Mahayana Buddhism: Introduction

Early Buddhism had no central authority capable of imposing a single interpretation of Buddhist teachings on all followers of the Buddhist way. Consequently there developed several different interpretations of Buddhist thought and practice, resulting in the development of different Buddhist schools of thought. (In Buddhist monasteries, differences surrounding practice were a greater source of divisions than differences concerning doctrine. Individuals following different schools of thought frequently lived together in the same monastery. But serious differences over the rules that should govern monastic life naturally required the establishment of separate monasteries.)

The most serious division between schools stemmed from attitudes toward a body of writings called the Pali Canon, written down about 200-100 B.C. One more conservative group of schools rejected any developments not contained in these writings.   But many developments continued to occur, which caused a major split between these conservatives and another group who defended these new developments as part of authentic Buddhism. Initially this latter group felt itself on the defensive, and in the course of the polemics that resulted from this defensive attitude they came to refer to themselves as "the Mahayana," "the Great Vehicle," and referred to the conservative groups by the derogatory term "Hinayana," "the Lesser Vehicle." (The idea was not that the Hinayana was false and heretical, but that it represented a kind of "beginner’s Buddhism," Mahayana being a more sophisticated and "advanced" form.  Mahayana Buddhists continue to value the Pali Canon, but look on it in the same way most Christians regard the Old Testament in the Bible, a valuable set of older scriptures that needs to be understood and interpreted in the light of later writings.)

Mahayana groups were not united by any specific set of doctrines or practices, but primarily by their refusal to limit themselves to doctrines set forth in the early collection of writings. Consequently "Mahayana" is not the name of a single school, but the name of what became a very diverse collection of schools who also disagreed with each other on major issues.  (By comparison: the word "Protestant" does not refer to one form of Christianity, but to a large group of Christian groups -- Lutheran, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, etc. -- who disagree greatly among themselves, and are united only by the fact that most can trace their origins back to the 16th century "Protestant Reformation," "protesting" against the Roman Catholic church.)

The Mahayana and the conservative schools existed side-by-side for many centuries in India and in Southeast Asia. In China, the Mahayana predominated from the beginning, and came to predominate also in Korea and Japan, because Buddhism arrived in these countries from China.

In India, Buddhism gradually declined and the last Buddhist monasteries were destroyed by Muslim invaders around 1000 A.D.

In Southeast Asia, beginning around 1300, rulers in Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, and the Southeast Asian peninsula, suppressed Mahayana schools, and sponsored one conservative school which calls itself Theravada (lit. Elder-Path. As a result, after this period Theravada Buddhism became the only surviving school among the conservative schools, and the school that predominated in Southeast Asia. Its version of authoritative writings, called the Pali Canon (written down around 100 B.C.), is the sole surviving edition of the early collection of writings recognized as authoritative by the conservative schools.

So, for practical purposes, the two branches of Buddhism after 1400 can be conveniently called "Mahayana" and "Theravada."  It does not seem proper, as many still do, to refer to Theravada Buddhists by the derogatory term "Hinayana," since Theravada Buddhists understandably resent this derogatory name applied to them.  "Hinayana" is not a useful term when studying Theravada Buddhism.  (Relying on Mahayana Buddhists for accurate information about Theravada Buddhists is like relying on Republicans for accurate information about Democrats, and vice-versa.) "Hinayana" and "Theravada" should not be looked upon as equivalent terms.

But "Hinayana" is a useful term when discussing Mahayana Buddhism, because many Mahayana writings define their version of true Buddhism by contrast with what I will call "the Hinayana mistake."  The Hinayana mistake consists mainly in the idea that the goal of Buddhism is to achieve an empty mind, free of all disturbances ("biased toward peace" as one Mahayana writer puts it).  This is a possible interpretation of the teaching of the Theravada Pali Canon, but by no means represents the only possible interpretation, nor is it the interpretation of all Theravada Buddhists.  The "Hinayana mistake" is a mistake made by almost all beginning students (Theravada and Mahayana, ancient and modern) starting to try to understand Buddhism.  Many wiser Theravada Buddhist teachers avoid this "Hinayana" mistake, and on the other hand, it is a typical mistake made by beginning students in Mahayana monasteries.  Mahayana writings (such as the Platform Sutra of Hui-neng) accuse other previous Mahayana Buddhists of making "the Hinayana mistake"

******

The great diversity among Mahayana sects makes it impractical to try to cover the entire Mahayana tradition.  To give unity and depth to this course, I am only going to deal with one central thought-tradition in Mahayana Buddhism, the tradition necessary to understand one particular Mahayana sect, known as Ch'an Buddhism in China, Zen Buddhism in Japan and the US.  The earliest expressions of this tradition are found in a group of writings known collectively as "Perfection of Wisdom" (Prajna Paramita) scriptures.  The Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra are two Perfection of Wisdom scriptures.

