Namaste

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

Satay extended a warm invitation to join the forum and here i am :)

perhaps, at this point, it would behoove me to explain my view and practice.

as you may or may not know, within the overall Buddha Dharma, there are what we call Three Vehicles, which correspond to the Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. within the Three Vehicles, there are Nine Yanas that a being can be practicing, typically, we practice some of each one.

i am a Vajrayana Buddhist, should one desire to use such lables, of the Nyingma school of Tibet which was started by Padmasambhava when he brought the Buddha Dharma to Tibet in roughly 700 C.E.

an aside to the forum owners... though, in truth, we are all practicing to Awaken to our Buddhanature, we are not all Buddhas just quite yet ;)

metta,

~v

[satay]

Namaste all,

as you may or may not know, within the overall Buddha Dharma, there are what we call Three Vehicles, which correspond to the Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. within the Three Vehicles, there are Nine Yanas that a being can be practicing, typically, we practice some of each one.



namaste,
I am just curious. How did the three vehicles come to be? Did Gautma talk about these three vehicles or were they derived later from his original teachings?



an aside to the forum owners... though, in truth, we are all practicing to Awaken to our Buddhanature, we are not all Buddhas just quite yet ;)


:p shhhh...

satay

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Satay,

thank you for the post.


namaste,
I am just curious. How did the three vehicles come to be? Did Gautma talk about these three vehicles or were they derived later from his original teachings?


that is a *great* question!

you and i have dialoged in the past so you know, basically, my style of posting and the manner in which i try to explain things. however, as i'm new to the forum, i should, perhaps, explain just a bit about how i go about this.

i practice a particular, shall we say, style of Buddha Dharma. when i answer questions regarding the Buddha Dharma i endeavor to do so from a non-sectarian view. as such, my answers for general questions tends to be done from that view point.

when questions are specific enough, i will usually answer them from my schools point of view. naturally, other Buddhists may disagree with my understanding and explanation of such things.

so... now that the preamble is out of the way... let me answer the question :)


generally speaking, most of the Sutta/Sutras in the canon are teachings given to the monastic community of monks and nuns. that being said, there are teachings which are given specifically to lay persons.

the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma corresponds to the Hinyana, the Individual Vehicle. this first public teaching was given in Varanasi, Deer Park shortly after Buddha Shakyamuni Awoke. the main feature of this turning is the exposition of the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path.

the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma corresponds to the Mahayana, the Greater Vehicle. this second public teaching was given in Ragjir on Vulture Peak near Nalanda, and it expounds on the concept of Shunyata, or lack of self nature. the main feature of this turning is the concept of shunyata, lack of self nature and corresponds to the Prajanparamita Sutras.

the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma corresponds to the Vajaryana, the Diamond Thunderbolt Vehicle. this third public teaching was given in several locations and isn't fixed to a specific locus, though Vaishali is one of the more frequent locations. the defining feature of this teaching is the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha, the inherent Buddhanature of sentient beings.

now, we come to a point where there is sharp disagreement. in the view of the Vajrayana, there was another turning of the Wheel of Dharma which is where Buddha Shakaymuni expounded the Tantras. generally speaking, this view is not supported by the Hinyana and several of the Mahayana schools.

a point of clarification, if i may.

the term "hinyana" has taken on some negative connotations throughout history. this is, in my view, a mistake. historically, the Hinyana Vehicle contained 17 disctinct schools, as such, when we use the term "hinyana" we are meaning to indicate all these previously existing schools. that being said, today, there is only one extant school of Hinyana practice, the Theraveda.

as such, most modern commentators simply call the Hinyana "Theraveda Buddhism" since there is not other school within the same frame :)

Buddha Dharma is uses the Wheel as its symbol. in this sort of visualization, the Hinyana teachings are the hub of the wheel, since these are the foundational teachings. the Mahayana is like the spokes of the wheel reaching outward from the hub and the Vajrayana is like the rim of the wheel, rolling over and picking up anything in its path.

does that help?

metta,

~v

[satay]

Namaste Satay,


does that help?

metta,

~v

namaste vj,

Thanks for the nice reply. I don't think I understood though the answer I was looking for...were these different teachings then taught by Gautama originally?

I also have heard that there have been 'several' Buddhas...is this correct? Is Gautama the 'first' buddha in this sense or have there been some before him?

just curious as usual...
satay

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Satay,

thank you for the post.


namaste vj,

Thanks for the nice reply. I don't think I understood though the answer I was looking for...were these different teachings then taught by Gautama originally?

yes, all of these teachings were givin by Buddha Shakyamuni in various locations and to varied groups of beings.



