Mahayana vs Theravada Buddhism: How to Choose for Beginners

[@rdm3805]

I love the traditional feeling of Theravada, especially after living in Thailand for a long time and experiencing the "authenticity" of it all. Mahayana on the other hand seems very "postmodern" in the sense that it can go anywhere and can be adapted to actually work for the future and the entire universe (all the universes). As you said, both hands will be good for helping you get where u want to go. I feel that maybe in this life I would like to stick to Theravada and then hopefully evolve into Mahayana eventually. I loved your war-and the doctors analogy!

[@floptaxie68]

I had the same feeling. Therevada Buddhism is more traditional and strict, But I’ve been studying Mahayana and the Mahayana sutras are not dismissible at all, we dont have the original sanskrit manuscripts but there’s an inscription of 100 CE with the name of Amitabha Buddha so that idea can be older enough to be contemporary with the Pali Canon Also there are other venerable figures like Hotei and Ksitigarbha who reincarnated in a Chinese monk and his body was preserved till the Cultural Revolution in China And taking in consideration that the words of Buddha are true but too hard to follow I feel like I’m more into Pure Land Buddhism right now.

[@AlanPeto]

One of the oldest written documents in the world, that is Buddhist, is from the Mahayana branch. There are some reminants of the Sanskrit scriptural canons from ancient India that can be found in China. Most were translated, though, and found in the Chinese Canon used by East Asian Buddhists/countries. There were over 30 ancient schools of Buddhism in India. A number of them made it to ancient China that made it to the Chinese Canon. This is important because hundreds of years later, they were used to compare against the Pali Canon. They were doctrinally the same. This doesn't mean it is a copy of the Pali Canon ("Theravada" was only one of the schools, and not the primary one, simpy the only one that survived to a modern version since it was off in Sri Lanka), but that everyone was basically reciting orally (or beginning to write down) what had been taught by the Buddha 2,600 years ago. If you want a deep dive, here you go: alanpeto.com/buddhism/buddhist-scriptures/

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks for your thoughts! Theravada today is actually a modern school, and not the same one as from Ancient India (although they use the Pali Canon). The Pali Canon interestingly was still being added to *after* Mahayana sutras! So, there are sutras in Mahayana that are older than some parts of the Pali Canon. That's not unusual in the Buddhist canon world, but the Pali Canon is now a "closed" canon by their own decision. Interestingly again, Theravada today would probably be Mahayana. The popularility (of Mahayana back then, although not necessarily referred to as such as we do now) was so strong, that "Theravadins" were become "Mahayanists". This is why you can, to this day, find Guan Yin (Avalokiteśvara) in a number of temples found in Theravada (Avalokiteśvara is still very popular and decends from that period). It was political that Theravada stayed the say it is where elder monks basically had the King of Sri Lanka put an end to it. The Buddhist world and history is quite interesting! Thank you for liking the anlaogy! :)

[@Shomik2094]

What I feel the problem with Mahayana is that historically, it came at a time when Theravada traditions were slowly dissipating out of the Indian subcontinent. The Hindu Brahmanical traditional had started gaining the patrons actively (due to decline of several dynasties who patronized the then Buddhist traditions) and the need to probably 'revive & expand' the religion was realized at the Fourth Buddhist Council. Whatever little I've read, while Theravada pertains to the strictness of the words of the Buddha, Mahayana seems to understand it differently (not incorrectly as you can interpret a sentence in several ways). And, to 'compete' with the then traditions of Hinduism, it was important to create a metaphysical pantheon. It's not that idolatry was entirely rejected in Theravada traditions (as we know from Hieun Tsang's writings who again construed it differently). Mahayana seemed to bank upon the idea creating a world of Bodhisattvas, Dhyani Buddhas, etc. Hence, there are a lot of people who seem to 'relate' more with Theravada traditions than Mahayana which they feel, like you said, 'postmodern'.

[@Evolve1976]

Thank you for this very informative talk. I’ve struggled with choosing for quite some time. I’m becoming somewhat confused with the Mahayana way at the moment and feel the Theravada is more clear and straight to the point view for me to follow.

