Buddhist Sects in India by Nalinaksha Datt.
This book has information on the chronology of Buddhist sects. Bhante, may have read this book.
Eventhough, there are number of schools in Mahāyāna Buddhism Lotus sutra is the teaching that separates Teravāda tradition from Mahāyāna. Studying this sutta would be helpful to get an idea about Mahāyāna tradition.
Lotus sutra itself would be enough to prove that Mahāyāna is later development of Buddhism.
Humans have an intrinsic nature of believing in supreme power or a god who would help us to get rid of suffering. Thats why they imposed godlike nature to the Buddha, and started to believing that The Bodhisattas come to the world time to time and teach new sutras.
To get rid of the nibbāna which offers nothing to rejoice they introduced The Pure Land (Sukhavati).
It is hard to get along with Teravāda tradition or dhamma practice due to it’s strict way of interpreting eight fold path. If someone wants to attain nibbāna the path that could be followed to do is explained in Teravāda. There is no other way to achieve nibbana but developing 37 factors belonging to enlightenment. To attain nibbāna the path that has to be followed is very difficult which is why there are only a very little number of beings achieve Nibbāna.
When someone is trying to practice the path, every step of the way is difficult. With many years of practice it is normal to think that all this effort I have done is for nothing when there is no positive result of achieving jhāna or fruits. Then as believers of samsāra people tend to believe they had not completed pāramitā with the explainations about past lives of Sddhārta bodhisatta they draw into this conclution. With all these stories from the dhamma one would think why should I attain nibbāna just to be an arahant, I would rather be a Sambuddha. This normally happens to the teachers who are trying to attain nibbāna while teaching others. When a person see so called good results of meditation he tend to think “why wouldn’t I teach this to others” and then starts teaching and with the time he loses the viriya in his own path.
In this way it is far easier to think that I would rather be a Buddha, because of this and that, etc reasons.
I think this intrinsically originated nature (of being lazy) led to practice bodhisatta path which is far easier than practicing the path to nibbāna in an arhantship.
Then how would they justify themselves? They had to intorduce new fictions and theories about bodhisatta path using basic teachings of EBTs.
Changing Vinaya rules and minor things is not the problem but changing the goal.
Since there were number of other religions with a devotional path, there was a massive competition to spread dhamma. However, spreading a dhamma which is neutral is very difficult. Since Teravādins never wanted to change their way of practice it would have been very difficult to spreading dhamma or compete with other religions. Teravāda or early Buddhism is not competitive. It was the mahayanic tradition who kept fighting with other religions which made it possible to thrive. In some cases they mixed up buddhism with local religions; ex: Tibetan Buddhism.
People always tend to achieve things easier and it is easier to offer some things to a stūpa than siting for meditation for an hour. Therefore It is so obvious why people fall into this bodhisatta trap over real practice. When a person is asked to practice a devotional path it is easier to get offerings and do rituals for money or wealth.
Of cause Giving is difficult, but compared to other thing that had to be done to achieve NIbbāna it is always easier to give. Then they collect merits ( through āmisa pūjā) and never use it to achieve nibbāna in this very life. They hold achieving nibbāna over to a future life.
If we remove Mahayanic pratices from (so called) present Teravāda tradition, there would almost nothing be left. Now most people wish for Metteyya Buddha Sāsana to achieve nibbāna.
1 Like
I don’t think Mahāyāna vs. Therāvāda is a skillful or correct way to frame questions of early, middle and present day Buddhism.
When it is framed in this way, it seems to invite bad vibes and hurt feelings. Moved to the watercooler for now, let’s see how it goes 
7 Likes
This topic and variants of it have been debated before.
I’d just like to reinforce that Sutta Central doesn’t put forward the view that earlier texts are ‘better’ or ‘superior’ or that later texts are ‘worse’ or ‘inferior’. They just are, what they are.
Very simply put - EBT’s claim to trace a direct link to the teachings of the Buddha Gotama, as far as possible. Later texts are clarifications, elaborations and expansions, based on the EBTs, by other beings at a later point in time - that’s all.
However, SC specifically focuses on the translation and provision of free access to the EBTs in order to provide this, hitherto undervalued and harder to access, resource to everyone.
Bhante @sujato, or Ajahn @Brahmali , you may wish to confirm or expand on this 
8 Likes
Not to start a debate.
based on the EBTs?
