This week’s Powers reading focused on the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism, and the subsequent “split” between Mahayana and Hinayana, or Theravada, Buddhism. Within this distinction is the distinction between a low vehicle and a high vehicle, and a sort of rivalry between the two traditions (Powers 106-108). The difference between the two traditions, according to the Mahayana perspective, can be described as a one of bodhisattvas (Mahayana) and arhats (Hinayana) (Powers 110). This is to say that followers of the Mahayana tradition strive to become bodhisattvas, while the goal of the Hinayana tradition is arhathood. Further, the Hinayana tradition suggests a difference between the Shakyamuni and other sentient beings, while the Mahayana does not. According to the Mahayana tradition, as well as many of our previous readings, every sentient being has the ability to achieve buddhahood.

The Powers reading gives a sense of superiority to the Mahayana tradition and cites the Dalai Lama in making this claim:

“According to the Dalai Lama, Mahayana is superior to Hinayana in three ways: (1) motivation, (2) goal, and (3) level of understanding” (Powers 109).

Followers of the Hinayana tradition are described as

“solitary realizers” (Powers 107),

because their primary goal is a personal nirvana rather than nirvana for all sentient beings. This slight difference in goals indicates a certain selfishness implicit in the Hinayana tradition which is not in the Mahayana.

I was struck by how forcefully the distinction was made, and by how much rivalry was described between the Mahayana and Hinayana traditions; it reminded me of the sects and divisions experienced by Christianity, though to a much lesser extent. Considering the breadth and staying-power of Buddhist teachings, I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that there has been some sectionalization, especially considering the fact that Buddhist teachings were traditionally open to revision––the sentiment that

“whatever is well-spoken is the word of the Buddha” (Powers 101)

leaves some room for interpretation as well as synthesis of new ideas. I wonder if such divisions exist to this day, and whether there are still multiple valid interpretations of Buddhist teachings which are followed.

Chapters 5 and 6 of Thurman’s Inner Revolution mirror some of the themes presented in the Powers reading, as well as in Essential Tibetan Buddhism and the Vimalakirti reading. Thurman particularly emphasizes the importance of recognizing life’s impermanence:

“By accepting impermanence, we let go of our tight grasp on what and whom we love, and knowing it or they will be gone, we see more clearly what it is we love about them” (IR 146).

Of utmost importance in both Thurman readings from this week is the idea of equanimity between all sentient beings. Thurman charts a path to this equanimity by advocating for the

“recognition of all beings as having been one’s mother” (IR 151).

This exercise will allow one to extinguish negative feelings about people one might consider their enemy. Likewise, to feel equanimity to attractive or admirable people, Buddhist teaching recommends imagining them as one’s enemy (ETB 138). By recognizing that each person one encounters has been one’s mother and one’s enemy in one of infinite past lives, one can come to understand each person as fundamentally the same. As Thurman recognizes in Inner Revolution, the underlying sentiment is shared by Christianity: Jesus tells us to love our neighbor and our enemy. Once this skill is perfected, one can begin to recognize other’s pain as one’s own, and strive toward dispelling the pain of everyone.

“To abolish my own [pain] I must abolish all, otherwise, I, like beings, must stay in pain” (ETB 154).

The Vimalakirti reading provides a historical account of one of Siddhartha Gautama’s contemporaries. According to Wikipedia, Vimalakirti was “the ideal Mahayana Buddhist upāsaka (‘lay practitioner’).” This description is well supported by the description of Vimalakirti as someone who brought the dharma to other people, found strength in meditation, and understood the impermanence of life (Vimalakirti Chapter 2). All of Vimalakirti’s qualities as described in the reading are reminiscent of accounts of the Buddha we have read; it took me a while to realize that many of the passages in the reading were describing Vimalakirti and not the Gautama Buddha. This serves as an indication that Vimalakirti truly was the ideal lay practitioner of Mahayana Buddhism: according to that tradition, everyone can be a buddha. It is only natural that the ideal practitioner would demonstrate all of the necessary buddhalike qualities. A question I have is what significance Vimalakirti has to Buddhism today, and whether he is meant to be taken as a historical figure or simply a literary device to help a reader understand Mahayana Buddhist teachings.