Mahayana

 ( Buddhist Philosophical Concepts ) 

The earliest Mahāyāna texts often use the term Mahāyāna as a synonym for Bodhisattvayāna, but the term Hinayana 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 Sutra (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, was mistakenly 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

The earliest textual evidence of "Mahāyāna" comes from sūtras originating around the beginning of the common era. Jan Nattier has noted that some of the earliest Mahāyāna texts such as the Ugraparipṛccha Sūtra use the term "Mahāyāna", yet there is no doctrinal difference between Mahāyāna in this context and the early schools, and that "Mahāyāna" referred rather to the rigorous emulation of Gautama Buddha in the path of a bodhisattva seeking to become a fully enlightened buddha.Nattier, Jan (2003), A few good men: the Bodhisattva path according to the Inquiry of Ugra: p. 193-194

There is also no evidence that Mahāyāna ever referred to a separate formal school or sect of Buddhism, but rather that it existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas. Paul Williams has also noted that the Mahāyāna never had nor ever attempted to have a separate Vinaya or ordination lineage from the early schools of Buddhism, and therefore each bhikkhu or bhikkhuni adhering to the Mahāyāna formally belonged to an early school. Membership in these nikāyas, or monastic sects, continues today with the Dharmaguptaka nikāya in East Asia, and the Mulasarvastivada nikāya in Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, Mahāyāna was never a separate rival sect of the early schools.Williams, Paul (2008) Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations: pp. 4-5 Paul Harrison clarifies that while monastic Mahāyānists belonged to a nikāya, not all members of a nikāya were Mahāyānists.Guang Xing. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikaya Theory. 2004. p. 115 From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side.Williams, Paul (2000) Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition: p. 97 It is also possible that, formally, Mahāyāna would have been understood as a group of monks or nuns within a larger monastery taking a vow together (known as a " kriyākarma") to memorize and study a Mahāyāna text or texts.

The Chinese monk Yijing, who visited India in the 7th century CE, distinguishes Mahāyāna from Hīnayāna as follows:Williams, Paul (2008) Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations: p. 5

Much of the early extant evidence for the origins of Mahāyāna comes from early Chinese translations of Mahāyāna texts. These Mahāyāna teachings were first propagated into China by Lokakṣema, the first translator of Mahāyāna sūtras into Chinese language during the 2nd century CE.

The earliest Mahāyāna sūtras include the very first versions of the Prajñāpāramitā genre, along with texts concerning Aksobhya, which were probably written down in the 1st century BCE in the south of India.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. Guang Xing states, "Several scholars have suggested the Prajñāpāramitā probably developed among the Mahāsāṃghikas in southern India, in the Āndhra country, on the Kṛṣṇa River." A.K. Warder believes that "the Mahāyāna originated in the south of India and almost certainly in the Āndhra country."Warder, A.K. Indian Buddhism. 2000. p. 313

Anthony Barber and Sree Padma note that "historians of Buddhist thought have been aware for quite some time that such pivotally important Mahayana Buddhist thinkers as Nāgārjuna, Dignaga, Candrakīrti, Āryadeva, and Bhavaviveka, among many others, formulated their theories while living in Buddhist communities in Āndhra."Padma, Sree. Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. SUNY Press 2008, pg. 1. They note that the ancient Buddhist sites in the lower Kṛṣṇa Valley, including Amaravati, Nagarjunakonda and Jaggaiahpet "can be traced to at least the third century BCE, if not earlier."Padma, Sree. Barber, Anthony W. Buddhism in the Krishna River Valley of Andhra. SUNY Press 2008, pg. 2. Akira Hirakawa notes the "evidence suggests that many Early Mahayana scriptures originated in South India."Akira, Hirakawa (translated and edited by Paul Groner) (1993. A History of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass: p. 252, 253

Some scholars think that the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras were mainly composed in the south of India, and later the activity of writing additional scriptures was continued in the north. However, the assumption that the presence of an evolving body of Mahāyāna scriptures implies the contemporaneous existence of distinct religious movement called "Mahāyāna", may be a serious misstep. Some scholars further speculate that the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras were written in response to the ultrarealism of abhidharma.Skilton, Andrew (2004 ). A Concise History of Buddhism. p. 94.