[@AlanPeto]

Any path you want to take as a layperson is beneficial. If you have questions about Mahayana, I'll do my best to answer. Both branches are fairly clear cut, it's only that Theravada is one "school", while Mahayana has several different "schools" to choose from.

[@ashleylloyd4914]

I agree I actually though Mahayana was right for me but now I’m gravitating towards Theravada way more because it just makes the most sense.

[@thekaizer666]

what did it for me was that, i discovered that Mahayana "magically discovered" all these several extra "sutras" in SANSKRIT, SEVERAL CENTURIES after the buddha died. original buddhism and buddha himself SPECIFICALLY insisted on PALI and admonished SANSKRIT. start researching on the FOURTH BUDDHIST COUNCIL in Sri Lanka.

[@AlanPeto]

The Buddha spoke Magadhi Prakrit most likely. Not Pali or Sanskrit. Even the Pali Canon in Theravada was not written down until centuries after the Buddhas death…and also around the same time other schools in India were writing their canons as well (in Sanskrit). Before that, it was an oral tradition even spoken in native languages. The decision to use a particular scholarly language to write a canon is not equal to being more or less authentic. In fact, the Sanskrit canons that eventually were preserved in transmission to China are found to be nearly identical in context to the Pali canon. And in some cases present a clearer interpretation in some areas, and Pali clearer in others.

[@waitingforparts57]

Very nicely done. This has been very helpful for learning the differences between the schools. I found myself very confused with differences so I will keep this video to help me out. Stay well

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks, ES! Let me know if you have any questions about the schools.

[@waitingforparts57]

@@AlanPeto thank you for your offer. Stay safe and well

[@nixad4248]

@@AlanPeto hello sir,I need help with something, I wanted to know,what did Buddha Sakyamuni said about Maitreya Bodhisattva, Please tell me what he said in Theravada Buddhism

[@alidalavezzari4103]

May all living beings obtain illumination

[@mancamerashakuhachiscooter8941]

Great explanations…Amitoufo 🙏🏾

[@AlanPeto]

Amitoufo 🙏

[@thorspeelermusic]

Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say the Buddha saw his past lives? This wording is a little bit confusing to me because if there is no permanent self, how could his individual spiritual journey have gone through countless lives? Not at all meant to be argumentative, just want to learn more! Love your videos!

[@AlanPeto]

Hi Thor! In short, the Buddha is said to have explained some of his past existences in what is called the Jataka Tales (you can view them here: www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/jataka_p.pdf). To give you a basic summary of it, a Buddha is said to have certain qualities (and insight), including being able to "see" their past existences. Think of it as we are just beads on a long string (the string being karma, and the beads are individual existences casually connected via this beginningless string of karma). But we are unaware of the past "beads" (existences) due to our delusion / love of "self". A Buddha has gradually awakened to the truth and become an enlightened being. Think of it like cleaning an extremely dirty window and finally being able to see what *really* exists on the other side. So, this gets to the past lives portion of things. Because we did not come into being from nothing, and we don't fade away into nothing, we have a beginningless past and an endless future. All connected essentially by this string of karma. More deeply, we are talking about the only thing that continues on into rebirth, which is what is called the "store consciousness", where the traces of past karma, and the future potential of other karma, continues on. The Jataka tales is where the Buddha explained some of these prior existences. So, there are a few ways to look at it: 1) they are teachings about morality and conduct (he was essentially a Bodhisattva in many of them) where we can learn how to conduct ourselves, 2) they show us what we can't see right now because we are not Buddhas - which is our past existences are filled with pretty much every existence (we could have been a king or queen, rich or poor, sad or happy, etc....but we only focus on this existence), etc. According to the Buddha, there is no permanent, unchanging, independent "self" that exists right now, or continues on into the next existence. Right now you are a temporary grouping of things (Five Aggregates) - so yes you are "you" - but there is no real permanent essence to it (even though we think there is). Out of these Five Aggregates, only the Store Consciousness continues on...but it is not like a permanent "self". It is likened to a garden where seeds are planted (the seeds are Karma) and also the traces of past karma that came to fruition. So, the Buddha didn't explain the Jataka tales in order to promote the idea that there is a permanent self that continues on throughout all these existences. instead, he was teaching us that our conduct, morality, determination, and wisdom are important. Because our intentional actions are based on those (in a wholesome or unwholesome way). Through these tales, it helps us align ourselves with the path, and understand that we don't need to want to be anything else besides what we are right now (because we were probably pretty much everything else in the eons our story has gone on for). Instead, focusing on the eightfold path towards enlightenment is important.