Just as Theravada Buddhism defined its teachings partly by contrast with contemporary Hindu teaching, such as for example the Atman doctrine found in the Bhagavad Gita, the Perfection of Wisdom tradition defines the true interpretation of Buddhism by contrast to the Hinayana mistake.

What is the Hinayana mistake?  The Hinayana mistake is thinking that Enlightenment consists in having an "empty mind," i.e. a mind empty of feeling, caring, desires, or thoughts, or as one Buddhist writer puts it, a mind "biased toward peace."

Mahayana writings show a fondness for paradox, and in this case this leads to a play on two different meanings of "empty." 

1) One meaning of "empty" is the one just given, closer to the English meaning of the "empty" as in "when meditating, try to empty your mind."  Conceiving of this kind of emptiness as the goal of meditation is the Hinayana mistake.

2) "Empty" however has a second, different meaning very central to Mahayana teaching.  In this second meaning, "emptiness" is not a characteristic of a person's mind.  In this second meaning, the goal of Mahayana Buddhism can be described, in simplified form, as "Becoming a person who sees everything else as empty."  In this second meaning, "empty" means "lacking power-in-itself to deeply disturb me," or "lacking power-in-itself to either constitute, bring about, or prevent enlightenment."  The Mahayana point is that the apparent power that things have over us does not belong to the things themselves.  In Mahayana language, this power does not have sva-bhava, literally "own-[independent]-being."  The emotional power that things appear to have is actually a dependent power, dependent namely on a person's own Craving and Clinging.  For example, if I did not Crave the approval of others, social pressure would not have emotional power over me.  The goal of Mahayana Buddhism would be to come to actually perceive social pressure, and everything else I can perceive, as "empty," in the sense of "lacking power in itself." 

It should be obvious that the connotations of the English word "empty" are extremely misleading in conveying this second meaning, because "seeing everything as empty" can be easily taken to mean "seeing everything as meaningless."  (Shunryu Suzuki says that a a true internalization of the Mahayana emptiness doctrine would result in seeing everything in the world as more wonderful.)  The Sanskrit word translated as "empty" is Sunya (sometimes Mahayana teachings emphasizing this doctrine is called "sunya-vada," "Emptiness-path").  In what follows I will try to avoid some confusions by leaving this word untranslated when it is being used to describe the technical meaning it has in Mahayana teachings.

*****

To understand the details of the way Sunya is used in Mahayana teachings, some background is necessary, as follows.

In Mahayana philosophy,

Sunya is equivalent to Dependent Origination

 Sunya is the opposite of Own-Being, or sva-bhava (sva=own, bhava=being).

A thing can be said to have sva-bhava, independent "Own Being," only if its existence and characteristics are not dependent on some other conditions. If something has its "own being" it will be what it appears to be permanently and unchangingly.

For example water does not have sva-bhava, because it is composed of more basic elements, hydrogen and oxygen. Water is an impermanent entity because it "arises dependently" on hydrogen and oxygen; so it can be dissolved into hydrogen and oxygen, and thus disappear as water. In this sense, Buddhists would say "water is Sunya," or even "water does not exist." They do not mean that when I perceive water, there is nothing at all there. But what I am perceiving as water is a kind of "surface appearance," which masks some more fundamental realities (hydrogen and oxygen) which are not water.

Of course, hydrogen is does not have independent Own Being either; it "Arises Dependently" on a certain combination of protons, electrons, and neutrons, and can disappear when this combination dissolves.

The Mahayana doctrine of universal Sunya/Emptiness means that nothing has independent Own Being. If we look below the surface of changing appearances, we will not find any absolutely solid unchanging entities, but only more changing appearances.

But Buddhists are not really concerned with the physics and chemistry of material objects. They are concerned with the power that things in the external world have to affect us.

Take for example the power of what we call "social pressure." Social pressure seems to be a very powerful force in the world we live in. Many people in fact object that Buddhism is "unrealistic" in the modern world, because social pressures impelling people to act contrary to Buddhist teachings are simply too strong to be resisted. We feel the power of social pressure as a solid and unchangeable part of the external world. Mahayana teaching wants to say that this is an illusion. The apparent power of social pressure is actually Sunya.

