejected in Theravada while in Mahayana was taught in all learning canters (Saibaba, 2006, p. 50; Rimy, 2004, p. 20).

On the issue of non-Buddhists influences, the Mahayana was heavily influenced local religious concepts as passed on to new cultures in China, Japan and Tibet. Theravada was influenced mainly by the Pre-Buddhist Indians such as the Sangha and karma among others. The nature of the Buddha was not taught in Theravada while the Mahayana emphasized especially during the practical lessons. The Theravadas had few and un-emphasized rituals while the Mahayana had many rituals that resulted from local cultural influence (Walser, 2005, p. 39; Triza, 2000, p. 12 ).

References

Ancient Indian Scripts 2000; John, W, (1994) Understanding Buddhism. Chicago: CH, ABDO.

Berkwitz, S. 2004; Wallace, M (2001). History of Buddhists. New York: NY, McGraw.

Buddhist Bark Texts 1999, Willys, D (1990) Buddhist scriptures. Florida: FL, Cengage learning.

Buddhists Society. 1990; Halbert, T (1989). The middle way. Chicago: CH, Prentice Hall.

Gibbs, P. 1996; Josh, R (1992). Divine revelation. New Jersey: NJ, SAGE.

Prebish, C., Keown, D (2009). Introducing Buddhism. New York: NY, Cengage Learning.

Groner, P. 1993; James, D (1990). Indian Buddhism. New Jersey: NJ, Prentice Hall.

Hirakwa, A. 1993; Simpson, T (1986). History of the Indian Buddhism. California: CA, Routledge.

Kalupahana, D. (1976). Buddhists philosophy. Boston: MA, SAGE.

Loy, D. (2002). Buddhists history. Chicago: CH, Pearson.

Markham, S. 2009, Richard, G (2006). World religion. Boston: MA, ABDO.

Morgan, K. 1986. Joel, P (1978). The path of Buddha. New York: NY, SAGE.

Nyunt, M. 2002; Hezron, K (1996). Buddhist teachings. Chicago: CH, Pearson.

Phuoc, L. 2010; Fred (2001). Buddhist architecture. Boston: MA, McGraw Hill.

Saibaba, V. 2006; Rimy, L (2004). Discourses in Buddhists classics. New jersey: NJ, SAGE.

Subhadra, J. 1985; Bernard, H 1981). The coming up of Mahayana. Florida: FL, McMillan.

Thomas, J. 2004; George, F (1999). The history of Buddha. Boston: MA, Prentice Hall.

Walser, J. 2005; Triza P (2000). Buddhism and early Indian culture. New York: NY, Pearson International.

Wilcockson, T. 2004; Beryl, M (2000). Buddhism in South East Asia. Boston: MA, ABDO.

Winternitz, M. 1985; Roy, P(1972). The history of Indian literature. Chicago: CH, McGraw.