[@thorspeelermusic]

@@AlanPeto Thank you so much! This clears up a lot of things for me. Much appreciated.

[@litonGod]

Great video, thanks, I'm trying to decide what path to try....leaning towards Theravada.

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks, Kyle! What's your thoughts or questions so far? Also, here is my Mahayana mini-guide: instagram.com/p/CZRwSO8lBBR/ and my Theravada mini-guide: instagram.com/p/CZFbFihvv__/. You may also find my article on the Buddhist scriptures helpful: alanpeto.com/buddhism/buddhist-scriptures/

[@litonGod]

@@AlanPeto are there any buddhas on the planet now?

[@AlanPeto]

Two answers on this. 1) When we think of "Buddha", we usually think of the 'Buddha of our era', whom is Shakyamuni/Gautama Buddha. A Buddha of an era is one who rediscovers the truth and teaches it (Dharma/Dhamma) so others can be liberated as well. As long as the teachings exist for that 'era Buddha', there is only one. So, Shakyamuni is the only Buddha of our era right now even though he is not physically here because, at a minimum, his teachings are. 2) There can be solitary Buddhas which are those who discover the truth but do not teach others. So, they are not Buddhas of an era. Because Shakyamuni's teachings are predominant right now, there shouldn't be any solitary Buddhas as the truth has already been re-discovered. Of course, the above is only about the current state of our world.

[@ramilurazmanov]

Thank you for the video, it's really helpful!

[@Agumon5]

Very informative ... Im surprised to learn about the size of Mahayana Buddhism across the world. To me, it seems Theravada is a bit more faithful to the words of the Buddha.

[@AlanPeto]

Most Buddhists live in East Asia and Central Asia where the many traditions that generally fall under the "Mahayana" branch live. China alone makes up the vast majority of Buddhists. You might find my article has more info: alanpeto.com/buddhism/understanding-mahayana-theravada/. The belief that Theravada is more traditional is very common, but scholars and most Buddhists don't see it that way. Both branches of Buddhism have the same core teachings from the Buddha because both have the common scripture that came out of ancient India (the Pali Canon was not the only scriptural canon). In fact, the reason the Pali Canon in Theravada has become recognized as being correct for that time period was because of Mahayana. The Chinese Chanon had included many of the ancient schools Canon's in India (there were many, over 30), which reinforced that all these schools at that time were basically still reciting the same sermons of the Buddha. So, you'll find the foundation is the same in both, because both came out of ancient India (Theravada as you see it today is a modern school of Buddhism, and is not the same one as that existed in ancient India, although they use the same Pali Canon from one of the 30+ schools that existed). In brief, Theravada follows that to become enlightenened, the best shot at that is to be a monk (and even then, we are essentially in an age of decline of the Dhamma so it's going to be very rare). Laypersons have a more supportive role and focus on merit (just like in Mahayana). In Mahayana, there are many different traditions/schools, but they follow the path of the Bodhisattva, just like the Buddha did, with the goal of becoming a full Buddha, not just an Arhat like in Theravada. This is a much deeper topic than a comment reply. Mahayana has more opportunities for laypersons, however, which is also a deeper topic. However, both branches are rooted in what the Buddha taught. If, as a layperson, you feel Theravada speaks to you, go for it. There are many people in there. Focusing on cultivating morality and conduct is central to layperson Buddhists in either branch.

[@georgepeterson3440]

Thank you so much for all your work

[@AlanPeto]

Thank you George!