Some early Mahāyāna sūtras were translated by the Kushan monk Lokakṣema, who came to China from the kingdom of Gandhara. His first translations to Chinese were made in the Chinese capital of Luoyang between 178 and 189 CE. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004): p. 492 Some Mahāyāna sūtras translated during the 2nd century CE include the following:Akira, Hirakawa (translated and edited by Paul Groner) (1993). A History of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p. 248-251

13. An early sūtra connected to the

This corpus of texts often emphasizes ascetic practices and forest dwelling, absorbed in states of meditative concentration.Williams, Paul (2008) Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations: p. 30

Earlier stage forms of Mahāyāna such as the doctrines of Prajñāpāramitā, Yogācāra, Buddha Nature, and the Pure Land teachings are still popular in East Asia. In some cases these have spawned new developments, while in others they are treated in the more traditional syncretic manner. Paul Williams has noted that in this tradition in the Far East, primacy has always been given to study of the sūtras.Williams, Paul (1989). Mahayana Buddhism: p.103

Mahāyāna constitutes an inclusive tradition characterized by plurality and the adoption of new Mahayana sutras in addition to the earlier āgamas. Mahāyāna sees itself as penetrating further and more profoundly into the Buddha's Dharma. An Indian commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, entitled Vivṛtaguhyārthapiṇḍavyākhyā, gives a classification of teachings according to the capabilities of the audience:Hamar, Imre. Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism. 2007. p. 94

There is also a tendency in Mahāyāna sūtras to regard adherence to these sūtras as generating spiritual benefits greater than those that arise from being a follower of the non-Mahāyāna approaches to Dharma. Thus the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra claims that the Buddha said that devotion to Mahāyāna is inherently superior in its virtues to following the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha paths.Hookham, Dr. Shenpen, trans. (1998). The Shrimaladevi Sutra. Oxford: Longchen Foundation: p.27

The fundamental principles of Mahāyāna doctrine were based on the possibility of universal liberation from dukkha for all beings (hence the "Great Vehicle") and the existence of buddhas and bodhisattvas embodying Buddha-nature. The Pure Land school of Mahāyāna simplifies the expression of faith by allowing salvation to be alternatively obtained through the grace of the buddha Amitābha by having faith and devoting oneself to nianfo. This devotional lifestyle of Buddhism has greatly contributed to the success of Mahāyāna in East Asia, where spiritual elements traditionally relied upon mindfulness of the Buddha, mantras and dhāraṇīs, and reading sutras. In Chinese Buddhism, most monks, let alone lay people, practice Pure Land, some combining it with Chan Buddhism.Welch (1967). Practice of Chinese Buddhism. Harvard: p. 396

Most Mahāyāna schools believe in supernatural bodhisattvas who devote themselves to the pāramitās, ultimate knowledge (Skt. sarvajñāna), and the liberation of all sentient beings.

The defining characteristic of a bodhisattva is bodhicitta, the intention to achieve omniscient Buddhahood (Trikaya) as fast as possible, so that one may benefit infinite sentient beings. Sometimes the term bodhisattva is used more restrictively to refer to those sentient beings on the grounds. As Ananda Coomaraswamy notes, "The most essential part of the Mahayana is its emphasis on the Bodhisattva ideal, which replaces that of the arhat, or ranks before it." According to Mahāyāna teachings, being a high-level bodhisattva involves possessing a mind of great compassion and prajñā (wisdom) to realize the reality of inherent emptiness and dependent origination. Mahāyāna teaches that the practitioner will finally realize the attainment of Buddhahood.

Six pāramitās are traditionally required for bodhisattvas:

1. : the perfection of giving
2. : the perfection of behavior and discipline
3. : the perfection of forbearance
4. : the perfection of vigor and diligence
5. : the perfection of meditation
6. : the perfection of transcendent wisdom

Some scholars have stated that the exercise of expedient means, "the ability to adapt one's message to the audience, is also of enormous importance in the Pāli canon." In fact the Pāli term upāya-kosalla does occur in the Pāli Canon, in the Sangiti Sutta of the Digha Nikāya.Walshe, M. trans. (1987). Thus Have I Heard: the Long Discourses of the Buddha. Wisdom: p. 486

Under various conditions, the realms Buddha presides over could be attained by devotees after their death so, when reborn, they could strive towards buddhahood in the best possible conditions. Depending on the sect, liberation into a buddha-realm can be obtained by faith, visualization, or sometimes even by the repetition of Buddha's name. These practices are common in Pure Land Buddhism.{Dr. Guang Xing, The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 1}