I also have heard that there have been 'several' Buddhas...is this correct?


yes, that is correct. Buddha Shakyamuni is the most recent to arise in this Fortunate Eon. a Fortunate Eon, in Buddhism, is an Eon where more than one Buddha will arise. this particular Eon, in our tradition, is said to give rise to many Buddhas, with the next one to arise being Buddha Maitreya.

Buddha Vipassi (the first Buddha to arise in our world system)

Buddha Sikhi

Buddha Vessabu

Buddha Kakusandha

Buddha Konagamana

Buddha Dipankara

Buddha Kassapa

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon...dn-32-pt0.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon...dn-32-pt0.html)



Is Gautama the 'first' buddha in this sense or have there been some before him?

just curious as usual...
satay

no worries, this is an oft asked question :)

the first Buddha to arise in our world system was Buddha Vipassi.

metta,

~v

[Prasanthan]

That is very interesting, Vajradhara.

[Namo Narayana]

Vajradhara, in your listing of buddhas where does siddhartha stand ? you didnt say his position in the list. is he vipassa ? if he is not the first how did people come to know about previous buddhas.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Namo Narayana,

thank you for the post.


Vajradhara, in your listing of buddhas where does siddhartha stand ? you didnt say his position in the list. is he vipassa ? if he is not the first how did people come to know about previous buddhas.

Buddha Shakyamuni would be after Buddha Kassapa in this list, i.e. he would be the "current" Buddha of this world system.

we know about the existence of the previous Buddhas from the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni where he goes through the various rebirths that are recalled and the Buddhas which taught him.

metta,

~v

[Namo Narayana]

vajradhara, thanks for your post. how does gautama buddha came to know about the previous buddhas. is there any timeline for the earliest buddha. how come this world never knew about the previous buddha.

can we assume that siddhartha's enlightenement and his understanding of dharma matched with different muni's who lived before him. hence he considered those munis as earlier buddhas ?

did buddha not agree with Vedhas ? I read somewhere that he disagreed

[satay]

did buddha not agree with Vedhas ? I read somewhere that he disagreed

Sorry to interrupt your conversation with Vj but Gautama rejected the Vedas in the sense that in his day men were mainly concentrating on the rituals and not the deeper meanings. Gautama rejected the Vedas but not Veda.

satay

[Eternal Law]

Read "Secret of Vedas" by Sri Aurobindo and you will find How right was Gautama Buddha when he rejected mechanical ritualistic interpretations of Vedas at that time.

Even Lord Krishna rejected such interpretation of Vedas.

[Singhi Kaya]

Read "Secret of Vedas" by Sri Aurobindo and you will find How right was Gautama Buddha when he rejected mechanical ritualistic interpretations of Vedas at that time.

Even Lord Krishna rejected such interpretation of Vedas.
Sri Krishna did not rejected such interpretation, but said fruit beared by "karma kanda" are transient.

What seperates hindu's and buddhist is hindu's accept proof in vedas as the 3rd way of proving spritual truth's while buddha rejected it. He accepted the other 2 ways namely analysis and direct experience - if I'm not wrong.

As a hindu my way of looking at buddha will be as an avatar who wanted to remove the grip of priestly caste on the society. Reading at Vj's post it seems buddhism has developed a very similar system to our's where buddha comes again and again (like krishna), but disconnected itself from the vedic heritage.

To end (little sentimentally) buddhism has much well preserved it's heritage and developed positively over last 2 mellinium (inspite of being ousted from India). We on the other hand have sunk low:(,turning our sciptures into bibles of ahimsa and sarbha dharma samanya. I personally at this juncture would have jumped on the buddhist bandwagon, for chance of self development is more genuine in that path at the moment. But I refrain from it only for Lord Krishna's immortal song. It's timeless and devout of any weakness, it's resolution karma unparralled - free from all bad karma good karma issues bias. It is the mankind's only hope and key to immortal existence and blissful society. I prostrate before the greatest teacher of mankind a million times. Help me to see everything in light of your glorious words.
Hari Om.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Namo Narayana,

thank you for the post.


vajradhara, thanks for your post. how does gautama buddha came to know about the previous buddhas.


herein lies the element of faith within the Buddha Dharma. Buddha Shakyamuni explains that he is aware of these things because he has become rightly self awakened and attained, Annutara Samyak Sambodhi.