[@aletheiawildwood4782]

Thank you, I really appreciate this ❤️

[@AlanPeto]

🙏

[@SomeThoughtsPodcast]

Thank you. 🙏🏼🙂🧘‍♂️

[@AlanPeto]

🙏

[@bryanng1560]

I'm an aspiring Buddhist and at this point i'm wondering if I actually have to subscribe to one of the 2 traditions? Can I pick and choose certain practices that suits me from each tradition to live my life? at the end of the day, if i'm enlightened, i'm enlightened right? or am I missing something?

[@AlanPeto]

Hi Bryan, great question. Like you, I enjoy what we can find in the two branches, and there are certainly many teachers out there and some from a tradition we don't follow might be someone we are interested in. The short answer to your question (and my recommendation) is, yes, you should follow just one tradition (as I will note later on in this reply, feel free to explore and find one that speaks to you! No need to rush at this point). Theravada branch is just one tradition (and country-specific variations, etc.), and all other Buddhist traditions in Buddhism can be found in Mahayana. If you try and intermingle the two, it can get confusing (which is an understatement). While both will basically have the same foundation, they are two different houses, and that's important. They will have different interpretations, and practices, based on the teachings. This also primarily includes the "path" one takes (which circle right back to what they believe and practice). Intellectually, it can be interesting to learn from both branches. But if your goal is to practice, then it really should be to pick just one branch, and then one tradition/school. Why? Because it will be straightforward and "easier". Otherwise, you'd be spending the rest of this life just trying to figure out what is going on in the Buddhist religion possibly without making any progress at all (or like what sometimes happens to Westerners, give up completely because they get confused). Now, this doesn't mean you can't explore. The wonderful thing about Buddhism in the West is that you can sometimes find virtually every tradition around you (or several). This is a great way to find one that "speaks" to you. Regarding enlightenment, that also circles back into which branch you want to follow...and perhaps too long for a comment reply. In Mahayana, it's the path of the Bodhisattva which can take countless lifetimes (which doesn't become as overwhelming as that sounds when the practice and understanding take over), but also includes direct paths to enlightenment (which is why Pure Land Buddhism is the largest tradition in all of Buddhism, and Mahayana). Theravada largely follows a monastic route (with lay involvement) for individual enlightenment. For laypersons, that's a tough route in Theravada which emphasizes becoming a monastic, but can, rarely, be possible. One could argue that both don't show any "proof" of enlightened individuals in our world, so as a layperson, focusing on generating merit, developing wisdom, transforming our karma, and consistent practice are important. For the vast majority of Buddhists, their morailty and conduct aligned with the Buddhist teachings is the practice (merit generation, etc.) because it helps with ensuring the right conditions for rebirth. While rebirth may be something Westerners still struggle with, it's what the half billion Buddhists around the world actively practice for to ensure they stay in this rare human realm so that future existences can hear and practice the Dharma and eventually reach enlightement.

[@rickanthony5066]

You say that it doesn't matter either path, but yet you continue to embrace Mahayana thru your conversation. Mahayana is in layman's terms as the 'Catholic Church of Buddhists'. We don't want, need to be Buddha, just looking to elightenment. Again, yet attached to nothing. But thank you for emboldening me in my practice of Buddhism and the Theravada way.

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and path, Rick! All Buddhist traditions will help with the basic Buddhist practice of the Threefold Training (wisdom, morality/conduct, and concentration/effort). For lay Buddhists, enlightenment in this life is exceedingly rare, but we can all make meaningful progress and merit generation (which is in both branches) for future existences to be closer to the right conditions for enlightenment. I do speak about Mahayana here as it is often rarely discussed in the West (and often misunderstood) as certain traditions have the most attention, so it was important to spend some time explaining those parts and how they differ. Congratulations on choosing your path with Theravada and keep practicing! 🙏

[@soljer99]

Very informative. Thanks very much for sharing. I was just wondering if there is any sort of rivalry between the two schools of Buddhism? How do monks from either school relate to each other-do they debate which path is the right one or are they “chill” about it?