More specifically, Mahayana teaching says that things like the power of social pressure Arise Dependently on the human mind, and so can be dissolved with a psychological change in our mental habits and makeup. People are affected so strongly by social pressure because through Craving and Clinging they have become dependent on the approval of their neighbors. If I was not dependent on the approval of others for my sense of self-worth (if my Craving for this approval ceased), they would have no power to pressure me into anything.

It is in this sense that social pressure is Sunya. The powerful force that it appears have is a changeable appearance. Social pressure does not have unchangeable sva-bhava as something with power over me. This power Arises Dependently on deeply rooted mental habits, and would disappear with a fundamental change in these habits.

******

It is unfortunate, I think, that Mahayana writings do not generally illustrate the Sunya doctrine with reference to everyday realities like social pressure. This is because most Mahayana writings are not written for laypeople, applying Buddhist teachings to everyday life. They are written primarily for religious people, monks and nuns, already assumed to be devoted to Buddhist teachings. Their concern is to correct the errors that religious people might make. So Mahayana writings about Sunya tend to focus on errors made by a literal minded interpretation of Buddhist goals.

For example, some Buddhist monk might think that the term "emptiness" itself refers to an empty mind, as opposed to an active mind or a mind emotionally aroused. In this case the ideal of the "empty mind" gains a certain power over him. He feels bad when his mind is absorbed in thoughts, or when he continues to have strong emotional reactions of frustration and anxiety, which he thinks of as dukkha. Such states have negative power to affect him. In Mahayana terms, he has become "dualistic," contrasting his present negative "unenlightened" state with some imagined future positive "enlightened" state. He thinks of emotional dukkha as a solid obstacle standing in the way of his reaching nirvana. This power of dukkha to obstruct the achievement of nirvana appears to be something having Own Being.

To combat this error that committed Buddhists might make, the early Mahayana Heart Sutra directly contradicts the apparently sacred Four Noble Truths of early Buddhism. It says,

There is no dukkha,

no cause of dukkha,

no cessation of dukkha,

no path to the cessation of dukkha.

[Click here for the Chinese text of the Heart Sutra]

"There is no dukkha" means that dukkha is Sunya. The power that emotional disturbance has to strongly affect the mind of the dedicated Buddhist is a "constructed" power. Like the power of social pressure, its power is mind-constructed, Arising Dependently on his mind. It is constructed in the very process of striving so hard to achieve the empty mind that this Buddhist mistakenly thinks of as identical with Nirvana. Emotional disturbance disturbs him so powerfully because in his mind it is the chief obstacle to achieving nirvana, his life goal.

A Japanese Zen Buddhist poem captures the meaning of this for the meditator:

Vainly I dug for perfect sky,

piling a barrier all around.

Until one night, lifting a heavy tile,

I crushed the skeletal void.

Questing for Enlightenment ("perfect sky") in a particular way can give rise to a strong feeling of opposition between the mental emptiness ("void") one seeks, and the opposing forces of Craving/Dukkha felt as a barrier to reaching this emptiness. Thinking that the emptiness one seeks is something standing in contrast to one’s present state, makes one’s present state into a "barrier" -- questing for Enlightenment in this mistaken way "piles a barrier all around." Real Enlightenment would come through the realization that this mental emptiness is Sunya, "skeletal" – such realization would mentally "crush the skeletal void."

If a person understands Mahayana teaching correctly, he would realize that nirvana does not consist in any state of mind with definite, objectifiable characteristics, even a state of complete mental emptiness and calm. Anything with definite objectifiable characteristics belongs, in Buddhist terms, to the world of "Form."  "Form" in Mahayana teaching refers to all perceptual objects.  It is the equivalent of the five Khandhas in the Pali Canon.  Enlightenment consists in realizing, as stated again in the Heart Sutra, that

Forms are Empty [Sunya].

Emptiness is Form

The second line here can be paraphrased as: "[Mental] emptiness is [just one more] Form [and is therefore also sunya]

Definite, particular things and conditions (perceptual objects) only get the power to affect us deeply because our Craving causes us to Cling to them as something absolutely vital to our sense of self-worth. This includes Craving and Clinging to enlightenment itself, conceived of as a state of mind having a definite Form.

One implication of this teaching is that nirvana, enlightenment, is compatible with all perceivable emotional states whatsoever. All are Sunya, so no one is really of its nature and always preferable to any other. It is not the state of mind that counts, but the attitude we take to everything in the world of Form, including all objectively perceivable states of mind. Enlightenment would consist in taking the attitude that no particular Form, including mental calm, is of crucial importance to us. In the words of the following writing, an enlightened person would not be "biased toward peace."