we, not being at this level, have several options available to us. the most thorough option is to put the teachings into practice and see if they deliver the result as indicated.

in this sense, we are like hunters... we see the tracks in the woods and we have a good idea of the creature that left them. however, we must follow the tracks until we see the creature to know, for sure, that this is the creature we have been tracking.



is there any timeline for the earliest buddha. how come this world never knew about the previous buddha.

recall that the universe and time are cyclical in the Dharma traditions.. as such there really isn't a history that can be passed on from one arising to the next. that being said, for our part as adherents and practiconers, alot of this doesn't really help one on the spiritual journey.



can we assume that siddhartha's enlightenement and his understanding of dharma matched with different muni's who lived before him. hence he considered those munis as earlier buddhas ?

no, we should not do so.

if we assume a certain aspect of a being we run the risk of being quite incorrect. for a being like a Tathagata, we have very little in the way of relational attributes to latch onto.

it would be best, in my view, to take the teachings on their own and see if the practice produces the fruit that it purports to.



did buddha not agree with Vedhas ? I read somewhere that he disagreed

as Satay explained, one of the most rigorous critiques that Buddha Shakyamuni had was on the empty ritualistic society that had taken hold where the sacred rites and process were viewed as mere social obligations and conformations lacking the proper spiritual charge to liberate beings.

metta,

~v

[Dharmajim]

Good Friends:

Saw a mention of this forum over at e-sangha and decided to drop in. Thanks for the invite. I've been a Buddhist practitioner for about 35 years. Buddhism is a huge subject which covers numerous traditions that interpret the Buddhadharma in various ways. I mention this to point out that most Buddhists do not accept the 3-vehicle analysis of Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. That's a local, Vajrayana, interpretation. Theravada Buddhists and East Asian Buddhists don't use it. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it is a particular tradition's view, one that other traditions would not use.

The subject of the Buddha's relationship to the Vedas came up on this thread. I think it is possible to read the Buddhist Discourses and find support for various interpretations. The Buddha does reject rote ritualism centered on the Vedas and argues that mere memorization does not lead to realization. Is this a rejection of the Vedas as such? The difficulty with drawing that conclusion is that such criticisms are also found in the Upanishads and other Brahmanical Sages who do not reject the Vedas. So in itself such critiques are probably not definitive.

One argument presented regarding the Buddha's attitude towards the Vedas is his association with the Shramanera counterculture. Historians of this group, such as Padmanabh Jaini, a Digambara Jain, argue that all of the shramana teachers (e.g. Mahavira, Shakyamuni, the Ajivikas, etc.) held certain common views, one of which was a rejection of the orthodox brahmanical tradition. I think Jaini's thesis deserves consideration.

It is interesting to note, as an indication that would support the idea of the Buddha's positive view towards the orthodox tradition, that in the Mahaparinibana Sutta from the Pali Canon, there is a scene where the Buddha and his disciple Ananda, during the last months of the Buddha's life, take a kind of walking tour of various shrines. The Buddha comments about how "lovely" and peaceful these shrines are. He is clearly expressing a fondness for these places of worship. There is no sense here of hostility or even criticism of these shrines and their activities, no sense of rejection. On the contrary, there is a feeling of fondness and a sense of serenity. Whatever the Buddha's feelings about the received tradition they seem to have been complex.

Thanks everyone and I look forward to learning more from the forum here,

Dharmajim

[Namo Narayana]

Jim, welcome to the forums. your post was very informative. do you belong to any of the 3 vehicles yourself ? what is e sangha ?

you painted a neat picture of Buddha's view of vedas.

Indeed shrines are peaceful and beautiful.

[Singhi Kaya]

I put the link in e-sangha a hour or so back.
It's a buddhist forum, much much bigger than our at this stage-buddhism has much more international affiliation


my beautiful avatar is stolen from someone's in e sangha :)
E Sangha (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/)

[Namo Narayana]

singhi, i just googled and got the first hit to e-sangha.com . indeed has over 10000 members. your effort bore a return so quick.

[Singhi Kaya]

Namaste Dharmajim

Thanks for the kind words. Indeed similarity between sanatana and buddha traditions are huge, not only from cultural and ritualistic perpective but also dharma. What a buddhist considers as dharma a hindu does as well. There are oviously some differences, but nothing so serious which cannot lead to a good understanding and respect for each other each other.

This forum is small, but it is growing;) .

What branch of buddhism do you follow? What's your ID in e-sangha?