[@AlanPeto]

Very good question John! The short answer is there are no hostilities between the schools/branches. Like anything, there can be strong opinions on which is the better path (specifically talking about the two branches here). Some will have very strong opinions even! So, I'm sure you'll have mostly intellectual debate here and there (debate has always been a healthy part of Buddhism), but you really don't see the schools debating in a hostile way with each other about which is best (so to speak). All the core foundational elements of Buddhism are the same between them - it's generally the path and practice of them and various other elements. You can even sometimes find both ordained and lay Buddhists from different traditions visiting other temples on occasion, or even giving a Dharma talk. Nobody raises an eyebrow if someone from another tradition visits, but it's also not very routine as each tradition (and branch) of Buddhism has different practices, interpretations, etc., that makes cross-mingling something that can get confusing very fast for a lay Buddhist.

[@robertwilliamson6121]

During my time in Cambodia..... I visted many Theravada temples... One day, at Wat Preah Prom Rath, in Siem Reap, a number of South Korean Mahayana Buddhist visitors entered the Theravada temple to see the temple, chant, and meet the abbot of the temple and monastery. The abbot is an elderly monk highly respected in the community. One of the Korean visitors was a Mahayana monk....an abbot of a temple and monastery in Korea. And apparently highly respected in his home country of Korea. Their robes are totally different. The Theravada abbot and Mahayana abbot got along extremely well together. Like brothers. Very respectful of each other. Very friendly and happy to meet each other. Like family. Everyone happy all around. Like loving members of the same family.... No debate.... no argument..... just happy both being followers of the Dhamma-Vinaya. You would say they are very "chill" about it.

[@rdm3805]

What exactly are you saying at 15:43...? (It's sounds like: "dirty lying").....It's a bit unclear, sorry. I really want to know so that i don't misunderstand.

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks for pointing that out! Looks like I didn’t speak clearly there. Believe I said that they “align”.

[@noxious_maddy]

His voice is so soothing 😍❤

[@ColeCash]

I have a lot of respect for both but the cosmic imagery of Mahayana and the whole bodhisattva thing… I just love it! Some really great authors from the Theravada side though, I’m reading Ven. H. Gunaratna Mahathera’s “Mindfulness In Plain English” right now and it’s very well done IMO.

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks for sharing Cole!

[@kira-im-einklang]

Underrated video I think. It is packed with information that make sense and Therawara is not automatically presented as the best (for Western people). Thanks!

[@SonicTube-gd9oe]

WHICH GIVES LIBERATION QUICKLY AND EASILY?

[@дава-щ5ж]

not easy

[@AlanPeto]

Are you asking which branch of Buddhism?

[@zachscombat]

Namo Buddhay 🙏

[@ayanoscolors]

...and what if I don't wanna be a "layperson"?

[@AlanPeto]

The opposite of a layperson would be an ordained Buddhist monk or nun. That’s a major commitment. Typically one doesn’t just jump right into being one…a layperson is always the first step (at least to understand and practice in the religion). I have a separate video on this if interested.

[@TheNalimo]

Why do we want to become enlightened and realize Nirvana?

[@AlanPeto]

Hi Gus! Because in Buddhism we are trapped like prisoners in a cycle of rebirth, which is unsatisfactory (Dukkha / "suffering"). We are clouded from the truth, and cling and crave to things (especially the idea of a permanent self) which results in unwholesome karmic actions. It's like driving on the wrong side of the road, but believing it's correct. So, Nirvana is freedom or liberation. In-fact, in Buddhism it is your *true* natural mental state. What we experience right now is our mind controlling us with greed, anger, and ignorance. Nirvana is the cessation of those three things. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3rSaKSNirlpsK8

[@YvanAndrew]

The day passes, the night comes... Buddha also spoke about the decline of his teaching. His teaching will one day disappear from this world because it is a necessity: everything that has come into being must inevitably perish. All civilizations of the past have finally disappeared. It should be known that in Buddha's opinion the main reasons for the decline of his teachings will not be wars, famines, religions or political ideologies...but the monks!

