Buddhism and salvation

QUESTION: The Mahayana tradition in Buddhism better satisfies the human need to worship a deity and offers a more hopeful path to salvation than does the Theravada tradition. Discuss this claim paying particular attention to the continuing popularity of the Therevada tradition in several Southeast Asian countries.

This essay will show that whilst the claims contained in the first part of the question are undoubtedly true, Mahayana popularity cannot be explained by these two reasons alone. Its rise to predominance over the Theravada school owes as much to the fact that it was transplanted first to China - the dominant culture of which served as a vehicle to propel it to two other countries - as to its inherent doctrine.

Further, that only by allowing itself to be corrupted almost beyond recognition has it managed to gain as many adherents as it has.1 In some cases, it will be observed, the determining factor as to which school of Buddhism a country eventually followed depended on which king as “defender and promoter of the faith,” chose which particular school, or, which form of the religion first arrived in the country.

The Mahayana school of Buddhism differs from its Theravada counterpart in a number of fundamental ways but the most appealing difference in its philosophy is the premise that salvation is open to all; the notion of group salvation as opposed to individual accomplishment; that it is possible for all people to reach an enlightened state and work towards that goal. There is thus a path for the laity to follow in the knowledge that life is not hopeless - they can, by behaving in the appropriate manner, eventually reach nirvana. 2

The Theravada school by way of contrast maintains that enlightenment can only be attained by a select group of religious figures and scholars. Borrowing from the Hindu caste system, Theravada monks believe that the status a person is born to is an indication of the state of that person's soul. 3

1 Renowned Buddhist scholar Christmas Humphreys writes of the Chinese ...”it was the Mahayana School whose doctrines they were asked to accept, and which they accepted only after a modification so profound as all but to create a new form of Buddhism”. C. Humphreys, Buddhism, Cassell & Company Ltd. (London 1972)

2 A. Verdu The Philosophy of Buddhism: A “Totalistic” Synthesis., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (London 1981) passim pp. 81 -93

3 What is Theravada http://www.askjeeves.com/MetaAnswer.asp?MetaEngine=Lycos&logQID=2892826&qCategory=GODS&qSource=0&frames=yes&site_name=Jeeves&scope=web&r=x&MetaTopic=Buddhist+Viewpoints+on+Mahayana%2C+Theravada+%26+Vajrayana+Buddh&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fhawaiian.net%2F%7Edsparks%2F&EngineOrdinal=5&ItemOrdinal=1&MetaList=http%3A%2F%2Fhawaiian.net%2F%7Edsparks%2F&Go_to.x=15&Go_to.y=5

The idea of the soul differs from the Christian concept in that at the point of death the soul/life force dissembles into five aggregates which, in varying proportions reassemble at the point of rebirth into the different soul of the new person.
Therefore it would be all but impossible for anyone other than a monk to even approach enlightenment. Moreover, to achieve enlightenment and enter nirvana one must pursue one’s cause alone and attain it by merit involving the student in a lifetime of selfless devotion. Theravada, then, can be construed by the outsider, and particularly the followers of the Mahayana, as being selfish and elitist.

This contrast, the one school offering salvation to all, the other to only a select few would lead most to view Mahayana as being the more friendly, easier path to
follow. At base, it is this “user friendliness” which is seen as the reason for Mahayana attracting more followers than Theravada.

Theravada Buddhists believe that they practice the original, pure form of Buddhism as it was handed down to them by the Buddha. They believe that the Buddha was a historical person who, on his death, ceased to exist. Theravada holds unswervingly to the notion of the Buddha as a single historical figure, not one of many in a continuing line. Theravada theology derives from a strict interpretation of religious texts said to be literal translations of the Buddha’s own words and, by holding so rigidly to this doctrine, it has little room to move or to accommodate other ideas or interpretations of its canon.

Theravada does not, cannot, cater to the human need to worship a God of any sort - “there was only one Buddha, he was not divine, and he is no longer extant.”

Mahayana however, addresses this most basic of human needs. The Buddha in Mahayana becomes deified as a sort of universal spiritual soul/being. No longer human he can be worshipped as a God. 4

4 In speaking of Mahayana, Christmas Humphreys in his book Buddhism, op. cit. p. 66 says ...“Certainly within a hundred years of the death of Asoka [c. 268-233 b.c.], the change was profound and all but complete. From being a human being the Buddha had become a super-human Being, and his spiritual Essence had entered a pantheon nearly as large as that of the Hinduism from which it derived.”