I doubt that. Some modifications are contrary to early texts. Is your point completely true?
1 Like
Bhante Sujato on chronology.
Bhante, I read “based on EBTs” in @Viveka’s quote to be an adjunct, rather than a point of its own.
“Later texts are clarifications, elaborations and expansions, based on the EBTs, by other beings at a later point in time - that’s all.” ← note the commas around “based on EBTs” and a few other clauses. I read this to indicate that this sentence has two adjuncts, or qualifiers, that give additional information. The sentence itself is “Later texts are clarifications by other beings at a later point in time,” and makes no claims as to the correctness or incorrectness of these clarifications, just like the old Siṁhala and Sarvāstivāda commentaries were meant to be a series of “clarifications,” for instance, as to what is right from particular points of view concerning “right.”
“Elaborations and expansions [and] based on the EBTs,” are the three qualifiers, which one has to admit, are all separately quite true. Mahāyāna scriptures are elaborations (on the EBTs). Mahāyāna scriptures are expansions (on the EBTs).
Mahāyāna scriptures are based on EBTs, however loosely. Actually, all Buddhist scriptures are de facto based on EBTs, EBTs being the only historical source for information concerning the Buddha.
We have a spectrum of para-historical Buddhist scriptures, which critical thinkers, monks, scholars, etc., can inquire into the historicity of. We have a spectrum of apocryphal scriptures, ranging from Indian Mahāyāna sūtras, to homegrown Chinese apocrypha, to Tibetan “found texts” (gter ma/“termas”). All of these stratas are quite different and have a lot of diversity within themselves. A popular contrived platitude is “even a broken clock is right twice daily.” This diversity means that certain things will be gotten quite right and certain things quite wrong.
3 Likes
Many thanks for the clarification.
2 Likes
You may be interested to read Bhante Sujatos book, “Sects and Sectarianism”. I’ll add a link a bit later, am not at my computer atm 
Metta
2 Likes
Found it!
Hope this is legal. 
4 Likes
Yes Ven Amatabhani, it is completely legal, it is free commons distribution 
I found it very tough going, especially given my unfamiliarity with so many of the terms used… I trust it will be an easier and more enjoyable read for yourself 
2 Likes
" A given text is considered to be a Buddhist sūtra because Buddhists, or enough Buddhists of the right status, accept that it is so."
1 Like
What i am trying to understand is: those who go into lengths to prove/disprove that certain teachings belong to a historical figure, what are they trying to do or achieve?
Let us assume that magically, we became 100% sure that Theravada suttas are the actual teachings of the historical Buddha, or Mahayana or any other sect out there, what is next? and why all of this is important?
4 Likes
Wouldn’t you like to know as far as possible whose teachings you are following?
Then you can make an informed choice as to what you want to focus on 
And just as a point of clarification they are not “Theravada teachings”, they are the teachings of the Buddha, which are the texts (Pali canon) that Theravadins use for practice. Everyone or anyone can choose to use them.
There has been much written about this subject, and there is a large amount of information available here.
Have a look here as a starting point
I highly recommend watching some of the video classes on EBTs by Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali.
Enjoy! 
8 Likes
All of these is important for the pride.
Mostly we like to prove what we believe is right no matter it is right or wrong.
One might search these for scholary purposes. So we just cannot ignore and keep the question unanswered.
Sometimes conversations like this creates new arguments that can be useful to analyse the available information. Therefore, being equanimous is important.
But to say something effectively to someone we should either criticize or compliment.
1 Like
Greetings Venerable, would you be able to clarify what you mean in this sentence please? I can’t quite understand what you mean
1 Like
it’s so true that this can be the primary push behind so much that is said or written. It can be easy to lose one’s equanimity in the urge to be right.
2 Likes
One would rather pay attention on criticism because it hurts his or her feelings or ego. He would pay his attention to it and remember it for a long time.
On the other hand we like being praised and admired.
My Weak English 
2 Likes
Thank you
I’m surprised at how so many people speak such excellent english on this site!! It is amazing to me how well we can all communicate given the complexity of the issues, and the fact that the majority of people would probably not be native english speakers.
Besides, that is the beauty of asking questions, when something isn’t clear we can all just ask 
2 Likes
This was about me by the way! 
2 Likes