Mahayana V Theravada discussion again (this time with the advantage of knowing a bit more about both)

I will now, cautiously, re-examine the alleged contrasts between ‘the earlier Buddhism’ and Mahayana Buddhism, to some extent in the light of the intervening information that I’ve been posting. If I could trust that I knew how to put workable tables on this blog I would but I don’t so I’ll just go through the dichotomies one by one.

The earlier Buddhism seems to have had an individualist orientation as opposed to the group orientation of Mahayana. The ideal was essentially the aloof quest to become an Arhat whereas with Mahayana it became a quest motivated by compassion to become the Bodhisattva ideal.

The earlier Buddhism, too, was focused on the role and separation of the religious orders in contrast with the many upaya that gave many laypeople more roles in Mahayana Buddhism than they ever might have possessed earlier. Some of the Mahayana sutras may be read as actually being anti-clerical. One sutra lauded the wisdom of a 12 year old girl in a story (in a hint of contrast with its relative lack in many monks – this also hints at a less sexist Buddhism (though the earlier Buddhism wasn't especially sexist either)).

The new system even had a third role or way (yana) in the Tibetan rites, that of the yogi hermit – neither lay nor bound by any rules of the vinaya (usually seeking Arhathood). Even within lay Tibetan ranks, certain high roles were also able to be established so that in a sense a post-Vatican II-like era of formalised lay involvement in “Church” government began.

It is reasonable to argue that a similar transformation appears to be occurring today and over the last 200 odd years in the Theravada-tradition countries although its inspiration is apparently recent and arguably Western. The idea of permitting married priests has still also arisen only in the Mahayana tradition (in parts of East Asia).

The earlier Buddhism was focused on psychology somewhat to the exclusion of cosmological questions whereas the Mahayana Buddhists were taught cosmology in substantially greater detail.

Self-effort was a teaching that stood out in the earlier Buddhism. The goal was to be one’s own philosopher. Mahayana Buddhism in various forms provided one on the other hand with useful incantations that might make it possible to commune with and learn from mystic teachers in other realms. So Buddhism became an easier religion to get on in, then, with the aid of others (even in other realms).

The very earliest Buddhism also (mostly) resisted ritual whereas the Mahayana rite embraced it much more fully.

The final contrast was cultural. The earlier Buddhism was conservative and exclusive but Mahayana Buddhism was liberal and inclusive. Its very existence was counted a liberal change by the conservative earlier forms. New skilful means were permitted to be learned from other religions, as alluded to in an earlier post. It is still possible in the Theravada tradition, however, though less common, to also have other religions. Exchanges arguably might even occur between Mahayana Buddhism and Western psychology (and do, in fact, with either side contributing to undermining ‘blockages’ in the other).

The reality is that there are progressive and conservative forces in both traditions but the contrasts do stand up to at least some extent. But the final picture is of course much more complex.