The Heart Sutra is one of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras (the "Perfection of Wisdom" being the full realization of the Emptiness doctrine explained above). Here is an excerpt (slightly rearranged) from a commentary on this Sutra by an Indian Mahayana scholar called Pasastrasena.

A confusing feature of the above passage may be the use of the term "empty" in two different senses, so it may be helpful to comment on this here:

Robinson again:

Empty entities are neither existent nor inexistent. Either extreme would be heretical, in Sunyavada as in Early Buddhism. So emptiness is not an absolute substance, not a stuff out of which all things are made, like the Upanisadic [Hindu] Brahman. Rather, it is the fact that no immutable substance exists and none underlies phenomena. But emptiness is equivalent to dependent co-arising [pratitya-samutpada]... Dependent co-arising... is a descriptive law rather than a substantial entity...

Early Buddhism had ascribed to all conditioned dharmas three universal marks: suffering, impermanence, and no-self. Early Mahayana added a fourth, emptiness. But since atman ("self") and sva-bhava ("own-being") are nearly synonymous, the addition is not really an innovation. Its importance lies more in the value-tone of the word "empty" than in its formal doctrinal content. The early Buddhist emphasis on suffering and impermanence intended to arouse aversion to worldly life. The Sunyavadin insistence on emptiness summons the hearer to reevaluate transmigration and achieve release within it rather than fleeing it while still considering it real and important.

Throughout the ages people, alarmed and repelled by the idea of emptiness, have equated it with nothingness, an error against which the Sutra treatises warn repeatedly. Emptiness is the expeller of wrong views but emptiness wrongly apprehended is as dangerous as a snake wrongly grasped or a spell wrongly recited. It is as wrong to crave obliteration into nothing as it is to cling to transmigration and long for eternal existence...

This doctrine comes to terms with the early Buddhist quandary about the relationship between the nirvana-realm and the world. Not only is nirvana immanent in the world, but neither exists apart from the other. The world is a phantom conjured up by karmic action, the magician. But the phantom maker is himself a phantom (maya). These phantoms exist inasmuch as they appear and act, but inexist insofar as they are insubstantial and impermanent...

Emptiness has far-reaching consequences for the religious life. Monks in training who are ridden with feelings of guilt and shame because they infringed the Vinaya [monastic rules] are told to appease their guilt by meditation on its emptiness. This does not give them license to sin, but it liberates them from the burden of evil. The bodhisattva can work and play in the secular world without fear of contamination from sense objects, because he knows that intrinsically they are neither pure nor impure. He associates with merchants, kings, harlots, and drunkards without falling into avarice, arrogance, lust, or dissipation. He accepts and excels in the arts and sciences, welcoming them as good means to benefit and edify living beings. He recognizes the religious capacities of women, listening respectfully when they preach the Dharma, because he knows that maleness and femaleness are both empty. A rich man can be a good bodhisattva if, realizing that his wealth is empty, he is humble and generous. A poor man, too, can excel in holiness if he recognizes that his poverty is empty, and doesn't let it impair his self-respect. It is all right to be a monk, but a layman often has better opportunities to practice skill in means, if he remembers that everything is empty.

(From R. Robinson, The Buddhist Religion: An Historical Introduction. Belmont, Calif: Dickenson Publishing Co. 1970, p. 51-52).

Appendix I:

Summary of Facts Concerning Hinduism, Theravada, and Mahayana

"Hinduism" is a term first used by Muslim conquerors (after 1000 A.D.) to refer to inhabitants of India who failed to convert to Islam.  It is commonly used today to refer to a very diverse set of religious beliefs and sects of people living mainly on the Indian subcontinent.  Most people identifying themselves as "Hindu" believe in a set of sacred scriptures consisting of the Vedas (a hymn book written ca. 1300 b.c.) and the Upanishads (a series of writings focusing on spirituality and meditation, written over a 300 year period ca. 900-600 b.c.).  The Bhagavad-Gita, probably written sometime between 500-200 b.c., is the most popular writing in the Hindu tradition.  In this course this writing serves mainly as a representative of mainstream Hinduism as it existed around the time Buddhism developed.  What is called Hinduism today includes very many ideas and practices that developed at later times.

