Essay on "Compare and Contrast Buddhism in Two Different Buddhist Countries"

/>The differences in the two approaches to Buddhism are historical and highlight some of the differences and strife in the different approaches to Buddhism. After Buddha's death, his teachings spread throughout the Indian continent. The main difference was reflected in Mahayana and non-Mahayana approaches to Buddhism. Those who believed that the Mahayana approach contained the correct interpretation of Buddha's writings adopted a perjorative attitude towards non-Mahayana approaches. Mahayana Buddhism took hold in the northern region of the continent and is often referred to as Northern Buddhism. Non-Mahayana Buddhism took hold in the southern region of the continent and often was referred to as Southern Buddhism. Theravada is the sole survivor of those historic non-Mahayana approaches. Therefore, when one speaks of Northern Buddhism, it means the Mahayana approach, while Southern Buddhism refers to Theravada.

An important component of Buddhism is monastic life, and it plays a different role depending on the type of Buddhism that is being practiced. It is easy to see how monastic roles can be traced to Theravada, which predated the development of the Mahayana version of Buddhism. "The monastic discipline (Vinaya) developed by the Buddha was designed to shape the Sangha as an ideal community, with the optimum conditions for spiritual growth" (Harvey 1990, p. 73). It was at a meeting of one of those Sangha's, after the death of the Buddha, that a communal meeting was held where the Arahats agreed on "the contents of the Dhamma and Vinaya which the Buddha had left as 'teacher'" (Harvey 1990, p. 73). This initial meeting was followed by a series of similar meetings, at which the appropriate conduct for the monks was outlined and refined, in many ways clarifying the teachings of the Buddha.

Theravada Buddhism, like many traditional religions, is based upon what is, in essence, scripture. The textual basis for Theravada Buddhism is the Tipitaka or Pali Canon, which is believed to be the earliest record of the Buddha's teachings. However, the Pali Canon is not the writings of the Buddha. Buddha did not leave a written recollection of his own sermons. Instead, his monks began orally transmitting her sermons through the generations. The Pali Canon reflects the first known written record of those sermons that had previously been transmitted through an oral tradition. The Pali Canon developed from that first early meeting of the Arahats.

Mahayana Buddhism did not begin as its own religious tradition, but, actually appears to have been the result of how individuals approached Buddhism. Rather than focusing on the historical texts of the Pali Canon, as Theravada Buddhism does, Mahayana focuses on the individual path of enlightenment for all individuals, the Bodhisattva Vehicle. "Within the monastic fraternities originating from the Sthaviravada of the first schism, three systemic schools of thought (vadas) developed through the third century BC: the Puggalavada (Skt Pudgalavada), Sarvastivada (Pali Sabbatthivada), and Vibhajjavada (Skt Vibhajyavada). The fraternities originating from the Mahasanghikas were more doctrinally open and so drew on ideas from these vadas, and later took to Mahayana ideas more readily" (Harvey 1990, p. 85v).

The split between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism has been portrayed as similar to the split between the Catholic and Protestant movements in the Christian church. However, this portrayal is erroneous. It ignores that some of the elements that were not present in the variant of Theravada practiced in Sri Lanka were still Theravada in origin. Moreover, it suggests a schism in the core belief that does not necessarily exist in Buddhist thought. That is not to suggest that the two practices are interchangeable, because they are not, but they do not indicate the same type of religious and cultural divide that mark two of the three major Abrahamic religions: Christianity and Islam. "Modern scholars have often tried to identify the various threats of influence in the resulting mix, but they have frequently mislabeled many of them because of their unfamiliarity with the Pali Canon as a whole" (Robinson et al. 2005, p.143). Therefore, what was once thought of as Theravada was Buddhism as it was practiced in Sri Lanka at the time of the first Western scholarly interest in Buddhism. This happened to coincide with a time period when "Sri Lankans themselves had recently revived interest in the earliest layer of Suttas as the truest expression of Buddha's teachings" (Robinson et al. 2005, p.143). However, this image of Theravada is only a snapshot of the practice of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka has an emphasis that differs from other forms of Theravada Buddhism. The "Pali Canon- like all early Buddhist canons- contains many differing layers. Thus any Buddhist looking to it for religious guidance has a choice as to which layers to take as his or her primary guide" (Robinson et al. 2005, p.144). In Sri Lanka, as in Southeast Asia, the majority of Buddhists have elected to focus on the Suttas and Abhidhamma (Robinson et al. 2005, p.144). One way that this path interacts with cultural life is how it influences politics in Sir Lanka. "Government officials and business executives in the Theravadin world are said to possess (or, in unfortunate cases, to lack) the perfections needed to maintain their positions (Robinson et al. 2005, p.144). When placed within the context of the Sri Lankan attitude towards Buddhism, this interrelationship is fully explained. Although Sri Lanka has people who practice other religions, with approximately one-third of the population practicing different religions, the people of Sri Lanka consider themselves to be the guardians of pure Buddhism. "Consequently, one of the defining features of contemporary Sri Lankan Buddhism is the preoccupation with discerning and preserving 'true Buddhism'" (Berkwitz, pp. 45-46).

The historical interrelationship between Buddhism and politics can chase its roots to the leader Asoka (Ashoka), who ruled over part of India in a time period after the Buddha. After his conversion, he changed how he approached some of the challenges facing a leader in that time period. He "felt it was his duty to improve the quality of his subjects' lives, so as to provide a sound framework for their following a moral and religious way of life, Buddhist or otherwise. He inaugurated public works, such as wells and rest-houses for travellers, supported medical aid for humans and animals, and gave aid for the fostering of such measure in regions beyond his empire" (Harvey 1990, p. 76). He also instituted some changes in how criminals were treated; he abolished some forms of corporal punishment and attempted to establish means of rehabilitating criminals (Harvey 1990, p.76). While Asoka promoted Buddhism, he also focused on religious tolerance in a way that was unprecedented in that time period. While Asoka was not a proponent of either of the emerging types of Buddhism, his son was responsible for the spread of Theravada Buddhism (Harvey 1990, p.77).

While Mahayana Buddhism is practiced in much of Asia, the way that it is practiced in China is worth mentioning because China's communist revolution officially outlawed religion. China had a traditional system of Buddhism in place prior to the revolution, which continued up until 1950, despite increasing pressure by China's changing government and social atmosphere. "In the traditional system the monastery was the center of Buddhist activities and the monk was the only person who regularly played an active religious role. Most Chinese lay people were 'occasional Buddhists,' in… READ MORE