Buddha-nature, Buddha-dhatu or Buddha Principle (Sanskrit: Buddha-dhātu, Tathāgatagarbha; Jap: Bussho), is taught differently in various Mahayana Buddhism traditions. Broadly speaking Buddha-nature is concerned with ascertaining what allows sentient beings to become Buddhas.Williams, Paul. Buddhist Thought. Routledge 2000, page 160. The term, Buddha nature, is a translation of the Sanskrit coinage, 'Buddha-dhātu', which seems first to have appeared in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra,Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Second Edition, Routledge, Oxford, 2009, p. 317 where it refers to "a sacred nature that is the basis for beings' becoming buddhas",Kevin Trainor, Buddhism: The Illustrated Guide, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 207 and where it is also spoken of as the 'Self' ( atman).Zimmermann, Michael (2002), A Buddha Within: The Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, Biblotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica VI, The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, pp. 82-83

It is called Tathāgatagarbha Buddha-dhātu at the stage of sentient beings because it is covered with defilements, and it is called Dharmakaya at the stage of Buddhahood, because its pure nature is revealed.Xing Guang (2005), The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikāya Theory, p.88

The teaching of a "Buddha nature" (Skt. tathāgatagarbha) may be based on the "luminous mind" concept found in the Āgamas. The essential idea, articulated in the Buddha nature sūtras, but not accepted by all Mahāyānists, is that no being is without a concealed but indestructible interior link to the awakening of bodhi and that this link is an uncreated element ( dhātu) or principle deep inside each being, which constitutes the deathless, diamond-like "essence of the self". Nirvāṇa Sūtra The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states: "The essence of the Self ( ātman) is the subtle Buddha nature..." while the later Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states that the Buddha nature might be taken to be self ( ātman), but it is not. In the sagathakam section of that same sutra, however, the Tathagatagarbha as the Self is not denied, but affirmed: "The Atma Self characterised with purity is the state of self-realization; this is the Tathagata's Womb ( garbha), which does not belong to the realm of the theorisers."Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, The Lankavatara Sutra, Prajna Press, Boulder, 1978, p. 282 In the Buddha nature class of sūtras, the word "self" ( ātman) is used in a way defined by and specific to these sūtras. (See Atman (Buddhism).)

According to some scholars, the Buddha nature discussed in some Mahāyāna sūtras does not represent a substantial self ( ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of Shunyata ( śūnyatā) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. Heng-Ching Shih, The Significance Of "Tathagatagarbha"—A Positive Expression Of "Sunyata". It is the "true self" in representing the innate aspect of the individual that makes actualizing the ultimate personality possible.

The actual "seeing and knowing" of this Buddha essence is said to usher in nirvanic liberation. This Buddha essence or "Buddha nature" is stated to be found in every single person, ghost, god and sentient being. In the Buddha nature sūtras, the Buddha is portrayed as describing the Buddha essence as uncreated, deathless and ultimately beyond rational grasping or conceptualisation. Yet, it is this already real and present, hidden internal element of bodhi ( bodhi) that, according to the Buddha nature sūtras, prompts beings to seek liberation from worldly suffering, and lets them attain the spotless bliss that lies at the heart of their being. Once the veils of negative thoughts, feelings, and unwholesome behaviour (the kleśas) are eliminated from the mind and character, the indwelling Buddha principle ( Buddha-dhātu: Buddha nature) can shine forth unimpededly and transform the seer into a Buddha.

Prior to the period of these sūtras, Mahāyāna metaphysics was dominated by teachings on Shunyata, in the form of Madhyamaka philosophy. The language used by this approach is primarily negative, and the Buddha nature genre of sūtras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and on the mysterious reality of nirvana using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism. In these sūtras the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of the path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary that described a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.King, Sallie B. The Doctrine of Buddha-Nature is impeccably Buddhist. In: Jamie Hubbard (ed.), Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism, Univ of Hawaii Press 1997, pp. 174-179.

A different view is propounded by Tathagatagarbha specialist, Michael Zimmermann, who sees key Buddha-nature sutras such as the Nirvana Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha Sutra, as well as the Lankavatara Sutra, enunciating an affirmative vision of an eternal, indestructible Buddhic Self. Zimmermann observes:

The Uttaratantra (an Exegesis treatise on Buddha nature) sees Buddha nature not as samskrta ( saṃskṛta), but as eternal, uncaused, unconditioned, and incapable of being destroyed, although temporarily concealed within worldly beings by adventitious defilements.Sebastian, C. D. (2005), Metaphysics and Mysticism in Mahayana Buddhism. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications: p. 268 According to C. D. Sebastian, the Uttaratantra's reference to a transcendental self ( ātma-paramita) should be understood as "the unique essence of the universe",Sebastian, C. D. (2005), Metaphysics and Mysticism in Mahayana Buddhism. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications: p. 151; cf. also p. 110 thus the universal and immanent essence of Buddha nature is the same throughout time and space.Sebastian, C. D. (2005), Metaphysics and Mysticism in Mahayana Buddhism. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications: p. 278