Distinctive elements of Hindu spirituality taught in the Bhagavad-Gita include the concepts of Atman, and the unity of Atman ("true self") and Brahman (the non-personal Supreme Being).  These concepts are part of a philosophy and associated meditation practices called Sankhya in the Gita.  Sankhya meditation practices aim at a kind of ecstatic experience that is thought to be uniting with Atman/Brahman, attaining the "bliss of Brahman."

=======================================================================================

"Theravada" means literally "elder-path" (thera=elder, vada=path; "Thera" is a title of respect for teachers in this tradition as for example Nyanaponika Thera = "The reverend Nyanaponika").   Theravada Buddhism is distinguished mainly by its adherence to the Pali Canon (called by Buddhists the Tipitaka) as the sole authoritative repository of true Buddhist thought.  Since about the 14th century it has been the dominant form of Buddhism in Southeast Asia (Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia; it also exists alongside Mahayana sects in Vietnam). 

The Pali Canon is a large collection of writings written around 200 b.c. in a language called Pali, which is a dialectical variant of the language called Sanskrit.  Sanskrit became the classical language of learning in India (like Latin in medieval Europe).  Hindu and Mahayana writings are written in Sanskrit.   Terms such as Tanha, Upadana, the five Khandhas, and Nibbana are central to the teaching of the Pali Canon. "Vipassana" refers to a kind of meditation practice based on the Sattipatthana Sutta in the Pali Canon, as interpreted an popularized in the early 20th century mainly by Theravada monks in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.

Theravada Buddhist teaching in the Pali Canon continues some of the same teaching found in the Bhagavad-Gita, but it also defines itself partly in contrast to the kind of Hindu teaching taught in the Bhagavad-Gita.  In particular, the an-atta teaching of the Pali Canon is meant to be a direct rejection of the Gita's ideal of discovering and identifying with one's Atman.  From the Theravada Buddhist point of view, spiritual ecstasy (the "bliss of Brahman") is just one more changeable feeling (belonging to the feeling-khandha).

Some Pali/Sanskrit equivalents

(The main teachings of the Pali Canon are contained in five collections of individual discourses on Buddhist doctrines called Suttas,  These five collections of Suttas are called Nikayas (readings for this course are taken mainly from the Digha Nikaya, the Majjhima Nikaya, and the Samyutta Nikaya.)

======================================================================================

Mahayana means literally "great-path" (maha is related to Latin magna, "great" from which comes English magni-ficent, magni-fy, etc.).  It is the name of a very great variety of Buddhist sects whose beliefs often conflict with each other.  The main thing they have in common is that (unlike Theravada Buddhists) they do not regard the Pali Canon as the only valid expression of true Buddhist teachings, and generally regard some later Buddhist writings as having superior value.   Although Theravada and Mahayana existed side by side in India for many centuries (often in the same monastery), Mahayana proved to be more attractive in China and those countries influenced by China (Korea, Japan, north Vietnam), and became the predominant form in East Asia.

In this course we are studying mainly a particular Mahayana tradition first expressed in a set of writings called the Prajña Paramita Sutras, in English the "Perfection of Wisdom" Sutras (the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra belong to this group).   Prajña "wisdom" is the climactic sixth of the six paramitas or "perfections" (1-giving, 2-keeping precepts, 3-patience, 4-zealous effort, 5-tranquility, 6-wisdom).  The "wisdom" in question is full internalization of the sunya doctrine, coming (through long meditation practice) to actually perceive and feel all forms (all perceptual objects) as sunya/"empty".

 Zen Buddhism is the name of one particular Mahayana tradition which is heavily based on the Sunya doctrine.  Modern scholars think this tradition arose in China around 800 a.d. (Buddhist legend says it was brought to China from India around 500 a.d. by an Indian monk called Bodhidharma.)  It was called Ch'an in China ("zen" is the Japanese pronunciation; it is called Thien in Vietnam, Son in Korea.)

"Hina-yana" (hina= "smaller" or "lesser") is a derogatory term that Mahayanists use to refer to what they see as the "dualistic" "beginner's Buddhism" they see expressed in the Pali Canon and attribute to Theravada Buddhists.  Theravada Buddhists resent being referred to by the derogatory term "Hinayana."  I think it is a useful term to refer to a particular mistaken understanding of Buddhism common to most people when they first start studying it.  Mahayana Buddhists criticize each other for making this mistake, showing that it is a mistake common among Mahayana Buddhists as well.

The Mahayana Perfection of Wisdom tradition defines itself mainly by contrast, not with Hinduism, but with mistakes made by other Buddhists.  The concepts of sunya and the dharmakaya are two concepts characteristic of this tradition.

