Mahayana and Hinayana - A peaceful conflict
I am currently (24-12-2006), reading a Sinhalese translation of a book by an Englishman who became a Buddhist monk. He entered the Sasana in India in the Hinayana school, and later converted to the Mahayana school, and became a novice in a monastery in Ladakh.
He is not full of compliments for the traditions, practices and attitudes of monks of the Hinayana school. Instead he finds the Mahayana traditions more appealing. He mentions the friendly, open, inviting attitudes as reasons for this preference. Hinayana is strict, and orthodox in the practice of Buddhism, he says.
Well, it might be. The Mahayana school broke away from the mainstream Buddhist society as a revisionary movement.
Why did that happen? I would like to avoid treading on this contentious territory.
Whatever the reason, from the author's account, it seems that the practice of Buddhism, in the Mahayana tradition reminds us of Hindu rituals, while the core teachings remain somehow intact.
He describes the life in the monastery in vivid detail. The physical punishments for misbehaviour, in particular for failure to study set texts, are out of this world. The author neither spoke Ladakh, nor Tibetan. I feel pity for the author. By the way the book was written long ago. I am waiting to see how it all ends up.
The real question for a potential Buddhist is, which way to go.
My feeling is that for Westerners, the rituals, incessant chanting, loud music (drums, horns, cymbals etc.), the all inclusiveness of the Mahayana school might find attractive.
This does not, by any means, mean that the Westerners interested in Buddhism are attracted to it because of the ritualistic manifestations of it.
Nor, does it mean that the Hinayana followers have escaped Hindu influences when it comes to practice.
One might observe that the majority of the Hinayana followers (in Sri Lanka at least), are virtual Hindus. Laying out a 84000-lamp offering to Buddha is viewed as a step towards Nibbana.
So, which way is The Path?