How Is Theravada Buddhism Different from Mahayana Buddhism?

In this lecture, Prof Van Norden discusses the differences between Theravada Buddhism (dominant in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia) and Mahayana Buddhism (dominant in East Asia, including China and Japan). Recorded 15 March 2021 on Zoom.

0:55 Introducing my Cat Pinky
1:15 Overview of Theravāda vs. Mahāyāna
7:40 Arhat vs. Bodhisattva
12:52 Is it “Turtles All the Way Down”?
22:42 Upāya (Skillful Means)
30:43 Sexuality
32:58 Faith and Transfer of Merit
37:54 No-Self vs. No Individual Self

[broccoli]

Currently taking my bachelors in history of religions, got a test on south and east asian religions on the 23rd. Your lectures and explanations for buddhism has been so valuable! It really shows how different it can be depending on how the professor structures and explains the information in their lectures. I have felt our lectures and course literature are lacking, me and friends have a hard time easily digesting what they are saying and writing. But this lecture basically set everything straight and i learned so much! Thank you professor Van Norden!

[riadyl]

This could be the best lecture on Buddhism I heard so far in my life

[TheKalihiMan]

Maybe this is part of a larger module that you elaborate on further in another video, but there are a few aspects of Pure Land Buddhism that I believe could use further clarification. Full disclosure: I am of partial Japanese descent and many of my family members follow the Japanese Pure Land school of Jodo Shinshu, so I accept that this may inform my perspective.

It was the understanding of Jodo Shinshu’s founder Shinran that the recitation of Amitabha’s name (nembutsu) was not an act of faith in Amitabha per se, but more of an outward expression of the futility of all deliberate self efforts toward achieving enlightenment, as these acts themselves were still viewed as a manifestation of attachment (a “desire” for one’s own salvation). Of course there is still an element of faith in Amitabha’s Primal Vow, but the greater emphasis is on acknowledging that no self efforts will bring one closer to enlightenment. Even the “practice” of nembutsu itself is not considered to generate karmic merit, but merely an expression of gratitude and a reminder to oneself. However, in some other Pure Land schools like Jodo-Shu, nembutsu is considered to generate merit.

Regarding the concept of the Pure Lands (Sukhavati in the case of Amitabha), while practitioners of Pure Land schools may seek to be reborn there and they are often described as heaven-like in nature, the end goal of liberation is still the same as in other Buddhist schools. The Pure Lands are viewed more as realms where achieving enlightenment is expedited or where the teachings of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can be better understood. This is especially important in Jodo Shinshu, as Shinran believed that the world was so karmically polluted that not even the most pious could truly pursue enlightenment within their lifetime. There may be an element of upaya in the promise of rebirth in a more pure realm, but the acknowledgement that it is not itself the ultimate goal sets it apart from the concept of a heaven in, for example, the Abrahamic faiths.

[lafko]

Thank You for explaining the Nāgārjuna vs the Theravada. One of the most brilliant and simplest ever.

[gabrielburgues]

Excellent exposure! Thank you very much for sharing it!

[waitingforparts]

Professor, you talk is very informative and light-hearted too. A nice sense of humor with some of your personal stories mixed in creates an interesting talk for a topic that most other speakers have a hard time presenting.
Stay well

[HohoxChannel]

Thank you professor for such clarity in your courses, i feel like a lost traveler in this huge eastern asian's philosophy, your help is much appreciated !

[hcct]

BA in Religious Studies and a Masters in Religion here and these are genuinely the best lectures on the subject matter I've come across! One thing I'm still trying to figure out: I've heard the idea that the extreme realms (heaven and hell) are upaya before but what I can't figure out is whether or not that is a fairly standard opinion among practicing Buddhist philosophers/leaders traditionally or is that more of a modern development? Is it sort of like Plato's Noble Lie or an evolution of Buddhist teachings?

[highwaytothesun]

Great lecture, just confused about the turtles. Doesn't the paticcasammupada assert that the skhandas arise dependant on conditions, ie that they don't exist independently? Also aren't there many Mahayana traditions which teach of a ground reality or ground consciousness eg. rigpa in dzogchen, dharmakaya in mahamudra? I have heard many Theravada teachers find no contention with Nagarjuna's Shunyata, they assert it to be an upaya communicating anatta.

