The essential difference between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism is that Theravada Buddhism does not believe sentient beings have an innate nature, or the same, a Buddha-nature. By contrast, Mahayana does. The Theravada monk, Thanissaro Bhikkhu critically observes in his article, Freedom From Buddha Nature,
“If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?”
By assuming a Buddha-nature (buddhata) in beings is not meant that beings are already Buddhas. It only means that beings have the potential to become awakened, that is, to become Buddhas. This is made very clear in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra which uses the example of obtaining butter from milk even though milk is not exactly butter—nor are sentient beings exactly awakened although they don’t lack the potential to become such just as Gautama eventually did. We must keep in mind, too, that the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra tells us that, “By Buddha-nature, we mean the most perfect enlightenment.”
When we turn to the Pali Nikayas there is a voyage of liberation from non-enlightenment to enlightenment or the same, from the state of an unawakened ordinary being (puthujjana) to that a Buddha or arahant (one who has attained awakening). We might also add, there is a crossing from this shore, which is the conditioned life of unbroken suffering to the other shore, or the unconditioned, this being nirvana which is absent of illness, aging, death and defilement. Should our Theravada brothers forget what the Buddha said, these brief words of his will suffice to remind them. “I have taught you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned” (SN 43:1). I am sure the reader can see where I am going with his!
If beings lacked the potential to realize the unconditioned why then would the Buddha have bothered to teach them? Why would he have been compassionate? But beings have the potential to attain perfect enlightenment which, of course, is unconditioned. How is this so very far from what the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra teaches?
Comments