In addition to accepting the essential scriptures of the early Buddhist schools as valid, Mahāyāna Buddhism maintains large collections of sūtras that are not used or recognized by the Theravāda school. These were not recognized by some individuals in the early Buddhist schools. In other cases, Buddhist communities were divided along these doctrinal lines. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Mahayana sutras are often given greater authority than the Āgamas. The first of these Mahāyāna-specific writings were written probably around the 1st century BCEAkira, Hirakawa (translated and edited by Paul Groner) (1993). A History of Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass: p. 252 or 1st century CE. Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004): p. 293

In the 4th century Mahāyāna abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asanga refers to the collection which contains the āgamas as the Śrāvakapiṭaka and associates it with the sravaka and .Boin-Webb, Sara (tr). Rahula, Walpola (tr). Asanga. Abhidharma Samuccaya: The Compendium of Higher Teaching. 2001. pp. 199-200 Asaṅga classifies the Mahāyāna sūtras as belonging to the Bodhisattvapiṭaka, which is designated as the collection of teachings for bodhisattvas.

1. In the first turning, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths at Varanasi for those in the shravaka vehicle. It is described as marvelous and wonderful, but requiring interpretation and occasioning controversy.Keenan, John (2000). The Scripture on the Explication of the Underlying Meaning. Numata Center. : p. 49 The doctrines of the first turning are exemplified in the Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra. This turning represents the earliest phase of the Buddhist teachings and the earliest period in the history of Buddhism.
2. In the second turning, the Buddha taught the Mahāyāna teachings to the bodhisattvas, teaching that all phenomena have no-essence, no arising, no passing away, are originally quiescent, and essentially in cessation. This turning is also described as marvelous and wonderful, but requiring interpretation and occasioning controversy. Doctrine of the second turning is established in the Prajñāpāramitā teachings, first put into writing around 100 BCE. In Indian philosophical schools, it is exemplified by the Mādhyamaka school of Nagarjuna.
3. In the third turning, the Buddha taught similar teachings to the second turning, but for everyone in the three vehicles, including all the śravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas. These were meant to be completely explicit teachings in their entire detail, for which interpretations would not be necessary, and controversy would not occur. These teachings were established by the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra as early as the 1st or 2nd century CE. In the Indian philosophical schools, the third turning is exemplified by the Yogācāra school of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu.

Some traditions of Tibetan Buddhism consider the teachings of Esoteric Buddhism and Vajrayāna to be the third turning of the Dharma Wheel. Tibetan teachers, particularly of the school, regard the second turning as the highest teaching, because of their particular interpretation of Yogācāra doctrine. The Tathagatagarbha teachings are normally included in the third turning of the wheel. The Chinese tradition has a different scheme.

The Chinese T'ien-T'ai believed the Buddha taught over Five Periods. These are:Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, 'Five Periods'

1. The Flower Garland Period.
2. The Agama Period.
3. The Correct and Equal Period (provisional Mahayana Sutras, including the Amida, Mahavairochana and Vimalakirti Sutras).
4. The Wisdom Period (Perfection of Wisdom Sutras).
5. The Lotus and Nirvana Period (when Shakyamuni taught from the standpoint of his Enlightenment).

Yogacara, the other prominent Mahāyāna school in dialectic with the Mādhyamaka school, gave a special significance to the canon's Lesser Discourse on Emptiness (MA 190).Nagao, Gadjin M.; Kawamura, Leslie S., trans. (1991). Madhyamika and Yogachara. Albany: SUNY Press: p. 53. A passage there (which the discourse itself emphasizes) is often quoted in later Yogācāra texts as a true definition of emptiness.Nagao, Gadjin M.; Kawamura, Leslie S., trans. (1991). Madhyamika and Yogachara. Albany: SUNY Press: p. 200. According to Walpola Rahula, the thought presented in the Yogācāra school's Abhidharma-samuccaya is undeniably closer to that of the Pali Nikayas than is that of the Theravadin Abhidhamma.Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology. Routledge, 2002, page 44, note 5. Lusthaus draws attention to Rahula's Zen and the Taming of the Bull.

Both the Mādhyamikas and the Yogācārins saw themselves as preserving the Buddhist Middle Way between the extremes of nihilism (everything as unreal) and substantialism (substantial entities existing). The Yogācārins criticized the Mādhyamikas for tending towards nihilism, while the Mādhyamikas criticized the Yogācārins for tending towards substantialism.Harvey, Peter (1993). An Introduction to Buddhism. Cambridge University Press: p. 106.

