[Sx1qBli0]

Something interesting came up in a thread a little bit ago with a fellow forum member/moderator here about a difference between Mahayana and Theravada and what Shakyamuni is known to have taught in Theravada as to what may or may not have been taught by him in later Mahayana. It is something I myself have an opinion on that may seem quite pleasing to Theravada practitioners and perhaps insulting to Mahayana Practitioners, though I hope not as I love the Mahayana and Theravada equally and would like to see them, along with Vajrayana, fuse one day to become an Ekayana or one BIG vehicle school of Buddha Dharma. Anyway, here goes.

It is my opinion that Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach much of what is known as Mahayana Buddhism, but that these later revelations were written by later enlightened individuals (Buddhas/Arahants) and ascribed to Shakyamuni as a form of skillful means to lend credibility to the techniques and concepts developed within them. People are always skeptical when someone comes along and claims enlightenment or Buddha-hood, (accept in regard to Shakyamuni Buddha, people don't seem to question him much), so it seems reasonable that enlightened beings later on in Buddhist history may have discovered new paths or skillful means to help others more clearly understand the spirit of what the historical Buddha taught, and written it in his name in order to be taken seriously.

I know in Mahayana it is stated that these later teachings came from Shakyamuni and that they were kept in celestial realms, or realms of the Naga's etc. because the people were not ready for them yet, but Buddha himself is recorded as saying that he held nothing back in his teachings in the pali canon, and so, unless this is a later addition to the Theravada canon (not likely because of their rigid tradition rules) there were no secret teachings until they were invented by later Buddhas, clarifying in the Buddhist spirit, the teachings of the historical Buddha, and spreading practices for enlightenment to lay folk/new types of monks.

This shouldn't really bother Mahayana practitioners though, because they believe in the Dharmakaya or the Vairocana Buddha, and the universality of Buddha nature within each sentient being. A Buddha is a Buddha is a Buddha, so to speak. So, as long as a teaching keeps in the spirit of the Buddha dharma, it shouldnt matter if it came from Shakyamuni Buddha or any other Buddha or Arahant or Bodhisattva. To use myth or even to disguise ones writing as the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha shouldn't be an issue so long as the one doing so is also truly a Buddha, and is using skillful means to deliver the message.

So too, I would invite Theravada practitioners to examine the Mahayana scriptures and see if they keep the spirit of what Shakyamuni taught. If they keep the spirit of what he taught, then perhaps they should be accepted as lessons from other enlightened beings. For only an enlightened being could teach a path that leads to enlightenment, and if something agrees with what Shakyamuni Buddha taught in essence and can lead to enlightenment, in turn, it must have come from an enlightened being. Surely no Theravadin would reject teachings from an Arahant?

Anyway, enough of my rambling, I apologize in advance if anything I have written has angered anyone and I ask that you be forgiving and not treat me too harshly. Thank you for taking time to read my opinion and discuss it with me.