Enter the Mahāyāna
After spending the past month exploring early Buddhist philosophy we’ve [finally] entered the second turning of the wheel. Mahayana Buddhism was a new branch of Buddhist thought that emerged in the first century C.E., about 500 years after the time of the historical Buddha. Mahayana literally translates as great vehicle, as the proponents of this school called this framework a more direct and purified form of what the Buddha taught. An important point early Buddhism makes is that a Buddha will teach according to the level of understanding of his audience. The Mahayana sutras take this claim literally, and say that in the 20 generations since that time, we’ve learned some shit and have a greater capacity for understanding. The crux of this is that Mahayana Buddhism expanded the definition of emptiness to encompass all phenomena, instead of just persons, and with this the ultimate goal of practice shifted to the liberation of all sentient beings (the bodhisattva ideal) instead of the expressed goal of the early Buddhist arhat, which was to transcend suffering.
from my teacher:~~ As these texts make clear, Mahāyāna Buddhists often consider their approach superior to other forms of Buddhism. In particular, Mahāyāna Buddhism often says that its emphasis on achieving enlightenment for the benefit of others makes it superior to other forms of Buddhism (sometimes referred to pejoratively as Hīnayāna, or “Lesser Vehicle” Buddhism) which only focus on achieving enlightenment for oneself. But in practice, both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna forms of Buddhism cultivate and practice many of the same things: morality, wisdom, and meditation. If you just look at what Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna practitioners actually do, it might be hard to tell them apart. The difference, then, is one of intention rather than actual practice.~~
PROMPT
How important do you think this difference is, really? Is the difference of intention really that big a deal? Remember that Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna Buddhism share many of the same practices.
༶
In any update, there will necessarily be differences from the original. In the Mahāyāna sutras, written 500 years after the time of the Buddha, the logic of emptiness was extended to apply to all phenomena instead of just persons, and the goal of liberation was shifted from ending one’s own suffering to ending that of all sentient beings. In both cases, the locus of the path was shifted from the self to the collective. Does this mean early Buddhism was a selfish philosophy and the Mahāyāna altruistic? That is not what I perceive in reading texts from both camps. I see an evolution in rational and linguistic capacities, but a core philosophy that remains the same.
We can think of this shift as a move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs— While premodern times were more focused on survival, the improvement of general conditions allowed for a more nuanced collective worldview to unfold. Additionally, early Buddhism was limited to using pre-existing non-Buddhist language to define itself, while Mahayana sutras had the luxury of 20 generations of Buddhist discourse to work with. Early Buddhism used Annatā (literally no-self) to negate the pre-existing agreed-upon reality of the atman. Mahāyāna sutras had the advantage of this ground already being tread and could instead expand the concept and swim in the vast spaciousness of Sunyātā (void-ness), the emptiness of all phenomena. The Arhat emerged from a worldview occupied with the self due to survival needs, while the Bodhisattva ideal came at a time when language and material conditions allowed a more expansive sense of selfhood to take place.
While both schools describe the same core philosophy, the evolution in language allowed for an experiential shift in practice. While there may not be any practical difference between the Arhat and the Bodhisattva, the title gives each its own respective texture. Much like with foods, some people may perceive that difference as unimportant while to others it may feel monumental. I must admit I personally prefer the language of the latter. While I found working through the texts of early Buddhism to be very rich and informative, I couldn’t help but feel boxed in by the structure being so self-oriented. It's no fault of early Buddhism, that is just the language they had available at the time. I find the Mahayana sutras to be more conducive to the goal of liberation, as I find the collective focus to be a quicker tap into the experiential quality of liberation. In the Bodhisattva ideal, a space was created in which “the sudden lightning glares and all is clearly shown” as Shantideva states. While this is also possible in an early Buddhist framework, it feels to me that there is more sifting through the reeds required to get there. If expediency in liberation is our goal, I find the Mahāyāna sutras to be a better vehicle for arrival.
༶