Mahāyāna - Reconstructing the Buddha and his teachings

The Mahāyāna movement (the “Great Way” or “vehicle” towards liberation) is currently the dominant form of Buddhism, with hundreds of millions of followers, mainly in East Asia. How did this movement originate, and what made it popular?

Context

We now know from the discovery of Gāndhārī manuscripts, which are the earliest surviving Buddhist texts, that Mahāyānan texts, such as the [S]Prajñāpāramitā sutras, were composed as early as the 1st century BCE. This challenges the notion that Mahāyāna Buddhism is a later development that deviated from the “original” teachings of the Buddha. It suggests that the Mahāyāna tradition has deep roots in the early Buddhist community, and the Pāḷi canon therefore is a redacted version of the Buddha’s teachings.¹²

Some scholars such as Gombrich have argued that the Mahāyāna movement may have originated as a textual rather than oral tradition. Richard Gombrich in How The Mahāyāna Began³ hypothesises that the rise and survival of Mahāyāna Buddhism are directly attributable to the adoption of writing. Before writing became common, the early Buddhist canon was preserved through a highly organised and conservative oral tradition within the Sangha, which, like the Brahminical system it emulated, would have rejected and thus ensured the loss of any new or critical teachings that did not harmonise with the established texts. The advent of writing provided a new medium that allowed innovative doctrines to be recorded and preserved independently of the Sangha’s official oral curriculum, enabling their survival even if only as a single manuscript. This theory is supported by the evidence within early Mahāyāna texts themselves, which often feature a “cult of the book,” celebrating their own written form as a powerful means of preservation.

Tseng has suggested that its practitioners may have been embedded within existing Buddhist sects. Mahāyāna texts may well have been the earliest Buddhist texts to be written down, perhaps even predating the schism or division into sects, and the Pāḷi Canon may have been compiled later to counter the growing influence of Mahāyāna teachings.⁴

Challenges

The early Mahāyānans were probably disciples seeking to address the challenges faced by Buddhism at the time. They aimed to reconstruct the Buddha’s teachings and ideals, offering new perspectives and solutions to the problems faced by the Buddhist community post Ashoka.

These challenges seemed to be unsurmountable problems:

Personal liberation, the original goal of the Buddha’s teachings, was increasingly seen as limited in scope, and somewhat selfish. The awakened arhat was supported and sustained by the community, and gave nothing back to society.
Buddhism began to “decline” as a movement in India, due to the rise of Hinduism and Islam. With this decline came the loss of royal patronage, which was a significant source of support for Buddhism. The decline also led to a loss of interest in the teachings of the Buddha, as people sought refuge in other religions and philosophies.
Buddhist texts and traditions were increasingly burdened and “corrupted” with “fake” or “wrong” teachings, analytical excess, and imported concepts from other religions. The texts contained errors, contradictions and inconsistencies, which made it difficult to understand the Buddha’s teachings. Awakening was increasingly becoming rare, and then probably disappeared altogether (by the 1st century CE according to some sources - see The Failure of Buddhism?).
Increasingly, it was becoming harder to integrate the monastic and lay communities. The monastic community was focused on personal liberation and preserving the Buddha’s teachings, the lay community wanted to worship the Buddha and gain favours and merit that will improve current and future lives.
There were cracks between the soteriological and devotional aspects of Buddhism. There was a need to present an idealised Buddha to attract lay followers and patrons. The human Buddha increasingly became a liability, an unsellable commodity, even if he had psychic and magical powers. He was simply too mundane, and it is hard to worship someone who became sick and died. What was needed was a new idealised Buddha, one that could be worshipped and venerated with devotion.
Without the presence of awakened leaders, the monastic community began to fragment and lose its coherence, creating sects. The teachings became increasingly misunderstood, and replaced by rituals and observances rather than true understanding.

Solution

The Mahāyānans came up with an ingenious set of solutions to these problems.