Key Mahāyāna texts introducing the concepts of bodhicitta and Buddha nature also use language parallel to passages in the canon containing the Buddha's description of "luminous mind" and may have been based on this idea.Harvey, Peter (1989). Consciousness Mysticism in the Discourses of the Buddha. In Werner, Karel ed., The Yogi and the Mystic. Curzon Press: p. 97.

Paul Williams writes that some modern Theravada meditation masters in Thailand are popularly regarded as bodhisattvas.Paul Williams, Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Taylor & Francis, 1989, page 328.

The modern Theravāda school is usually described as belonging to Hīnayāna.Gombrich, Richard Francis (1988). Theravāda Buddhism: P.83Collins, Steven. 1990. Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravāda Buddhism. P.21Gellner, David N. (2005). Rebuilding Buddhism: P.14Swearer, Donald (2006). Theravada Buddhist Societies. In: Juergensmeyer, Mark (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Global Religions: P.83 Some authors have argued that it should not be considered such from the Mahāyāna perspective. Their view is based on a different understanding of the concept of Hīnayāna. Rather than regarding the term as referring to any school of Buddhism that hasn't accepted the Mahāyāna canon and doctrines, such as those pertaining to the role of the bodhisattva, these authors argue that the classification of a school as "Hīnayāna" should be crucially dependent on the adherence to a specific phenomenological position. They point out that unlike the now-extinct Sarvastivada school, which was the primary object of Mahāyāna criticism, the Theravāda does not claim the existence of independent entities ( dharmas); in this it maintains the attitude of early Buddhism.Hoffman, Frank J. and Mahinda, Deegalle (1996). Pali Buddhism. Routledge Press: p. 192.King, Richard (1999). Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Edinburgh University Press: p. 86.Nyanaponika, Nyaponika Thera, Nyanaponika, Bhikkhu Bodhi (1998). Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time. Wisdom Publications: p. 42. Adherents of Mahāyāna Buddhism disagreed with the substantialist thought of the Sarvāstivādins and Sautrantika, and in emphasizing the doctrine of sunyata, Kalupahana holds that they endeavored to preserve the early teaching.Kalupahana, David (2006). Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna. Motilal Banarsidass: p. 6. The Theravādins too refuted the Sarvāstivādins and Sautrāntikas (and other schools) on the grounds that their theories were in conflict with the non-substantialism of the canon. The Theravāda arguments are preserved in the Kathavatthu.Kalupahana, David (2006). Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna. Motilal Banarsidass: p. 24.

Some contemporary Theravādin figures have indicated a sympathetic stance toward the Mahāyāna philosophy found in texts such as the Heart Sutra (Skt. Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya) and Nāgārjuna's Fundamental Stanzas on the Middle Way (Skt. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā).Lopez, Donald S. and Dge-ʼdun-chos-ʼphel (2006). The Madman's Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel. University of Chicago Press: p. 24.

• Buddha-nature
• Buddhist holidays
• Creator in Buddhism
• Dzogchen
• Early Buddhist schools
• Faith in Buddhism
• Golden Light Sutra

• History of Buddhism
• Lotus Sutra
• Mahayana sutras
• Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
• Pure land
• Rebirth
• Schools of Buddhism

• Śūnyatā
• Silk Road transmission of Buddhism
• Tathagatagarbha
• Tendai
• Zen

• Beal (1871). Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese, London, Trübner
• Karashima, Seishi, " Was the Așțasāhasrikā Prajñāparamitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gandhārī?" Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, vol. XVI (2013).
• Lowenstein, Tom (1996). The Vision of the Buddha, Boston: Little Brown,
• Schopen, G. "The inscription on the Kusan image of Amitabha and the character of the early Mahayana in India", Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 10, 1990
• Suzuki, D. T. (1914). "The Development of Mahayana Buddhism", The Monist Volume 24, Issue 4, 1914-10-01, p565-581
• Suzuki, D. T. (1908). Outline of Mahayana Buddhism, Open Court, Chicago
• Williams, Paul (1989). Mahayana Buddhism, Routledge.
• (2018). 9789552403965, Buddhist Publication Society. . ISBN 9789552403965

• Digital Dictionary of Buddhism
• Comparison of Buddhist Traditions (Mahayana - Therevada - Tibetan)
• The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra: complete text and analysis
• Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism
• Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas by Bhikkhu Bodhi
• The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda Theory and Practice by Jeffrey Samuels