The central figure in Mahayana is that of the bodhisattva, (“he who has the essence of Buddahood”) a compassionate and loving saviour who, rather than selfishly abandoning this world, pauses at the threshold of Nirvana to reach down to help all mankind to attain liberation from sorrow and rebirth through his grace.5

The bodhisattva is a teacher, a helper of any who wish to attain enlightenment. In Theravada bodhissattvas do not exist, the person is on his own in the quest for nirvana. In Mahayana anybody can become a Buddha - in Theravada none but the most devout have the chance.

The school of Mahayana began as a reaction against the Theravada school - which its followers saw as selfishly restricting - and it’s method of establishing its credentials has something of a parallel in Islam. Just as Islam followed the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity without denying their rightness so does Mahayana follow Theravada.

Mohammed, who claimed to have received the teachings of his God some six hundred years after the birth of Christ, was believed to be the last prophet. All that had gone before was not condemned, disputed or denied, in fact the Koran can in many ways be seen as something of an extension to the Christian bible. Likewise with Mahayana which does not deny, dispute or contradict anything in the older Theravada canon. The followers of Mahayana insist that the Buddha appeared in ...”a non-physical form and personally founded the Mahayana himself.” 6 Theravada, in the eyes of the followers of Mahayana is merely incomplete - the Mahayana is the extension of the Hinayana, not its replacement. 7

The Buddha, having founded Mahayana after Theravada was already established, thereby sanctified this branch of the religion - the last word of the Buddha; similar to the last word of Muhammed.

5 S. Wolpert. A New History of India. Oxford University Press. (New York. 1997) p. 72

6 P. Bishop & M. Darton (eds) “Mahayana Buddhism”, in The Encyclopaedia of World Faiths,: Macdonald Orbis, (London 1987 ) p. 232

7 Humphreys, op. cit. p. 50. The word Hinayana is used here to mean the scriptures of the Theravadins.
This claim to legitimacy put Mahayana Buddhism in a different sphere where it was free to adapt, to include and modify without the necessity of having to re interpret the Theravada canon and run the risk of loosing credibility; it was open to permeability and could accept other deities and customs.

An indication of how much the Mahayana school has been effected by the subsequent infusion of ideas can be gained by the size of its scriptures. In Theravada Buddhism, there are three groups of writing considered to be holy scriptures, known as the “Three Baskets” The total volume of these three groups of writings is about 11 times larger than the Bible.
In Mahayana Buddhism, the scriptures are much more voluminous. They have multiplied to the point where standard editions of the Chinese canon can encompass over 5 000 volumes.8

In fact the sutras of the Mahayana, many of which were written long after Buddhism had entered China, came from the minds of scholars who lived from three to seven hundred years after the Buddha’s death.9

The spread of Mahayana to China and thence to Korea and Japan is of interest in the light of contrast with Theravada. Mahayana “travels” well. It is doubtful that Buddhism would ever have spread to China if the Mahayana movement had not occurred. 10
The monastic order of Theravada lived almost in seclusion, removed from the mass of the laity whose participation in it was minimal - conduct which did not lend itself freely to proselytising. 11

8 op. cit. What is Theravada http://www.askjeeves.com/MetaAnswer.asp?MetaEngine=Lycos&logQID=2892826&qCategory=GODS&qSource=0&frames=yes&site_name=Jeeves&scope=web&r=x&MetaTopic=Buddhist+Viewpoints+on+Mahayana%2C+Theravada+%26+Vajrayana+Buddh&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fhawaiian.net%2F%7Edsparks%2F&EngineOrdinal=5&ItemOrdinal=1&MetaList=http%3A%2F%2Fhawaiian.net%2F%7Edsparks%2F&Go_to.x=15&Go_to.y=5

9 Humphreys, op. cit. p. 14

10 D. Ikeda. Buddhism the First Millennium, Kodansha International Ltd. (New York 1977) p. 80

11 Ibid

The Buddha himself had allegedly sent his first five converts away with instructions to spread the word but the Theravadins who followed in their footsteps remained to some extent aloof from the mass of the population and displayed none of the missionary zeal of the Mahayanas.12

In the case of China was Mahayana which arrived on the scene first and so took root, tenuous at first it suffered many setbacks over the centuries but the mere fact that it was there first ensured that if Buddhism was to survive it was to be the Mahayana branch. Buddhism travelled to China from the north west of India during the time of the great Kushan empire (1st - 3rd centuries AD) using the vehicle of trade and, being from the north west it was mainly of the Mahayana school.
The Kushan king, Kanishka, was himself a Buddhist but it was not through military conquest that the religion spread to China from his kingdom. Instead it was that his subjects often acted as carriers to the great trading caravans which regularly left India for China. 13

These expeditions could take up to three years to make the round trip and Hindu merchants were loath to embark upon them without being accompanied by their Brahman priests. The Brahman priestly caste however, in accordance with their religion, could not leave their homes.