Firstly, they created the Mahāyānan ideal of the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva path is defined by the vow (Bodhicitta) to attain Buddhahood not for self-liberation but specifically “to liberate all sentient beings from suffering”. This idealised archetype of the Buddha became a powerful symbol of the highest potential of human beings, and a target for devotion by lay followers and patrons. This altruistic path mandates self-sacrifice for the sake of all, promising to “provide happiness for everybody at any cost”. This universal commitment, or ethical universalism, is the foundational justification for the movement calling itself the “Great Vehicle.” Because the goal is the liberation of all beings, not just the individual, the ethical scope is fundamentally broader and more expansive than the selfish path of the Arhat. The bodhisattva’s reluctance to enter nirvana until all beings have been liberated also explains the lack of awakened ones - clearly it is because they are deliberately delaying their own liberation in order to help others.
Secondly, the Mahāyānans de-emphasised the human Buddha, and instead imagined an idealised Buddha: [S]Amitābha (measureless or limitless light). According to Wikipedia: “Amitābha established a pure land of perfect peace and happiness, called Sukhāvatī (“Blissful”), where beings who mindfully remember him with faith may be reborn and then quickly attain enlightenment. The pure land is the result of a set of vows Amitābha made long ago. As his name means Limitless Light, Amitābha’s light is said to radiate throughout the cosmos and shine on all beings. Because of this, Amitābha is often depicted radiating light, a symbol for his wisdom. As he is also called Amitāyus (“Measureless Life”), this Buddha is also associated with infinite life, since his lifespan is said to be immeasurable. Amitābha’s measureless life is seen as being related to his infinite compassion.”
Lastly, the Mahāyānans created the principle of [S]upāya-kaushalya or upāya-kosalla (skillful means) as a pretext for crafting new sutras that avoided the contradictions and inconsistencies of the earlier teachings. They did not reject or discard the early teachings, but relegated them to the status of “legacy” teachings (āgama, the tradition that has been handed down). It is theorised that the Buddha’s teachings were specific to the needs of the individuals he taught to, and therefore had limited applicability to others. These teachings were referred to as Hīnayāna (Lesser Way or Vehicle) and those that achieved awakening via the early teachings were called [S]Śrāvakabuddha (someone who is liberated by listening) and [S]Pratyekabuddha or Paccekabuddha (someone who is liberated through self-realisation). Hīna has connotations of “little”, “poor”, “inferior”, “abandoned”, “deficient”, “defective” which gave an indication of the Mahāyānans’ opinion regarding the efficacy and usefulness of the texts which have either been corrupted after multiple generations of transmission, or had limited applicability. Upāya-kaushalya is used to indicate the these new sutras may not be historically authentic, but they are expedient and useful for the purpose of attaining liberation.

The Evolution of the Bodhisattva

In Skorupski’s The Historical Spectrum of the Bodhisattva Ideal⁵ Tadeusz wrote that the concept of the Bodhisattva has evolved significantly, creating a fundamental division between early Buddhist schools and Mahāyāna traditions. Initially, the term was exclusively linked to the Buddha’s past lives, with doctrinal currents diverging on whether he was a human who attained enlightenment in one lifetime or a being on a predestined path. This led to two early prototypes of the career: a fixed sequence of events for a Buddha’s final life and a long journey across aeons involving a vow, prophecy, perfections (pāramitās), and stages (bhūmis). Debates within early schools, such as the Sthaviras who stressed the Buddha’s human qualities versus the Mahāsānghikas who saw Buddhas as transcendent beings, further split the interpretation. Mahāyāna Buddhism radically transformed this ideal by universalising it, making the path to Buddhahood, rooted in wisdom and compassion, available to all beings. This reformulation also introduced transcendent “celestial Bodhisattvas” like Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara as agents of salvation, while Buddhist tantras later adapted the ideal by proposing a path to enlightenment within a single lifetime through specialized practices.

The Perfection of Wisdom

The new sutras emphasise [S]Prajñāpāramitā (“the Perfection of Wisdom” or “Transcendental Knowledge”). This is a very clever way of reinterpreting the Buddha’s early teachings, whilst being completely consistent with them. By introducing the concept of “emptiness” ([S]śūnyatā) and lack of “inherent substance or existence” ([S]svabhāva), the Mahāyānans can stress the illusory (māyā) nature of things, how all phenomena are characterised by “non-arising” (anutpāda, i.e. unborn) and the Madhyamaka (“middle way”) approach advocated by Nāgārjuna. These are portrayed as logical extensions of dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppādo) and the five collections (pañcupādānakkhandhā).

Because everything is empty of inherent existence, it is okay to imagine an idealised Buddha - it is a “skilful means” to attract disciples and followers, as well as a “target” for the aspiring Bodhisattva. Who is to say such a Buddha does not really exist? This idealised Buddha is as “unreal” or as “real” as the actual, human Buddha (who is also empty of inherent existence). Amitābha is a conceptual construct and a projection of ourselves, therefore he is always there when we need him, and there is no need to worry about historical accuracy. He is always the current Buddha, and the next Buddha. He doesn’t fart, he doesn’t need to eat or sleep, he will never fall sick, grow old, or die. He is perfect in every way, because perfection is emptiness.