*******

Finally, for those already familiar with some aspects of Mahayana Buddhism, I want to treat two subjects not closely related to the Perfection of Wisdom tradition: the tradition of worshipping Buddhas as divine beings, and the Mahayana charge that "Hinayana" Buddhists "selfishly" meditate only for their own enlightenment, while they themselves meditate "for the enlightenment of all sentient beings."  This is closely connected to the Mahayana idea that meditation can give one person supernatural powers to aid others.

At some point, some Buddhists began treating the Buddha as a divine being, the object of worship and prayer.  Theravada Buddhists rejected this idea because it is not part of the teaching of the Pali Canon.  Mahayana Buddhists generally accepted it, and worshipping and praying to divine Buddhas is a practice observable in Mahayana temples in East Asia

In the Pali Canon, Gotama the Buddha is pictured as a human being who through enlightenment reached a state superior to all gods and goddesses. He is greatly to be honored as the single source of authoritative teachings teaching the way to Nibbana. But the Pali Canon does not develop elaborate imagery concerning the Buddha’s celestial state, such as are found in many Mahayana writings. Nor does it recommend praying to the Buddha or relying on his supernatural powers for help in reaching Nibbana. Theravada Buddhism is a "do it yourself" religion in which personal study and meditation practice is the only means to achieving Nibbana.

Some Mahayana writings developed extensive imagery concerning Buddhas -- not only Gotama, the latest of the Buddhas, but many other Buddhas who existed before him, and others yet to come.  While most Mahayana Buddhists believe in the existence of such divine Buddhas, Mahayana schools differ greatly in their attitude toward them.  For example, Pure Land Buddhism developed pictures of a "Pure Land," a kind of heaven presided over by a Buddha called Amida, and encouraged people to rely solely on supernatural help from Amida Buddha to gain one entrance into this Pure Land, deemphasizing meditation. 

This focus on Buddhas as divine beings was not accepted by all Mahayana sects.  Another Chinese Mahayana sect called itself Ch'an Buddhism (Japanese Zen), meaning "meditation-Buddhism" because it took a more do-it-yourself approach similar in spirit to early Theravada teaching.  Ch'an Buddhist criticism of  Pure Land Buddhism is evident in the deliberately shocking Ch'an saying, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him": Seeing a vision of a divine Buddha is a potential obstacle to the focus on internal self-development, and so one should try to get rid of it rather than let it be a distraction to meditation practice.  A Ch'an/Zen writing attributed to Bodhidharma represents this Ch'an criticism of Pure Land Buddhism when it says:

"Deluded people don't realize that their own mind is the Buddha. They keep searching outside. They never stop invoking Buddhas or worshipping Buddhas and wondering Where is the Buddha? Don't indulge in such illusions. Just know your mind. Beyond your mind there's no other Buddha.... Your mind is the Buddha. Don't use a Buddha to worship a Buddha..."

Supernatural powers

Mahayana Buddhism accepted the idea, absent in the Pali Canon, that very intensive meditation practice can lead a person to an advanced spiritual state that includes supernatural powers which can be used to advance the spiritual state of others.  This is connected to the Mahayana belief in quasi-divine Bodhisattvas, persons existing in heavenly realms, in the final stage of existence before becoming a Buddha, to whom others can look to for supernatural help in their own struggles to become enlightened.  This is what gave rise to the Mahayana idea that even solitary personal study and meditation practice has an altruistic purpose. One does this not only to gain enlightenment for oneself, but "for the sake of all sentient beings," i.e. to become a Bodhisattva with supernatural powers able to help all other beings eventually reach enlightenment.

Sometimes this gave rise to another way that Mahayana Buddhists characterize themselves in contrast to, and criticism of, what they call "Hinayana" Buddhism.  They sometimes describe Hinayana Buddhism as more individualistic and selfish because each one is meditating and seeking Nibbana only for his or her own benefit, whereas Mahayana Buddhists are more altruistic because they meditate and seek Enlightenment for altruistic purposes, "to bring all sentient beings to Enlightenment." 

But the ideal taught in the Pali Canon includes altruistically helping others to reach Nibbana by giving them teachings and techniques to help them reach this goal.  And in traditional times, Buddhist monasteries, both Theravada and Mahayana, served as social service agencies for their respective societies, offering education, health care, care for orphans, counseling for life's problems, and so on.  From a more objective point of view, the difference is only that Mahayana Buddhists try to exercise their altruism by gaining supernatural powers to help others, whereas the Pali Canon expresses no belief in such powers.