As a result, Hindu merchants either converted to another religion or, as was more often the case, hired the local Mahayana Buddhists.14 Buddhist monks were not prohibited from travel and, over time, as Buddhist trading communities began to coalesce, used these trading posts as bases from which to promote their religion.

12 The 1995 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopaedia. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc. (California 1995)
13 W. Theodore de Barry (ed), Sources of Indian Tradition Volume 1, Colombia University Press, (New York 1958)
14 W. Eberhard. A History of China. 4th edition, Routledge & Kegan Paul. (London 1977) p. 108
Thus we see one reason why one branch of Buddhism travelled and began to take root abroad.

Theravada, it must be mentioned, also travelled to China but without the support which Mahayana received at the outset and without the enthusiastic proselytising inherent in Mahayana. Mahayana was in China with a support base and a line of supply back to India; on the ground floor, willing to be flexible and to accommodate elements of the local religions and philosophies of the most populous nation on earth. This, latter reason should not be overlooked when comparing Mahayana’s success in terms of numbers.

Even so, Mahayana would probably not have survived as a significant force in China were it not for the fall of the Han dynasty and the social disruption that followed in its wake. 15

Unlike Kanishka the Indian Emperor Asoka (c. 268-233 b.c.), who converted to Theravada Buddhism after viewing the number of dead left on the battlefield after one of his successful campaigns, became enthused with the missionary spirit. So enamoured with his new religion was he that he sent his own son to Sri Lanka to preach the religion there. A mission so successful that Theravada has been unshakeable in that country ever since.

Here we see another example of one branch of the religion being in on the ground floor first and remaining dominant.

Parallels can be seen in the spread of western religions. Southern Ireland has remained an isolated pocket of Catholicism despite the Protestantism of her fellow countrymen to the north. Catholicism was already in Southern Ireland before England introduced Protestantism and it has remained immoveable. South America, it will be noted, is overwhelmingly Catholic because the Catholic powers of Spain and Portugal arrived there first.

15 P. Bishop & M. Darton op. cit. passim. 244-254.
Had the conquistadors been of the Protestant faith it is reasonable to assume that South America would today be overwhelmingly Protestant. 16 The point to be made is that in the cases of China and Sri Lanka the branch of Buddhism which was adopted owed little to the appeal of the doctrines offered by either school. Whilst it is possible to propound the statement that Mahayana “better satisfies the human need to worship a deity and offers a more hopeful path to salvation”, this has clearly had no effect on the religion of Sri Lanka over the past two thousand years. Theravada was first in, an alternative choice was not offered at the time and it therefore became entrenched.

There have been times in Buddhism’s history when its adoption by a country was a result of a direct political decision. A case in point is Tibet where in the eighth century A.D. King Trisong Detsen imported not only Buddhism but a complete culture from India.17

He made Buddhism the state religion which, though it has undergone many changes through the centuries, has withstood even the assaults of Communist China. While it may be true that King Trison Detsen chose to import one school of Buddhism over another, it is also the case that no opposing Buddhist sect has had any influence in Tibet ever since.

Theravada has remained strong in Southeast Asia where it is the dominant religion in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Burma. The reason for this is probably that Theravada reached these countries early and found that it could transplant itself without the need to change a great deal. In all of these countries the Indian culture met with an inferior and less sophisticated culture where the existing religions offered little competition. Although Cambodia at one stage in its history contained a mixture of Mahayana and Theravada it wasn’t until the 13th century that Theravada Buddhism became the dominant school. The reasons for this are unclear.

16 In the case of Spain’s colonies the population were often forced to adopt Christianity on pain of death but nevertheless they still remain staunchly Catholic. In C.P. Fitzgerald, China: A Short Cultural History, 3rd ed., Frederick A. Praeger, (New York 1961) p. 476, Fitzgerald says of the Iberian conquerors ”Conversion or the sword became with them a Christian doctrine, which in America was ruthlessly enforced.”