The “Buddha Field”

The Mahāyānans also invented a concept called [S]buddhakṣetra (“field of understanding”). The idea is that a bodhisattva can imagine the idealised Buddha generating a sphere of influence encompassing the bodhisattva and thus help the bodhisattva achieve liberation. The bodhisattva can then generate her own buddha field and help others achieve awakening and alleviate their suffering.

This concept even made it back into the extended Pāḷi canon as buddhakhetta in 20Ap1/1.1 Buddhaapadāna in the following verse:

8. All the treasures that are countable
throughout the Buddha-fields;
Whether sky-dwelling or earth-dwelling,
by mind I gathered all.

The above clearly misunderstands the concept of buddhakṣetra which was originally a conceptual field rather than a physical realm. The concept was then further extended into buddhabhūmi (the Buddha land) and then even further into Amitābha’s Sukhāvatī (the Blissful Realm, or Pure Land) which became the main goal of Pure Land Buddhism, which is centered around faith and devotion to Amitābha Buddha as the means of attaining rebirth in his pure land - but that is probably the subject of an article by itself.

What exactly is a buddha field, apart from a conceptual notion? It is unlikely the Mahāyānans would have thought of it as a psychic power, as underneath the puffery they were eminent rationalists. It is possible they conceived it as a sphere of influence, or benevolence, or simply charisma. After all, we know some individuals seem to possess a kind of magnetic personality and gravitas that draw people towards them. Potentially a bodhisattva may seek to acquire or develop a sense of calmness and peacefulness that naturally draw people towards them seeking salvation and beneficence. Or try to create conditions such that anyone who enters a space are immediately attracted to it and feel relaxed and tranquil. It is not necessarily a supernatural power, but anyone who has mastered the khandhas will perhaps know how to manipulate perceptions and emotions of themselves as well as others.

Why the emphasis on “emptiness” (`śūnyatā`)?

It would seem strange that the Mahāyānans would emphasise “emptiness” (śūnyatā) and the lack of “inherent substance or existence” (svabhāva), given that the Buddha himself was ambivalent about whether an extrinsic reality truly existed - see my translation of Kaccānagotta sutta.

It is important to note the Mahāyānans also wished to tread a “middle way” between eternalism (sassatavāda) and annihilationism (ucchedavāda) and Nagarjuna actually quoted the Kaccānagotta sutta in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā to support his argument.

Contrary to some interpretations, śūnyatā does not necessarily imply that there is no extrinsic reality or that “the world is an illusion”. Rather, our perception of the “world” is based on a combination of recollected experience of phenomena together with our internal construction of that perceived reality. In other words, it is our perception of reality that does not have inherent substance or existence, and therefore it is our perception of the world that is an illusion, not necessarily an external, objective reality. The Buddha, and the Mahāyānans, recognise that our perceptions and memory are often misleading or faulty, and therefore does not have inherent substantiality.

The Mahāyānans may also have been commenting on prevailing beliefs in India at the time concerning the relationship between language and reality. Johannes Bronkhorst in Language and Reality⁶ pointed out that in a significant period of Indian thought, many philosophers adhered to a “correspondence principle,” the belief that the words in a sentence directly correspond to the elements of the situation it describes. The Buddhist thinker Nāgārjuna famously used this principle to deconstruct the phenomenal world, arguing that sentences describing change, such as “a pot arises,” are inherently contradictory because the pot must already exist to be the agent of its own arising. This challenge prompted diverse reactions from various schools. Some, like Sāṃkhya with its doctrine of satkāryavāda (the effect pre-existing in its cause) and the Sarvāstivāda Buddhists who held that future things exist, offered ontological solutions by asserting that an effect is indeed present before it manifests. Other schools, including Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā, proposed semantic solutions, arguing that words refer not to transient individuals but to eternal universals (jāti) or forms (ākṛti), thereby ensuring an existent referent. Ultimately, later thinkers like the Buddhist logician Dignāga began to dismantle the principle itself through the theory of apoha (exclusion), which posits that words function by negating other possibilities rather than denoting a positive entity, thus separating the conceptual realm of language from ultimate reality.