Finally welcome to the forum.(where is satay btw, welcoming his primarily his job:p )

[Dharmajim]

Good Friends:

Thank you for your warm welcome.

Some aksed me about my own Dharma affiliation. I studied in the Korean Buddhist tradition primarily; I also studied the Theravada tradition under the guidance of a Cambodian Monk; and some Dzog Chen studies with a group affiliated with Chagdud Tulku who has since passed away. I was a monk for six years, many years ago. I was recently a prison chaplain and have lead a group for the last 7 years that is dedicated to the systematic study of the Buddhist Discourses.

I therefore, like many westerners, have been exposed to a number of Buddhist traditions and glean wisdom from all of them. I don't consider myself to be in any particular vehicle; I just don't think that kind of categorizing is helpful. I don't view the different Buddhist traditions using those categories. It doesn't reflect the rich variety of Buddhist traditions.

My point about the 3-vehicle analysis, and the reason I brought it up originally, is that many Buddhists, particularly Theravadans, actually find it offensive. I don't find it offensive personally, I just don't find it useful.

Singhi Kaya, my handle at e-sangha is the same, Dharmajim. I saw that you borrowed the picture from Zardoz. I don't think he'll mind.

Thanks again,

Dharmajim

[satay]

Good Friends:


Dharmajim

namaste,

Welcome to forum. Very informative posts.

Buddha dharma and Sanatana Dharma have a lot of things in common and since Buddha Gautama was a Kashatriya himself and not a Brahmin his view on the Vedas is a unique one in the sense that he stressed a totally different thing; ' the experience' over scripture, at least that is my view with my very limited understanding of the Buddha dharma.

We would love to read more of your posts.

Please share more...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i would completely agree, in the discussion of which is more emphasized, scripture or experience, Buddha Dharma tends to place the emphasis on experience.

that is not to say, however, that scripture doesn't have a valuable and important role to play, it most assuredly does.

it is to say, however, that all dharmas are empty, even Buddha Dharmas and, as such, to borrow a common metaphor, once we have reached the Other Shore, we set the raft we used to get here down.

metta,

~v

[Anicca]

This topic is a little old but i wanted to add something


The Buddha did not turn the wheel three times, this is propagana by the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools in an attempt to put down Theravada and laud themselves


There was only one turning, the buddha didnt have secret doctrines for later pupils

The reason we have the different "vehicles" today is because the sangha split

Some wanted to stick to the original rules and obey the Elders (head monks) and some wanted to change some rules and be more liberal and not listen to the elders as much

The group that stuck to the original rules and followed the Elders became the Theravada school

Hundreds of years after the split the Mahayana Sutras come into being that, as i said, laud themselves and put down the schools that stuck to the original rules and teachings, hence this story of three turnings which never happened

The group that broke away went on to further splinter into Zen, Pure Land, Shingon, Tibetan Buddhism (and the other small schools) which are the schools that went on to develop their own ideas such as "Buddha-Nature" and Bodhisattvas, praying to the Buddha etc which are not in the original teachings


So today we have Theravada which is the continuation of sticking to the original teachings and rules and the Mahayana and Vajrayana which is a continuation of the group that broke away

metta

[Ekanta]

This topic is a little old but i wanted to add something

The group that stuck to the original rules and followed the Elders became the Theravada school...

So today we have Theravada which is the continuation of sticking to the original teachings and rules and the Mahayana and Vajrayana which is a continuation of the group that broke away

metta
Hi again Anicca, I just saw your post and thought about this. Your description is... a bit to easy.
You know there were several schools (18?) some time after Buddhas death. Theravada was one of those building on certain older traditions and formed 250 BCE. There were other schools before and at the same time. Food for thought, see link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

[atanu]

Good Friends:

------
The subject of the Buddha's relationship to the Vedas came up on this thread. I think it is possible to read the Buddhist Discourses and find support for various interpretations. The Buddha does reject rote ritualism centered on the Vedas and argues that mere memorization does not lead to realization. Is this a rejection of the Vedas as such? The difficulty with drawing that conclusion is that such criticisms are also found in the Upanishads and other Brahmanical Sages who do not reject the Vedas. So in itself such critiques are probably not definitive.

One argument presented regarding the Buddha's attitude towards the Vedas is his association with the Shramanera counterculture. Historians of this group, such as Padmanabh Jaini, a Digambara Jain, argue that all of the shramana teachers (e.g. Mahavira, Shakyamuni, the Ajivikas, etc.) held certain common views, one of which was a rejection of the orthodox brahmanical tradition. I think Jaini's thesis deserves consideration.