[@yute7184]

You dont need to choose

[@johnwaters777]

another difference could it be that many mahayana schools are hibridized with non buddhist beliefs and practices, with some supersticious and idolatric rituals that do not relate to Buddha's original teachings? I am interested in becoming a Buddhist but was a bit put off to see in some temples a lot of weird images of gods and goddesses, and practicioners getting their samadhi dispersed by what seemed to me nonsensical prayers to imaginary beings, and also idolatric devotion to living masters... Is it not a basic tenet of Buddha"s thought to strive to get rid off all delusion? to experience by oneself the real nature of things instead of blindly believing a master"s words? For this reason I feel Theravada buddhism to be more minimalist, sober and faithful to Buddha' s teachings... but lately I have been reading about the unfair treatment some Theravadan schools dispense to Bikkhunis, their refusal to grant them full ordination as nuns... and was very bewildered by the very contradiction of this attitude with a true compassionate Buddhist heart..Thanks for your videos

[@AlanPeto]

Thanks for sharing your feedback, John! Of course, without knowing more about your experiences, I can reply generally (there are numerous traditions in Mahayana, including country-specific, so it's hard to pinpoint which ones you experienced). Often what Westerners experience with Mahayana Buddhist traditions is often what you'd find in Asia which is a great thing, but can also conflict with our assumptions about what Buddhism 'should' be. You might be shocked to know that what you speak of with Mahayana can also be found in Theravada. The Buddha had supernatural powers that allowed him to do things such as teleport from one location to another. He created what are considered miracles. He was conceived miraculously by a white elephant [symbolizing his prior existence as a Bodhisattva in a heavenly realm] entering his mother. When he was born, he immediately walked and spoke. He battled a deity, and another time a serpent. And let's not even talk about what one sermon said the human race will become before the next Buddha, Maitreya, comes when humans' lifespans will only reach 10 years old according to the Buddha. The popular Mahayana Bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara is also revered. All this, and much more, are found in Theravada, and many lay and monastic Buddhists do plenty of praying, chanting, devotional and ritualistic practices as well. The Buddha is not considered just another human being, but a Buddha - which is a rare and remarkable being that transcends being 'human'. And, those can also be found in Mahayana because all the early Buddhist schools in ancient India hundreds of years after the Buddha's death shared the same sermons of the Buddha. In some of your examples, yes, it can "appear" practices and beliefs are that way, but there are meanings behind them (I talk about all of this generally here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5rFiWiamqlrfJY). I also used to believe some things were like that, but the more I let go and practiced (and asked), I began to understand some of the skillful ways they become and the many ways Buddhist practice helps us develop. Some traditions focus on teachers/gurus (is that what you were referring to?), but otherwise, you'd generally find what we would consider traditional monastics roles in the rest. Do some people do things or believe things that we might believe don't align? Sure. We are all human beings. Ultimately, we can look and ask ourselves if even if someone's belief doesn't align intellectually, is it still on the path? Has their morality and conduct become more aligned with the Buddhist path? If yes, then they are making progress. Regarding Buddhist nuns, the Theravada branch does hold a more traditional view of things which includes this. Because it is lineage-based, the lineages of nuns have all dispersed a long time ago. Generally, according to Theravada, that means there can't be any more since none stretch back to the Buddha's time. There have been some in Theravada that are working to change this thinking, and I believe there has been some progress. Of interest, Theravadin nuns were brought back in our modern time thanks to...Mahayana. The founder of the organization I practice within ordained nuns in Theravada (www2.buddhistdoor.net/features/buddhistdoor-view-supporting-the-ordination-of-theravada-bhikkhunis). Although Theravada generally won't consider things such as this acceptable within their tradition, they were nevertheless ordained thanks to the Mahayana branch which, depending on tradition, often has very progressive views on women in Buddhism. As a layperson, I hope the main message of my video gives you reassurance. For general progress in Buddhism, it doesn't matter what branch, and tradition, you practice in. Merit generation is what you'll find Buddhists in Theravada and Mahayana largely engaged in. As laypersons, it is unlikely we will become enlightened in this lifetime. But we can still make meaningful progress as both branches stress wisdom, conduct/morality, and concentration/effort in practice. These are the building blocks of Buddhist practice and the path to enlightenment itself! 🙏

[@The_palestine]

❤️☸️