Bronkhorst further explains in A Śabda Reader⁷ that both Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions was shaped by the conviction of an intimate link between language and reality. For Brahmans, Sanskrit was the eternal and correct language of the Veda, a corpus of author-less texts whose mantras were believed to directly affect the world, prompting disciplines like Pāṇini’s grammar and Yāska’s etymology to analyze its structure. This view evolved with thinkers like Patañjali, who, influenced by Buddhist scholasticism, posited words as eternal, independently existing entities (sphoṭa), shifting the focus of grammar to the merit gained from correct usage. In contrast, Buddhists argued that language creates an ultimately unreal conventional world of names that obscures the true reality of momentary constituents (dharmas). This fundamental divergence fueled major philosophical debates, particularly concerning self-contradictory sentences like “the potter makes a pot,” which challenged the word-reality correspondence and led to diverse solutions such as satkāryavāda (the effect pre-exists in the cause), Dignāga’s apoha theory (words mean by exclusion), and the Jaina anekāntavāda (reality is manifold). These discussions further branched into theories on how words affect cognition, the relationship between word and sentence meaning, and the denotative functions of language.

Most recently, Bronkhorst noted in Logic and language in Indian religions⁸ that Brahmanical thinkers, viewing Sanskrit as an eternal language directly connected to the real world, initially argued that the existence of a word guaranteed the existence of its referent. Conversely, Buddhists concluded that the phenomenal world is an ultimately unreal construct created by language.

So the Mahāyānans wanted to deconstruct the link between language and reality, and to emphasise the inherent “constructed” nature of all experienced phenomena. The early teachings are therefore not rejected, but rather reinterpreted in light of the new understanding of emptiness. The concept of “emptiness” was a “skilful means” force the bodhisattva to be detached from all phenomena.

The replacement of early teachings

As Prajñāpāramitā is a superior way of understanding what the Buddha really “meant”, it can replace the early teachings through the principle of the “Simile of the raft”, contained in 9M/3.2 Alagaddūpamasutta.

790. “Bhikkhave, I will teach you the dhamma that is like a raft: for crossing over, not for holding on. Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.” “Yes, Bhante,” those bhikkhū replied to the Bhagavā. The Bhagavā said this:

791. “Suppose, bhikkhave, a person was traveling along a road. He might see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dangerous and fearful, and the far shore safe and free from fear; but there was no boat for crossing over or bridge to go from this side to the other. It might occur to him: ‘This is a great expanse of water, with the near shore dangerous and fearful, and the far shore safe and free from fear; but there is no boat for crossing over or bridge to go from this side to the other. What if I were to gather grass, sticks, branches, and foliage, bind them into a raft, and relying on that raft, striving with my hands and feet, safely cross over to the far shore?’ Then that person, having gathered grass, sticks, branches, and foliage, binding them into a raft, and relying on that raft, striving with hands and feet, would safely cross over to the far shore. Having crossed over and gone beyond, it might occur to him: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me. Relying on this raft, striving with my hands and feet, I have safely crossed over to the far shore. What if I were to hoist this raft onto my head or lift it onto my shoulder and go wherever I want?’ What do you think, bhikkhave? Would that person be doing what should be done with that raft?”

792. “No, sir.” “And how, bhikkhave, would that person be doing what should be done with that raft? Here, bhikkhave, having crossed over and gone beyond, it might occur to that person: ‘This raft has been very helpful to me. Relying on this raft, striving with my hands and feet, I have safely crossed over to the far shore. What if I were to beach this raft on dry land or set it adrift in the water and go wherever I want?’ By doing so, bhikkhave, that person would be doing what should be done with that raft. In the same way, bhikkhave, I have taught the dhamma using the simile of the raft: for crossing over, not for holding on. By understanding the dhamma as similar to a raft, you should abandon even the teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.”

The Diamond Sutra quotes the simile of the raft to show that one should be prepared to discard everything, even the Buddha’s teachings, in order to understand the emptiness of all phenomena, even the phenomena relating to the Buddha and his teachings.

Prajñāpāramitā is an integrated set of teachings that is suitable for both monastics and lay disciples, and allows endless variations of the teachings with the same core message - thus leading to various forms of Prajñāpāramitā:

Triśatikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 300 lines, alternatively known as the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Diamond Sūtra)
Pañcaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 500 lines
Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 700 lines
Sārdhadvisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 2,500 lines
Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 8,000 lines
Aṣṭadaśasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 18,000 lines
Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 25,000 lines.
Śatasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 100,000 lines.