It is interesting to note, as an indication that would support the idea of the Buddha's positive view towards the orthodox tradition, that in the Mahaparinibana Sutta from the Pali Canon, there is a scene where the Buddha and his disciple Ananda, during the last months of the Buddha's life, take a kind of walking tour of various shrines. The Buddha comments about how "lovely" and peaceful these shrines are. He is clearly expressing a fondness for these places of worship. There is no sense here of hostility or even criticism of these shrines and their activities, no sense of rejection. On the contrary, there is a feeling of fondness and a sense of serenity. Whatever the Buddha's feelings about the received tradition they seem to have been complex.




I missed this earlier. It is nice how Dharmajim reflects the view that Buddha reformed corrupt and erroneous aspects of His time in Hinduism but that His so-called condemnation of Vedas might be a conjecture. Dharmajim states:
Is this a rejection of the Vedas as such? The difficulty with drawing that conclusion is that such criticisms are also found in the Upanishads and other Brahmanical Sages who do not reject the Vedas. So in itself such critiques are probably not definitive.

And
He is clearly expressing a fondness for these places of worship. There is no sense here of hostility or even criticism of these shrines and their activities, no sense of rejection. On the contrary, there is a feeling of fondness and a sense of serenity.-----------------------

What contrasting Mettas. Anicca and Dharmajim.


I remind that Shri Krishna, the master of Hinduism, teaches in Gita : Of what use is Veda to the enlightened? Do we say that Shri Krishna was critical of Vedas?

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

Namaste



Hi again Anicca, I just saw your post and thought about this. Your description is... a bit to easy.
You know there were several schools (18?) some time after Buddhas death. Theravada was one of those building on certain older traditions and formed 250 BCE. There were other schools before and at the same time. Food for thought, see link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools


I was well aware, the point im trying to make is that the doctrines you find in mahayana are not backed up with the original, older pali canon and their claims of coming from the Buddha do not go with the known history

The mahayana sutras are in a sense just the insights and thoughts of mahayana monks and not always buddhas doctrine


Theravada (Pāli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li): थेरवाद theravāda (cf Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_language): स्थविरवाद sthaviravāda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthaviravada)); literally, "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient Teaching", is the oldest surviving Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist) school. It was founded in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). It is relatively conservative, and generally closest to early Buddhism

Of course there are elements that are of Theravada itself but these dont contradict the Suttas themselves in any major way and have basis in those suttas, mahayana and Vajrayana is a different story. Its from this school that you get all the doctrines that sound almost the same as Vedanta, even more so with Vajrayana



Origin of the school
The Theravāda school is ultimately derived from the Vibhajjavāda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajjavada) (or 'doctrine of analysis') grouping[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-3) which was a continuation of the older Sthavira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthaviravada) (or 'teaching of the Elders') group at the time of the Third Buddhist Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Buddhist_Council) around 250 BC, during the reign of Emperor Asoka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asoka) in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). Vibhajjavadins saw themselves as the continuation of orthodox Sthaviras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sthaviras) and after the Third Council continued to refer to their school as the Sthaviras/Theras ('The Elders'), their doctrines were probably similar to the older Sthaviras but were not completely identical. After the Third Council geographical distance led to the Vibhajjavādins gradually evolving into four groups: the Mahīśāsaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahisasaka), Kāśyapīya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81%C5%9Byap%C4%ABya), Dharmaguptaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaguptaka) and the Tāmraparnīya. The Theravada is descended from the Tāmraparnīya, which means 'the Sri Lankan lineage'. Some sources claim that only the Theravada actually evolved directly from the Vibhajjavādins.
According to Buddhist scholar A.K. Warder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.K._Warder), the Theravada “spread rapidly south from Avanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanti_(India)) into Maharastra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharastra) and Andhra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh) and down to the Cola country (Kanchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanchi)), as well as Ceylon. For sometime they maintained themselves in Avanti as well as in their new territories, but gradually they tended to regroup themselves in the south, the Great Vihara (Mahavihara) in Anuradhapura, the capital of Ceylon, become the main centre of their tradition, Kanchi a secondary center and the northern regions apparently relinquished to other schools."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-4)
The name of Tamraparniya was given to the Sri Lankan lineage in India but there is no indication that this referred to any change in doctrine or scripture from the Vibhajjavadins, since the name points only to geographical location. The Theravadin accounts of its own origins mention that it received the teachings that were agreed upon during the Third Buddhist Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Buddhist_Council), and these teachings were known as the Vibhajjavada.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-5) In the 7th century, Chinese pilgrims Xuanzang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanzang) and Yi Jing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching_(monk)) refer to the Buddhist school in Sri Lanka as ‘Sthavira’.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-7) In ancient India, those schools that used Sanskrit as their religious language referred to this school as the 'Sthaviras', but those that use Pali as their religious language referred to this school as the 'Theras'. Both 'Sthaviras' (Sanskrit) and 'Theras' (Pali) both literally mean 'The Elders'. The school has been using the name 'Theravada' for itself in a written form since at least the fourth century CE when the term appears in the Dipavamsa.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-8)
There is little information about the later history of Theravada Buddhism in India, and it is not known when it disappeared in its country of origin.
The Theravada school had also reached Burma around the time it arrived in Sri Lanka and something of a synergy gradually developed. Around the end of the tenth century C.E, for example, war in Sri Lanka had extinguished the Theravadin ordination lineage, and a contingent of Burmese monks had to be imported to rekindle it. Burmese and Sri Lankan Theravada reinforced each other sufficiently, so that by the time Buddhism died out in India in the eleventh century, it had established a stable home in these countries. Gradually the Theravada form of Buddhism spread to Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-9)
Royal houses in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia associated themselves closely with Buddhism. States in those areas strictly enforced orthodoxy, and ensured that Theravada remained traditionalist. This contrasts with the relationship of Buddhism to states throughout most of Buddhism's history in India.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada#cite_note-10)


