Mahāyāna (Sanskrit: महायान, "Great Vehicle") is the largest branch of Buddhism, followed by the older branch Theravada. It is a broad group of Buddhist traditions, texts, philosophies, and practices that developed in various regions and Buddhist communities of ancient India ( onwards). Mahāyāna Buddhism accepts the main scriptures and teachings of early Buddhism but also recognizes various scriptures that are not accepted by Theravāda Buddhism as canonical. Mahāyāna scriptures like the Lotus Sutra and the Vajra-cutter Sutra emphasize the ideal of the bodhisattva, spiritual heroes who vow to attain buddhahood for the sake of saving all living beings (a compassionate attitude termed bodhicitta). These scriptures also contain unique teachings such as the Perfection of Wisdom and Buddha-nature.Harvey (2013), pp. 108-109.
The Mahāyāna also refers to the path of the bodhisattva striving to become a fully awakened buddha for the benefit of all sentient beings, and is thus also called the "Bodhisattva Vehicle" (Bodhisattvayāna).Damien Keown (2003), A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, p. 38 Mahāyāna Buddhism generally sees the goal of becoming a buddha through the bodhisattva path as being available to all beings who make the bodhisattva vow. Furthermore, Mahāyāna sees the state of the arhat as incomplete and as a lesser aspiration.Harvey (2013), p. 111. Mahāyāna buddhology includes numerous buddhas and bodhisattvas that are not found in Theravāda (e.g. Amitābha and Vairocana), as well as unique conceptions of buddhahood not found in Theravāda (e.g. Trikaya and Upaya). Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy also promotes unique theories, such as the Madhyamaka theory of emptiness (śūnyatā), and the Vijñānavāda (the idealistic "doctrine of consciousness").
While initially a small movement in India, Mahāyāna eventually grew to become an influential force in Indian Buddhism. Large scholastic centers associated with Mahāyāna such as Nalanda and Vikramashila thrived between the 7th and 12th centuries. In the course of its history, Mahāyāna Buddhism spread from South Asia to Central Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Himalayan regions. Various Mahāyāna traditions (such as Zen, Pure Land, and Tiantai) are the predominant forms of Buddhism found in China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Vajrayana or Mantra traditions are a subset of Mahāyāna which makes use of numerous tantric methods considered to lead to Buddhahood swiftly.Harvey (2013), p. 189. These tantric forms of Mahāyāna are also dominant in Tibet, Mongolia, Bhutan, and other Himalayan regions. It has also been traditionally present elsewhere in Asia as a minority among Buddhist communities in Nepal, Malaysia, Indonesia and regions with Asian diaspora communities.
As of 2010, the Mahāyāna tradition was the largest major tradition of Buddhism, with 53% of Buddhists belonging to East Asian Mahāyāna and 6% to Vajrayāna, compared to 36% to Theravāda.
Etymology
Indic term
According to Jan Nattier, the Indic term Mahāyāna ("Great Vehicle") was originally an honorary synonym for Bodhisattvayāna ("Bodhisattva Vehicle"),Nattier, Jan (2003), A few good men: the Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra: p. 174 the vehicle of a bodhisattva seeking buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. The term Mahāyāna (which had earlier been used simply as an epithet for Buddhism itself) was therefore adopted at an early date as a synonym for the path and the teachings of the bodhisattvas. Since it was simply an honorary term for Bodhisattvayāna, the adoption of the term Mahāyāna and its application to Bodhisattvayāna did not represent a significant turning point in the development of a Mahāyāna tradition.