Resolution

The combination of the Bodhisattva path, the idealised Buddha, and Prajñāpāramitā allows the Mahāyānans to resolve the key challenges noted at the beginning of this article:

The Bodhisattva path addresses the “selfish” aspect of personal liberation, as the aspiring Bodhisattva strives for the liberation of all beings. Indeed, this is logical implication of Prajñāpāramitā, because if all phenomena are empty, then there is no inherent difference between self and others. Indeed, if the world is illusory (māyā), then all beings are manifestations of oneself, interconnected and interdependent. Personal liberation is an incomplete achievement, and true liberation is attained when all manifestations (other beings) are also liberated.
The Mahāyāna movement arrested the decline of Buddhism in Northern India, as it was pan-sectarian. It attracted many new followers, particularly merchants and traders, and spread to China, Korea, Japan, and Tibet via trading routes. Mahāyānan doctrine was taught at the great Buddhist “universities” such as Nālandā and Vikramaśīla, which became renowned centres of learning attracting students from all over Asia.
Prajñāpāramitā is portrayed as a superior alternative and replacement for traditional Buddhist texts and thus avoid the perceived errors, contradictions and inconsistencies.
Prajñāpāramitā can be taught to both monastics and lay followers. The aspiring Bodhisattva will learn the core concepts such as emptiness, lack of inherent existence of everything, impermanence, the five collections, dependent origination, and thus be able to progress. Lay followers can also appreciate the teachings at a more superficial level, and engage in devotional practices such as worshipping the idealised Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, making offerings, and performing rituals to accumulate merit for better rebirths. The sutras are carefully constructed to include aspects of both soteriological concepts and devotional elements.
The idealised Buddha can be useful for both monastics and lay followers. The monastics understand that Amitābha is a projection of themselves, and useful as part of the awakening process. Lay followers can venerate and worship Amitābha and Bodhisattvas, and seek their blessings and protection.
Mahāyānans can claim the presence of near-awakened Bodhisattvas in their midst, and thus address the absence of awakened leaders (because of course the Bodhisattvas have achieved personal liberation and are helping others towards full liberation). These Bodhisattvas can provide guidance and leadership to the monastic and lay communities, and help preserve the teachings and practices.

Some Theravādins have criticised the Mahāyāna for its use of skilful means and its idealised Buddhas, arguing that these teachings deviate from the original teachings of the historical Buddha. However, Mahāyāna Buddhists maintain that their teachings are a natural evolution of Buddhism, adapting to the needs of different cultures and societies while preserving the core principles of the Buddha’s teachings.

The Mahāyāna movement became the dominant form of Buddhism in East Asia, and its teachings continue to influence Buddhist practice and philosophy around the world.

Translations of `Prajñāpāramitā` Sūtras

For more information, I have translated two popular Mahāyāna texts, the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra. Over time I hope to translate additional Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras.

`Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra` (Heart Sutra) The Heart Sūtra is a popular sutra in Mahāyāna Buddhism. In Sanskrit, the title `Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya` translates as 'The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom'.

`Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra` (Diamond Sutra) The Diamond Sūtra is one of the most influential Mahāyāna sutras in East Asia, and it is particularly prominent within the Chan (or Zen) tradition. The title translates to 'Vajra Cutter Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra'.

ALLON, M., SALOMON, R., & GANDHÁRA, E. M. I. T (2010) ORIGIN of the Mahayana - its date, location, motivations, institu. EASTERN BUDDHIST, 4(1), 1. ↩
Tseng, A. A. (2020). Archeological Evidence of Early Mahayana Movement in Gandhara. Exploring the Life and Teachings of Mahayana Buddhists in Asia, 31-134. ↩
Gombrich, Richard F. (1990). How The Mahāyāna Began, in The Buddhist Forum, Volume I - Seminar Papers 1987-1988, Edited by - Tadeusz Skorupski, First published by the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London), 1990, The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 2012. ↩
Collins, Steven, On The Very Idea Of The Pali Canon, JPTS XV(4) pp. 89-126 ↩
Tadeusz Skorupski (2000), The Historical Spectrum of the Bodhisattva Ideal, in The Buddhist Forum, Volume VI, Institute of Buddhist Studies (2013) pp. 1-14. ↩
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011). Language and Reality: On an episode in Indian thought. Brill Academic Publishers. ↩
Johannes Bronkhorst (2019), A Śabda Reader, Language In Classical Indian Thought, Columbia University Press. ↩
Bronkhorst, Johannes (2022). Logic and language in Indian religions, in Journal of Indian Philosophy 50:775–784. ↩