The Difference Between Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism
Category: Uncategorized
Of all the ways we can distinguish the major Buddhist schools of thought, Mahayana and Hinayana have arisen as a common means of classification. Although this nomenclature is imperfect, it does help us differentiate between the primary branches of Buddhism.
A Brief History of Buddhism
Buddhism has a complex history that spans thousands of years and the entirety of the world. The historical Buddha began teaching in the geographical area we now call India in the 5th century BCE. At the time of his death, his disciples were already sharing his teachings in various languages throughout the region.
As the teachings spread and more monastic communities arose, so too did disagreements over monastic vows, and even, what the Buddha said and how best to convey it. New schools began to emerge, with language, geography, culture, and differing interpretations of the teachings as catalysts.
The introduction of the Abhidharma in the 3rd century BCE was at the root of one such split. So too, was Mahayana Buddhism, which arose sometime between 150-100 BCE.
The Terms Hinayana vs Mahayana
The Sanskrit word Mahayana can be translated as “the great vehicle” or the “vast vehicle.” The earliest known use of this term is in the 1st century BCE Mahayana text, the Prajnaparamita Sutra. In it, the terms Mahayana and Hinayana are used comparatively, and in the case of Hinayana, derogatorily.
Today, some Mahayana Buddhists still refer to the 18 earlier schools of Buddhism collectively as the Hinayana. This includes Theravada Buddhism, a lineage still practiced today, primarily in Thailand, Burma, and Sri Lanka. Theravada Buddhists, however, do not refer to themselves as a Hinayana school. Hinayana, which can also be translated as ‘the scorned vehicle,’ more aptly describes a less serious practitioner than it does a particular school of Buddhism.
It’s worth pointing out that one could be a non-practicing, even uncompassionate, Mahayana Buddhist. Meanwhile, there are extraordinarily realized Theravada practitioners. It is not the school of Buddhism, but the habits of the student, which denotes one’s understanding and maturation along the path to liberation. The details regarding what liberation is, however, do vary according to these two major schools.
Hinayana Buddhism vs Mahayana Buddhism
The Mahayana differs from earlier schools of Buddhism primarily in its definition of what makes one a Buddha, and what motivates one to become one.
All schools of Buddhism teach the Four Noble Truths and that there is potential for complete liberation from the painful cycle of samsara. An individual can free themselves from suffering by living ethically, practicing meditation, and studying the dharma.
Theravada Buddhism emphasizes the personal journey toward liberation and nirvana. One who realizes such a state is considered an arhat, a fully realized human being. To become enlightened, however, is a step further, and may not be possible for everyone in this lifetime.
For Mahayana Buddhists, individual liberation is not enough. Further, because our suffering is so great, it is unacceptable to wait several lifetimes to end it. The Mahayana Buddhist, driven by a most urgent sense of compassion for all beings, thus sets out along the supremely ambitious bodhisattva path. This path leads one to become a Buddha themselves, capable of bringing all beings to Buddhahood with them.
A Further Hinayana and Mahayana Comparison
Underlying the general distinction between individual liberation and the messianic bodhisattva ideal are far more subtle differences regarding what it means to be enlightened and how one gets there.
For example, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists both recognize the impossibility of a stand-alone, unchanging self. Both schools might define wisdom as the direct, non-conceptual experience of this truth. For the Mahayana, however, this wisdom applies to all phenomena, not merely one’s sense of personhood. It even applies to what and who we perceive as a Buddha.
From a Mahayana understanding, the Buddha is and always has been. Ever a fully realized being, his enlightenment under the Bodhi tree was for us, a teaching. We too, have a spark of enlightened qualities within us, our essential Buddha nature, already perfectly compassionate and wise. It’s what calls us onto the bodhisattva path and what makes its fruition possible. This concept is not explicitly addressed in the Theravada tradition.
And so, the Mahayana path, with its multiple Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and divine beings also offers more practices and approaches to the perfection of compassion and understanding. Mahayana Buddhists accept not only the oldest teachings of the Pali Canon, as Theravadans do, but a vast body of additional, more recent sutras.
Underlying every Mahayana practice and teaching is the exceptional resolve of the bodhisattva. For example, while Theravadans practice ten paramitas, they do so with the motivation of one who seeks personal freedom. From a Mahayana point of view, any practice of the enlightened qualities of a bodhisattva is incomplete without the accompanying attitude of a bodhisattva, the wish to achieve enlightenment for all beings. Other practices shared by the two traditions, including the four immeasurables, differ similarly.
Although the bodhisattva ideal is the overarching distinction of the Hinayana vs Mahayana, it would be a mistake to say that Theravada Buddhism doesn’t value expanding our hearts with loving-kindness and compassion. All Buddhists work to cultivate these qualities, perhaps only with a differing understanding of how, why and for whom.
