Singapore DharmaNet Homepage



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS




Subject: Differences between Theravada and Mahayana
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:15:47 +0000
From: SIM BOOY LEE

Piya Tan,

There are several differences between Theravada and Mahayana. Please explain how to reconcile the following differences:

1. Theravada believes in only one Buddha and Mahayana in many. Why Theravada believes in the coming of Maitreya Buddha ?

2. Theravada believes that Nirvana is attainable only by getting out of samsara. But why Mahayana believes that Nirvana is attainable within samsara ?

3. Theravada considers that liberation can only be achieved by one own's efforts. Why Mahayana considers assistance from outside as possible ?

4. Theravada does not believe that merits are transferable, but why Mahayana believes that they are transferable ?

Thanks and Regards.

SB Lee

PIYA'S RESPONSE

1. Theravada believes in only one Buddha and Mahayana in many. Why Theravada believes in the coming of Maitreya Buddha ?

While the Theravada accept only one historical Buddha, the Pali texts also speak of many past Buddhas. The present Auspicious Age (bhadda,kappa) has a total of 24 Buddhas (see the Buddhavamsa)! The Mahapadana Sutta talks about the 7 Buddhas preceding our present Buddha, Gotama (Digha no. 14). See also Majjhima 1:333 ff.

While the Theravadins tend to focus mostly on Gotama Buddha, the Mahayana speak of a greater number of Buddhas. This "Buddha" awareness of the Mahayana, I think, arose concurrently with the development of Indian mathematics and learning, for example, an awareness of the vastness of the universe. So the Mahayana speak of Buddhas of the 10 directions, especially Aksobhya (east), Ratnasambhava (south), Amitabha (west) and Amoghasiddhi (north).

The ancient Indian mathematicians were aware of huge numbers, so the number of Buddha also grew "as many as the sands on the banks of the Ganges", and so on. All these are skilful means to help devotees practise meditation on the Buddha (Buddhanussati). It is better to populate the universe with Buddhas than with demons, anyway!

Gotama himself predicted the coming of Metteyya (Sanskrit, Maitreya), the fifth Buddha of this world cycle. But this is mentioned only in two places in the Pali Canon, that is, in the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta (Digha no. 25) and in the Buddhavamsa (Bv 27:21).

Since we are still in the Dispensation of Gotama Buddha, it behooves us to take refuge only in him. Maitreya is not yet a Buddha, so the appellation "Maitreya Buddha" is incorrect: he is still a Bodhisattva. The reason for some people looking "forward" to him can be explained in various ways, the simplest of which is perhaps sociologically. People have a social need of security: the feel that the Buddha is "dead". So they look up to his "successor", as it were. However, if we have a good grasp of basic Buddhist tenets there is no need for such insecurities.

After all, the Buddha himself is nothing but the Five Aggregates, albeit without grasping.

2. Theravada believes that Nirvana is attainable only by getting out of samsara. But why Mahayana believes that Nirvana is attainable within samsara ?

The Theravada generally present Buddhism in a simple way, using conventional language so that the masses will understand. In fact, this has been the secret of its success, despite the rapid growth of other schools of Buddhism (which indeed are important responses to new social conditions). If one understands even intellectually the doctrine of nonself, then one also understands that to talk of Nirvana is empty talk. So it does not matter whether Nirvana is attained outside of Samsara or not: the question does not apply here. It is the language used by the Theravada that gives the impression that Nirvana is some goal out there.

Nagarjuna and his followers brought such teachings to its apex in his Madhyamaka teachings. They speak of the problem of language and of emptiness, that is, to say the highest truth is to be experienced, not talked about (beyond language). Language can be a vehicle for its understanding, but the vehicle should not be mistaken for the destination. A good current book of read here Jay Garfield's "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way" , an easy translation of the Mula,madhyamaka Karika, Nagarjuna's magnum opus.

3. Theravada considers that liberation can only be achieved by one own's efforts. Why Mahayana considers assistance from outside as possible ?

I think it is more correct to say that Theravada teaches that the centrality of mindfulness. The notion that Theravada only teaches self-effort (almost to the exclusion of other-help) because of misreadings and a narrow interpretation of canonical statements like "Be an island unto yourself" (D 2:100), even statements like " This is the path with only one goal" (ekayano maggo) (D 2:290). Such statements (at least the ones I mentioned here) refer to the practice of meditation and its goal.

To meditate, you have to do it yourself. No one can do it for you. It is like exercising: you have to do it yourself. No one can exercise for you. However, the very fact that the Buddha decided to teach the Dharma to the world, shows that he cares. And the Pali Canon is full of stories where people need only to listen to him, sometimes just a few words, and they get enlightened!

Of course, one might say that these people who can enlightened by the power of the Buddha as it were, did so because they themselves have accumulated good karma in the past. By the same token, we can say that, every waking moment we are also creating karma. The point is that we should mindfully be making good karma, as they are the foundation for impending enlightenment.

Nothing thought, learned, done or said with goodness is ever lost. In small ways or big ways, each of us are preparing for enlightenment. It's just that sometimes we lose our way. That's why we need good Sanghins and spiritual friends: to remind us to get back to the right path, that is, the only way, namely, the EIGHTFOLD PATH (Dh 273 f.).

4. Theravada does not believe that merits are transferable, but why Mahayana believes that they are transferable ?

The term "transfer", I think, is a stepchild we inherited from the "Protestant" Buddhists in the colonial days. (Protestant Buddhists are those who tried to reform Buddhism motivated by the fear of Christian evangelism, and in many ways were influenced by the very thing they feared!) There are two important terms commonly used in connection with the "transfer" of merit: patta,anumodanaa (rejoicing in the merit accumulated) and pattii,daana (giving of accumulated merit).

The older term is patta,anumodanaa, which reall means "dedication of merit". The locus classicus (main reference) of this practice is found in the Tirokudda Sutta (Khuddaka Patha of the Khuddaka Nikaya). The second term, pattii,daana is a late term found in the Vimana,vatthu Commentary.

The basic dynamics of benefitting others through one's merit is that one should recollect that person or recipient mindfully with a mind of lovingkindness and dedicate good wishes, etc, to that being. Technically, devas do not need such dedications (they are existentially better off); animals are better cared for in a personal and physical way if they need help! Our relatives who are reborn elsewhere would benefit if we do lovingkindness meditation. In short, the traditional "dedication of merit" is specifically for the Hungry Ghosts (peta) as expounded in the Tirokudda Sutta.

But this practice has become a powerful psychological support for the Buddhist masses and others. So if something helps to bring security and happiness to others in a harmless way, why not leave it as it is?

Piya Tan.

---END OF ANSWER---








Main Page | Biography of Webmaster | Introduction | What is Dharma | Questions and Answers
Links | Schedule of talks | Buddhist Articles | Sutra Study | Virtual Interfaith Dialogue | Sutta Translation

Webmaster Piya Tan
Email : piya@dharma.per.sg