As the Theravada and the Mahayana are both stages in the development
of Buddhism, both are addressed to all individuals, so we can’t
distinguish between them in this respect. At the same time, there is a
difference, which will perhaps become clear with the help of a parable.
Let’s suppose that there is famine somewhere, a terrible famine of the
kind that still happens in Africa. People are gaunt and emaciated, and
there is terrible suffering. In a certain town in the country which has
been struck by this famine there live two men, one old, one young
who each have an enormous quantity of grain, easily enough to feed
all the people. The old man puts outside his front door a notice which
reads: ‘Whoever comes will be given food.’ But after that statement
there follows a long list of conditions and rules. If people want food
they must come at a certain time, on the very minute. They must
bring with them receptacles of a certain shape and size. And holding
these receptacles in a certain way, they must ask the old man for food
in certain set phrases which are to be spoken in an archaic language.
Not many people see the notice, for the old man lives in an out-ofthe-
way street; and of those who do see it, a few come for food and
receive it, but others are put off by the long list of rules … When the
old man is asked why he imposes so many rules, he says ‘That’s how
it was in my grandfather’s time whenever there was a famine. What
was good enough for him is certainly good enough for me. Who
am I to change things?’ He adds that if people really want food they
will observe any number of rules to get it. If they won’t observe the
rules they can’t really be hungry. Meanwhile the young man takes a
great sack of grain on his back and goes from door to door giving it
out. As soon as one sack is empty, he rushes home for another one.
In this way he gives out a great deal of grain all over the town. He
gives it to anyone who asks. He’s so keen to feed the people that he
doesn’t mind going into the poorest, darkest and dirtiest of hovels.
He doesn’t mind going to places where respectable people don’t usually
venture. The only thought in his head is that nobody should be
allowed to starve. Some people say that he’s a busybody, others that
he takes too much on himself. Some people go so far as to say that
he’s interfering with the law of karma. Others complain that a lot of
grain is being wasted, because people take more than they really need.
The young man doesn’t care about any of this. He says it’s better that
some grain is wasted than that anyone should starve to death. One
day the young man happens to pass by the old man’s house. The old
man is sitting outside peacefully smoking his pipe, because it isn’t yet
time to hand out grain. He says to the young man as he hurries past,
‘You look tired. Why don’t you take it easy?’ The young man replies,
rather breathlessly, ‘I can’t. There are still lots of people who haven’t
been fed.’ The old man shakes his head wonderingly. ‘Let them come
to you! why should you go dashing off to them?’ But the young man,
impatient to be on his way, says ‘They’re too weak to come to me.
They can’t even walk. If I don’t go to them they’ll die.’ ‘That’s too
bad,’ says the old man. ‘They should have come earlier, when they
were stronger. If they didn’t think ahead that’s their fault. ‘But by this
time the young man is out of earshot, already on his way home for
another sack. The old man rises and pins another notice beside the
first one. The notice reads: ‘Rules for reading the rules.’
No doubt you’ve already guessed the meaning of the parable. The old
man is the Arhat, representing Southern Buddhism, and the young
man is the Bodhisattva, representing the Mahayana. The famine is
the human predicament, the people of the town are ‘all living beings,
and the grain is the Dharma, the teaching. Just as in principle
both the old and the young man are willing to give out grain to
everybody, so in principle both the Theravada and the Mahayana are
universal, meant for all. But in practice we find that the Theravada
imposes certain conditions. To practice Buddhism within the Theravada
tradition, even today, if you’re taking it all seriously, you must leave home
438 and become a monk or nun. You must live exactly as the monks and
nuns lived in India in the Buddha’s time. And you mustn’t change
anything. The Mahayana doesn’t impose any such conditions. It makes
the Dharma available to people as they are and where they are, because
it is concerned solely with essentials. It’s concerned with getting the
grain to the people, not with any particular manner in which this is
to be done. The Theravada expects people to come to it, so to speak,
but the Mahayana goes out to them. This difference between the
Theravada and the Mahayana goes back to the early days of Buddhist
history. About a hundred years after the Buddha’s death, his disciples
disagreed about certain issues so strongly that the spiritual community
was split in two. Indeed, they disagreed about the very nature
of Buddhism itself. One group of disciples held that Buddhism was
simply what the Buddha had said. The Four Noble Truths, the Noble
Eightfold Path, the Twelve Links or chain of conditioned co-production,
the Four Foundations of Mindfulness – this was Buddhism.
But the other group responded that this was not enough. Yes, all of
these teachings did form part of Buddhism, but the example of the
Buddha’s life could not be ignored. The Buddha’s teaching revealed his
wisdom, but his life revealed his compassion, and both together made up
Buddhism.”
Sangha / Drama: 15 #2348 and 1799
NB: The differences between the two branches of Buddhism,
Mahayana and Theravada, are deliberately emphasized in the above
passages for the sake of clarity. In actual practice, these differences
are less clear-cut, and depend mainly on the state of mind of the
individual practitioner rather than on his affiliation.
(IV) Notes
Unlike Mahayana schools, the Theravada tradition makes no mention
of Amitabha Buddha, the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, etc. or the
Pure Land. Theravadins believe mainly in Sakyamuni Buddha and
the Bodhisattva Maitreya, but not in the numerous transhistorical
Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the Mahayana tradition. This is because
Theravada stresses the historical Buddha and His early teachings,
applying the term Bodhisattva mainly to the previous incarnations of
Buddha Sakyamuni.
The various teachings of the Buddha constitute a totality. While it is
said that the Buddha taught 84,000 methods in accordance with the
capacity of his listeners, on another level we can also say that individuals
receive and understand these teachings differently. It is like rain
which falls equally on all vegetation. However, the big trees absorb
more of the rain water than the smaller trees, while a dead bush cannot
benefit at all. The differences between the different Buddhist
schools are similar: they are caused by the different capacities of
Buddhist followers and not by the Buddha preaching different teachings
to different audiences.
Maaf kutipan dari "Glosaary of budhism" di atas mungkin kurang berkenan bagi sebagian kita. tapi mengapa kita tidak mendengar pendapat orang lain, sebelum kita terus menerus menghakimi kebudhis-an orang lain.