17 P. Bishop & M. op. cit. p. 253.

This importation of a religion is not an isolated case. At almost the same time as Trison Detsen was converting his kingdom to Buddhism, the Khazar empire was converting to Judaism. The Khazars, a Turkic people, created a commercial and political empire that dominated substantial parts of South Russia during much of the 7th through to the 10th centuries. During the 8th century the Khazar King, under constant pressure to side with either of his warring neighbours in Constantinople and Baghdad, imported Judaism which he established as the state religion. The Khazars established their capital at Itil (or Atil), in the Volga delta, and for four centuries thereafter this Jewish empire held the balance of power between the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Caliphate. In his book The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and its Heritage, Hutchinson, (London 1976), Arthur Koestler describes how, after the diaspore of the Khazar Jews which extended through Europe and concentrated in Poland, the descendants of these “pseudo Jews” came to make up the majority of Israeli population after WWII. Thus, says Koestler, the Jews of Israel owe more to the seed of Ghengis Khan than to that of Abraham.
When Mahayana entered China it faced a culture at least the equal of India and in technology China was further advanced. China already had sophisticated bureaucratic institutions, a written language and an advanced knowledge of mathematics. Consequently the entering stream of Buddhism was modified to co-exist with prevailing Confucian and Taoist beliefs. Buddhism gained its foothold in this environment by absorbing Chinese philosophical concepts and abstractions and expressing them in Buddhist terminology.18

Mahayana Buddhism travelled to Japan using Korea as a conduit. Before the end of the 4th century, Buddhism entered an already highly Sinicised Korea with the southward expansion of the Kingdom of Koguryo which was initially based in Southern Manchuria.19

In 522 A.D. a Korean King seeking a military alliance sent an envoy to Japan with presents which included a Buddha image. Although the expedition was not a success as far as achieving its desired military aims were concerned it sowed the seeds of Mahayana Buddhism. With the incorporation of Shinto ideas and beliefs and centuries of small but compounding modifications it became today’s Zen.

Mahayana’s success in Japan was not a result of competition with Theravada but derived from from its being allied to the dominant culture of the region.

In summation, in terms of numbers Mahayana is without doubt the most popular form of Buddhism. Its doctrine is easier for the layman to follow than is the original, purer strain of Theravada. It offers salvation for all who care to avail themselves of it as opposed to what would appear to be a rather selfish, aloof and almost class based Theravada alternative.

18 P. Bishop & M. Darton op. cit p.243
19 S. Dutt. Buddhism in East Asia. Indian Council for Cultural Relations. (New Delhi 1966) passim pp. 159-162
Nevertheless, Mahayana does not appear to have gained many converts at the expense of its counterpart; the populations of those countries which began in the Theravada tradition have remained there. In the case of Cambodia, where both schools existed side by side, Theravada eventually predominated. In China, Korea and Japan it would seem that it was only because Mahayana rather than Theravada was introduced to them that they in time became Buddhist.20

Bibliography

C. Humphreys, Buddhism, Cassell & Company Ltd. (London 1972)

C.P. Fitzgerald, China: A Short Cultural History, 3rd ed., Frederick A. Praeger, (New York 1961)

A. Verdu The Philosophy of Buddhism: A “Totalistic” Synthesis., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (London 1981)

What is Theravada http://www.askjeeves.com/MetaAnswer.asp?MetaEngine=Lycos&logQID=2892826&qCategory=GODS&qSource=0&frames=yes&site_name=Jeeves&scope=web&r=x&MetaTopic=Buddhist+Viewpoints+on+Mahayana%2C+Theravada+%26+Vajrayana+Buddh&MetaURL=http%3A%2F%2Fhawaiian.net%2F%7Edsparks%2F&EngineOrdinal=5&ItemOrdinal=1&MetaList=http%3A%2F%2Fhawaiian.net%2F%7Edsparks%2F&Go_to.x=15&Go_to.y=5

The 1995 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopaedia. Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc. (California 1995)

P. Bishop & M. Darton (eds) “Mahayana Buddhism”, in The Encyclopaedia of World Faiths,: Macdonald Orbis, (London 1987 )

W. Eberhard. A History of China. 4th edition, Routledge & Kegan Paul. (London 1977)

S. Wolpert. A New History of India. Oxford University Press. (New York. 1997)

W. Theodore de Barry (ed), Sources of Indian Tradition Volume 1, Colombia University Press, (New York 1958)

D. Ikeda. Buddhism the First Millennium, Kodansha International Ltd. (New York 1977)

S. Dutt. Buddhism in East Asia. Indian Council for Cultural Relations. (New Delhi 1966)