Mahayana Buddhists, what are your arguments for believing that the mahayana teachings are true?

Disclaimer: I am asking for the reasons why you guys believe in mahayana, not why you guys like mahayana. So I don't want answers like "I like the emphasis on compassion" or "it doesn't matter what kind of buddhism you follow, as long as it works for you".

I have had an on-off relationship with buddhism since my teenage years. During the first years I was mainly interested in mahayana, especially zen. Mahayana appealed to me because it seems to put a more "positive" spin on the buddhist teachings (although I don't want to perpetuate the stereotypical view of theravada as gloomy and nihilistic). Because of this, I read a lot about mahayana and very little about theravada. At the time, I already knew that scholars believe that it's highly unlikely that the mahayana sutras were the actual words of the Buddha, but this knowledge did not lead me to abandon mahayana: I rationalized that the mahayana sutras were just elaboration on concepts that also appeared in the Pali Canon. After all, if mahayana wasn't taught by the Buddha, why would so many eminent buddhist teachers follow it?

After a few years I lost my interest in buddhism, but at a certain point I became interested again. This time, I had learned enough English to read websites like www.accesstoinsight.org and www.dhammawheel.com. This gave me the opportunity to read the (alleged) teachings of the Buddha himself, not just those of modern buddhist teachers as I had done before. Although I was still partial to mahayana beliefs, I decided to stick with the Pali suttas because I believed those were the closest to the Buddha's original teachings, and I believed the mahayana teachings were derived from them anyway. But after some more reading, I discovered that many mahayana teachings couldn't be found anywhere in the suttas. Some mahayana teachings even seem to contradict the Pali suttas, including the following:

The relationship between samsara and nirvana

An important feature of mahayana seems to be the idea that "nirvana is samsara", indicating that samsara is not the world, but the way we perceive it (correct me if i'm wrong). But in the suttas, the Buddha clearly describes nirvana as being outside samsara. See this essay by Bhikkhu Bodhi for a theravada perspective on this issue.

The idea of the Buddha-nature

To be honest, I only have a limited understanding of this idea. But how can it be reconciled with the doctrine of no-self?

The prohibition of eating meat

According to multiple mahayana sutras, buddhists should not eat meat. In the Pali canon, there is no such rule; it is even said that when Devadatta wanted to introduce vegetarianism in the sangha, the Buddha rejected his proposal.

The traditional mahayana explanation for these apparent contradictions is that the mahayana sutras were "higher" teachings meant for those who wanted to be bodhisattvas, and were hidden away until the world was ready for them. But i'm not buying this: was there really nobody among the disciples of the Buddha who was ready for the bodhisattva path? So i'm left with two possible explanations for the emergence of mahayana:

1. Certain buddhist practitioners thought they were enlightened, and taught their misguided insights to others. Their ideas became the basis for mahayana.

2. After their enlightenment, certain arhats developed further insights which the suttas didn't talk about. They concluded that these insights were the beginning of the way to Buddhahood and taught them as mahayana. This would mean that although the Buddha never taught mahayana, mahayana would still be valid from a buddhist perspective.

   Which reasons do you guys have to believe that either option 2 is true, or the mahayana sutras were the actual words of the Buddha? And how do you resolve the contradictions between the Sutras and the Pali Canon?

   Thanks in advance for your answers!

submitted by /u/gooiditnietweg
[link] [comments]

from Buddhism https://ift.tt/2IkYAMn