The earliest Mahāyāna texts, such as the Lotus Sūtra, often use the term Mahāyāna as a synonym for Bodhisattvayāna, but the term Hīnayāna is comparatively rare in the earliest sources. The presumed dichotomy between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna can be deceptive, as the two terms were not actually formed in relation to one another in the same era.Nattier, Jan (2003), A few good men: the Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra: p. 172
Among the earliest and most important references to Mahāyāna are those that occur in the Lotus Sūtra (Skt. Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra) dating between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE.W. Rahula, (1996). Theravada – Mahayana Buddhism ; in: "Gems of Buddhist Wisdom", Buddhist Missionary Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Seishi Karashima has suggested that the term first used in an earlier Gandhāri Prakrit version of the Lotus Sūtra was not the term mahāyāna but the Prakrit word mahājāna in the sense of mahājñāna (great knowing).Williams, Paul. Buddhism. Vol. 3. The origins and nature of Mahāyāna Buddhism. Routledge. 2004. p. 50.Karashima, Seishi (2000), Who composed the Lotus Sutra?, Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 4, p. 170 (note 115) At a later stage when the early Prakrit word was converted into Sanskrit, this mahājāna, being phonetically ambivalent, may have been converted into mahāyāna, possibly because of what may have been a double meaning in the famous Parable of the Burning House, which talks of three vehicles or carts (Skt: yāna).Karashima, Seishi (2015), Vehicle (yāna) and Wisdom (jñāna) in the Lotus Sutra – the Origin of the Notion of yāna in Mahayāna Buddhism, Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 18, 163–196
Chinese translation In Chinese, Mahāyāna is called (dàshèng, or dàchéng), which is a calque of maha (great ) yana (vehicle ). There is also the transliteration .《现代汉语词典》、《远东汉英大辞典》 The term appeared in some of the earliest Mahāyāna texts, including Emperor Ling of Han's translation of the Lotus Sutra.Nattier, Jan (2003), A few good men: the Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra: pp. 193–194 It also appears in the Chinese Āgamas, though scholars like Yin Shun argue that this is a later addition.《增一阿含經·勸請品·八經》：「爾時，尊者拘絺羅便說此偈：『種種果不同，眾生趣亦然，自覺覺人者，我無此辯說。禪智解脫辯，憶本天眼通，能盡苦原本，我無此辯說。』爾時，須深女人便說此偈：『善逝有此智，質直無瑕穢，勇猛有所伏，求於大乘行。』」印順〈雜阿含經部類之整編〉：「宋譯《雜阿含經》，譯出的時代遲了些，而譯者求那跋陀羅，是 – 位唯心大乘師，所以譯文中偶有大乘的名義。......「菩薩摩訶薩」的稱呼，受到了大乘的影響。不過，每成立 – 部派，就有部派所審定集成的經典，在傳承的同 – 宗派中，是不可能大事更張的。《雜阿含經》的「修多羅」部分，與『攝事分』所依經本 – 致，即可以證明。當然，經典在長期流傳中，會因時因地而有多少差別的。求那跋陀羅為唯心大乘師，所譯《雜阿含經》，就偶有 – 二大乘名義，然如依此而說宋譯《雜阿含經》，是大乘佛教時代所完成的，那就誤謬不經了！」 Some Chinese scholars also argue that the meaning of the term in these earlier texts is different from later ideas of Mahāyāna Buddhism.吳汝鈞《印度大乘佛教思想的特色》：「『阿含經』用「大乘」之名，大扺指佛的教法，而含有尊崇之意。這「大乘」自不同於爾後大乘佛教的「大乘」，但亦非全不相通。大乘佛教自有其發展，但其基本教理，並不遠離佛的本意。」
History
Origin
The origins of Mahāyāna are still not completely understood and there are numerous competing theories.Akira, Hirakawa (translated and edited by Paul Groner) (1993. A History of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass: p. 260. The earliest Western views of Mahāyāna assumed that it existed as a separate school in competition with the so-called "Hīnayāna" schools. Some of the major theories about the origins of Mahāyāna include the following:
The lay origins theory was first proposed by Jean Przyluski and then defended by Étienne Lamotte and Akira Hirakawa. This view states that laypersons were particularly important in the development of Mahāyāna and is partly based on some texts like the Vimalakirti Sūtra, which praise lay figures at the expense of monastics. This theory is no longer widely accepted since numerous early Mahāyāna works promote monasticism and asceticism."One of the most frequent assertions about the Mahayana is that it was a lay-influenced, or even lay-inspired and dominated, movement that arose in response to the increasingly closed, cold, and scholastic character of monastic Buddhism. This, however, now appears to be wrong on all counts...much of its [Hinayana's] program being in fact intended and designed to allow laymen and women and donors the opportunity and means to make religious merit." Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004): p. 494
