With the aim of delving deeper into the various sociological, political, philosophical, psychological and cultural aspects of Buddhism, I have been, lately, reading quite extensively books, scholarly works, published papers and articles on the same, and I have to say the whole exercise has been a very rewarding experience on many levels. There is, for instance, a deeper understanding of the different schools of Buddhist thought and how and why they arose based on their soteriological and metaphysical foundations as well as the influence they have had on the development of Buddhism in different regions of the world. And, then, there is the wisdom gained by immersing oneself in the variegated ways that other Buddhists think and feel about Buddha’s teachings.

There is, in fact, much material I have read and absorbed in a relatively short span of time that could be the subject of my posts on this blog. And, I shall begin with a gem that I found in Smith and Novak’s Buddhism – A Concise Introduction. In chapter 7 (titled ‘Theravada and Mahayana: The Great Divide’) of their book, the authors lay out some of the key differences between Theravadins and Mahayanists in their approach toward the Buddhist goal (if there is just one!) assuming that such a conceptual bifurcation of Buddhist thought is even admissible. I don’t think it is, but others will beg to disagree.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the salient features of the two schools of Theravada and Mahayana can be be laid out by way of comparison. Smith and Novak write that Theravada maintains that “Human beings are emancipated by self-effort, without supernatural aid” while in Mahayana it is accepted that “Human aspirations are supported by divine powers and the grace they bestow.” Wisdom is the key virtue in the Theravada school, whereas compassion is the key virtue in Mahayana. Theravadins maintain that “Buddha [was] a saint, supreme teacher, and inspirer”, while Mahayanists  look at the “Buddha [as] a savior.” The former downplay both metaphysics and rituals while the latter elaborate metaphysics and emphasize rituals. There are other distinct features  of the two schools, but the one that stands out most prominently, to my mind, is related to the Buddhist Ideal. In Theravada, the Buddhist Ideal is “the arhat who attains nirvana“, whereas in Mahayana, it is that of “the bodhisattva who indefinitely postpones nirvana to care for others.”

But, Smith and Novak narrate a story (which is the gem I was referring to, earlier) that essentially demolishes most of the differences  (notwithstanding the doctrinal ones) between the two aforementioned schools.

Following World War II, two young Germans who were disillusioned with Europe went to Sri Lanka to dedicate their lives to the Buddha’s peaceable way. Both became Theravada monks. One, his name changed to Nyanaponika Thera, continued on that path; but the other, while on a sightseeing trip to north India, met some Tibetans, switched to their tradition, and became known in the West as Lama Govinda. Toward the close of Nyanaponika’s life a visitor asked him about the different Buddhisms the two friends had espoused. With great serenity and sweetness the aging Theravadin replied: “My friend cited the Bodhisattva Vow as the reason for his switch to Mahayana, but I could not see the force of his argument. For if one were to transcend self-centeredness completely, as the arhat seeks to do, what other than compassion would remain?”