[InvisibleFeats]

Recently I've been studying the Abhidhamma and found myself struggling with many concepts you cover in this lecture. Though my experiences support many Theravadan "beliefs, " others point to more Mahayana takes on this core system. Finding a direction that will support both (or neither) without belying personal attainments can be boggling. 🤥 Thank you for some clarification.

[tanned]

Nagarjuna's stance of reality (conditioned plus unconditioned) is wholly standing on philosophical-dialectical perspective that "nothing static or self-nature really intrinsically exists, hence 'empty' is based on the fundamental premise of conditionality, whereas the early Buddhist school such as Theravada approaches reality from experiential/contemplative side - if everything is ultimately empty, there is no longer a necessary to make any effort to develop direct insight into seeing their transient nature. Without seeing the true nature that paves the way to liberation, by conflating all phenomena as empty is nothing beyond a beautiful conceptual understanding.

[bryanng]

Is this a neutrel and non-sectoral view of theravada and mahayana? i'm looking on objective views to help me decide which school i should follow. thanks so much for the video!

[jkl]

Pardon my ignorance, but didn't Siddhartha Guatama teach, that once someone reaches enlightening, that they end their journey. As in they live no longer? If so, doesnt that imply Buddha etc are no longer in existence after they pass away? Again, I am learning. So bare with me.

[dialaskisel]

Slight correction: Manjushri is the Bodhisattva of Prajna (Wisdom), Avalokiteshvara is the Bodhisattva of infinite compassion and mercy.

[LambertPasquale]

This is like an endless thought experiment to try and wrap one's head around what is buddhism and to try and sort it all out. It's honestly a lot of fun to geek out on, but it does go in circles. At least for me it used it.

There are two things that I think are useful.

1. Sources should only come from Suttas or Sutras. Things that are only directly from what the Buddha said. Commentaries, although wonderful and thought provoking and not necessarily wrong, can be cause confusion.

2. The start of buddhism should be to discern the difference between an Arahant and a Buddha, and what awakening is. Awakening is "seeing" dependent origination. Plain and simple. Both Buddhas and Arahants see dependent origination in its fullest. However what differs is their purification or skillful means. A Buddha is more well rounded, while Arahants can be rough around the edges, they can still have problematic personality traits etc. Having understood this, then the difference between the Hinayana and Mahayana is the goal of Arahatship vs a Buddha to be. Bodhisattvas are on the path to becoming Buddhas to be, so they are not awakened yet. So they will stick around in samsara to build up better successive rebirths before they cash in their chips. Now Vajrayana is a branch of Mahayana but is meant to have the means to speed up the skillful process (in therory).
So interestingly enough the term Hinayana is actually more acurate given the discrepancy in goals. I know it can be used in a derogatory way, but that's not what I'm doing here.

[whiteashpiperwhiteashpiper]

Have you ever been a monk? Have you ever had a discussion with David Reynolds? David spent 30 yrs as a theravahda Buddhist monk. Not only that Dave is a intelligent person.

[nealamesbury]

Mahayana, should not be called buddhism. If buddha did not teach it.- it is something else, thats ok. But dont call it. buddhism

[文-lg]

22:20 "There has to be something real, in the sense of independently existing" - Independent of what, of everything? If that is the case, I am with the metaphysical view that there is only one thing. Otherwise you will always find some dependency...

[mrlarry]

Mahayana has many good and inspiring insights even if I believe they go too far on certain things. Personally I compare the new texts to the Pali Canon and if the ideas do not contradict it I see it as being in the basic spirit of the Buddha. If it does I disregard it. That is my basic approach on this matter.

[shunlaiei]

Theravada Buddhism will follow the previous Buddha, Gotama Buddha. They will try to attain Nibbana in this life or will wait Next Buddha🙏.

Mahayana Buddhism will wait Next Buddha and they all can or may try to become Bodhisattva🙏.

This is according to my understanding.

Because Buddhas are not only one. All men can practice to become Buddhas.