The Mahāsāṃghika origin theory, which argues that Mahāyāna developed within the Mahāsāṃghika tradition.Drewes, David, Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism I: Recent Scholarship, Religion Compass 4/2 (2010): 55–65, This is defended by scholars such as Hendrik Kern, A.K. Warder and Paul Williams who argue that at least some Mahāyāna elements developed among Mahāsāṃghika communities (from the 1st century BCE onwards), possibly in the area along the Kṛṣṇa River in the Āndhra region of southern India.Guang Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory. 2004. pp. 65–66 "Several scholars have suggested that the Prajñāpāramitā probably developed among the Mahasamghikas in Southern India, in the Andhra country, on the Krishna River."Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations 2nd edition. Routledge, 2009, p. 47.Akira, Hirakawa (translated and edited by Paul Groner) (1993. A History of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass: pp. 253, 263, 268"The south (of India) was then vigorously creative in producing Mahayana Sutras" – Warder, A.K. (3rd edn. 1999). Indian Buddhism: p. 335. The Mahāsāṃghika doctrine of the supramundane (lokottara) nature of the Buddha is sometimes seen as a precursor to Mahāyāna views of the Buddha. Some scholars also see Mahāyāna figures like Nāgārjuna, Dignaga, Candrakīrti, Āryadeva, and Bhāviveka as having ties to the Mahāsāṃghika tradition of Āndhra.Padma, Sree. Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. SUNY Press 2008, p. 1. However, other scholars have also pointed to different regions as being important, such as Gandhara and northwest IndiaKarashima, 2013.Walser, Joseph, Nagarjuna in Context: Mahayana Buddhism and Early Indian Culture, Columbia University Press, 2005, p. 25.. In connection with this, Warder states that "the sudden appearance of large numbers of (Mahāyāna) teachers and texts (in North India in the second century AD) would seem to require some previous preparation and development, and this we can look for in the South."Warder, A.K. (3rd edn. 1999). Indian Buddhism: p. 335.
An argument cited against the Mahāsāṃghika origins theory is the fact that scholarship has revealed how certain Mahāyāna sutras show traces of having developed among other nikāyas or monastic orders (such as the Dharmaguptaka).Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 6. Because of such evidence, scholars like Paul Harrison and Paul Williams argue that the movement was not sectarian and was possibly pan-buddhist.Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 16. According to Jan Nattier, the concept of Mahāyāna, as used in an early text such as the Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra, did not originally refer to a separate formal school or sect of Buddhism, but rather denoted a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for aspiring bodhisattvas; only later did the tensions between monks pursuing different paths lead to an "institutional fission generating a separate Mahāyāna community".
The "forest hypothesis" meanwhile states that Mahāyāna arose mainly among "hard-core ascetics, members of the forest dwelling (aranyavasin) wing of the Buddhist Order", who were attempting to imitate the Buddha's forest living.Drewes, David, The Forest Hypothesis in Paul Harrison, ed., Setting Out on the Great Way. Equinox, 2018. This has been defended by Paul Harrison, Jan Nattier and Reginald Ray. This theory is based on certain sutras like the Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra and the Mahāyāna Rāṣṭrapālapaṛiprcchā which promote ascetic practice in the wilderness as a superior and elite path. These texts criticize monks who live in cities and denigrate the forest life.Williams (2008), pp. 33-34.