Mahayana history



Although the Mahayana movement traces its origin to Gautama Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), scholars believe that it originated in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) in the 1st century CE,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#cite_note-4) or the 1st century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century_BCE).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#cite_note-6) Scholars think that Mahayana only became a mainstream movement in India in the fifth century CE, since that is when Mahayanic inscriptions started to appear in epigraphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigraphy) records in India.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana#cite_note-7) Before the 11th century CE (while Mahayana was still present in India), the Mahayana Sutras were still in the process of being revised. Thus, several different versions may have survived of the same sutra. These different versions are invaluable to scholars attempting to reconstruct the history of Mahayana.
In the course of its history, Mahayana spread throughout East Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia). The main countries in which it is practiced today are China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan), Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea), and Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam) and worldwide amongst Tibetan Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhist) practitioners as a result of the Himalayan diaspora following the Chinese invasion of Tibet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet). The main schools of Mahayana Buddhism today are Pure Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land), Zen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen), Nichiren Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Buddhism), Shingon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingon), Tibetan Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism) and Tendai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendai). The latter three schools have both Mahayana and Vajrayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana) practice traditions.

Mahayana Sutras


The accounts of the texts specific to the Mahayana school (the Mahayana Sutras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Sutras)) are seen by scholars to not represent a true historic account of the life and teachings of Buddha[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Sutras#cite_note-12). The traditional account of why these accounts are not preserved in the older Tripitaka texts (the Pali Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon) and the Agamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agama_(text)#Buddhism)) of Early Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhism), invariably involve stories of mythical dragons (Nāgas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C4%81ga)) and denigrating accounts on the intelligence of humankind (not clever enough) at the time of the Buddha[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Sutras#cite_note-13). The scholar A. K. Warder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Warder) gives the following reasons for not accepting the Mahayana Sutras as giving a historical account of events in the life of Gautama Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana_Sutras#cite_note-14):

It is a curious aspersion on the powers of the Buddha that he failed to do what others were able to accomplish 600 years later.
Linguistically and stylistically the Mahayana texts belong to a later stratum of Indian literature than the Tripitaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripitaka) known to the early schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_schools_of_Buddhism).
Everything about early Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhism), and even the Mahayana itself (with the exception of the Mantrayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantrayana)), suggests that it was a teaching not meant to be kept secret but intended to be published to all the world, to spread enlightenment.
We are on safe ground only with those texts the authenticity of which is admitted by all schools of Buddhism (including the Mahayana, who admit the authenticity of the early canons as well as their own texts), not with texts accepted only by certain schools.
Mahayana developed gradually out of one, or a group, of the eighteen early schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_Schools), and originally it took its stand not primarily on any new texts but on its own interpretations of the universally recognised Tripitaka. Of course we cant fully know what is true to buddha and not we can only go on the suttas and tradition, which Theravada has more claim to since the school and the scriptures are older and the suttas it adheres to are agreed upon by every single buddhist school

metta