Mahayana, Theravada, or whatever: they are just traditions and constructs by people. To hold to those philosophies can be as destructive as clinging to any other fetter.

As a Theravadan, I do feel that this tradition is more pragmatic and less involved in ritual and cultural fetters. However, as we focus on the core of Buddhism, the path to the top of the mountain is ultimately unimportant. What is important is getting there.

I also do not believe that you can generalize something as vast as Mahayana to specific conceptual beliefs and practice. The explanations of “no self” and “non existence” change from sect to sect and indeed sangha to sangha.

From the Theravada perspective, the criticism is based on the fact that the Pali Canon is the earliest, and according to most scholars, what the Buddha actually taught, as opposed to various, multitudes of doctrines which later arose.

Best wishes to you as well.

However, returning to the article mentioned above, Bhikku Bodhi, understandably, misunderstands the central thrust of Mahayana view. The use of the term ‘Nirvana’ in the context of ‘Samsara and Nirvana are inseparable’ has very different connotations to the term as used in Theravadan teachings. By this stage in Tibet a thousand years later, that phrase means something like ‘if you look throughout the range of your experience, you will not find any which are ultimately satisfactory, whether from those filled with pleasure or those filled with pain. It’s broadly pointing to experience within the 6 realms.

It’s an easy mistake to make if you are not completely grounded in another tradition, and one reason to be very careful when criticising other approaches (and more or less setting up straw men to be knocked down) ….

best wishes in the Dharma …

B., Zen student