I have been thinking deeply about Buddhist philosophy, and the conclusions I have drawn seem to be at odds with almost every major school of thought. If you’re willing to entertain them, I’d love to hear your thoughts as I lay them out in this essay.
At its core, Buddhism is simple: suffering exists, it can be eradicated, and the path to its cessation is known. This is the essence of the Four Noble Truths, and I doubt anyone would disagree with this foundational principle. However, as one walks the path toward nirvāṇa, certain philosophical concepts taught by the Buddha become central: śūnyatā (emptiness), anicca (impermanence), anātman (non-self), and non-attachment.
Yet, the Buddhist Expanded Universe (BEU) has extended far beyond these core ideas. Today, Buddhist theology encompasses a vast array of doctrines, cosmologies, and supernatural elements that, in my view, often stray from what the Buddha originally taught. While I personally resonate with Mahāyāna philosophy, I also have great respect for originalist Theravāda perspectives.
However, when I look at the Buddha’s core teachings: the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Three Jewels, and the foundational philosophical insights, I don’t see anything missing. The tools for enlightenment are already there. This raises an important question: if the Buddha’s original framework is already complete, why did later Buddhist traditions feel the need to expand upon it?
In this essay, I will argue from an originalist perspective that the Mahāyāna ideals of universal compassion and bodhicitta are the logical conclusion of the Buddha’s core teachings. However, I will also critique how the expanded mythos of Mahāyāna theology sometimes loses connection to these same foundational principles.
My argument can be divided into two core sections:
1. The Buddha’s Core Teachings and Their Logical Conclusion in Mahāyāna Ideals
- Logical derivation of Mahāyāna compassion: The fundamental principles taught by the Buddha, such as anātman (non-self), śūnyatā (emptiness), and the Four Noble Truths, logically lead to the Mahāyāna ideals of universal compassion and bodhicitta.
- Critique of individualism in Theravāda: This presents a critique of the individualistic interpretation of the path that I perceive in Theravāda philosophy, which often frames liberation as a personal endeavor rather than an inherently interdependent one.
2. The Theological Expansion and Its Disconnection from the Buddha’s Teachings
- Skepticism toward later additions: While I see Mahāyāna ideals as a natural evolution of the Buddha’s philosophy, I also critique how later doctrinal developments across many Mahāyāna schools sometimes stray from the foundational teachings.
- Risk of distortion: Mythological and metaphysical additions risk overshadowing the core insights of the historical Buddha, diluting what I refer to as “capital-B Buddhism” by which I mean the foundational framework laid out in the earliest teachings.
While I hold strong views on these matters, I attempt to approach this discussion without bias or hostility. My only aim is to engage with Buddhist philosophy in a holistic and rigorous way, following the Buddha’s own encouragement of critical inquiry (as emphasized in the Kālāma Sutta).
A critique of individualism
Anātman (non-self) is one of the Buddha’s core teachings. They taught that there is no fixed, unchanging self at the core of our experience; what we call “self” is just a transient, conditioned process. This, along with pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), completely dismantles the illusion of separation between beings.
If we take this teaching seriously, it follows that suffering is not an individual possession; it does not “belong” to anyone. It simply arises, conditioned by causes and circumstances. What we call “my suffering” and “your suffering” are not separate thins, they are part of a single, interdependent reality.
From this, two fundamental principles emerge:
- Suffering is not personal; it is universal. If there is no self, then suffering should not be seen as mine or yours, but simply as suffering itself, arising wherever conditions allow.
- Nirvāṇa is the cessation of suffering. The goal of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering at its root.
Here is the critical point: If one truly understands that suffering is universal and without ownership, then what would it mean to “end suffering” only for oneself?
If a being claims to have attained full awakening, yet still perceives suffering as something external, something that belongs to “others”, then that being has not fully realized non-self. Their awakening is incomplete.
To truly eliminate suffering, one must eliminate it wherever it arises, not just within the arbitrary boundary of what was once mistaken for “the self.” If suffering remains anywhere, then suffering remains, period.
This means that true nirvāṇa necessarily implies the cessation of all suffering, universally. And this is precisely what the Mahāyāna tradition formalized in the concept of bodhicitta: the enlightened being who, recognizing that there is no fundamental separation between self and other, commits to the liberation of all beings before stepping beyond saṃsāra.
Thus, far from being an innovation, the Mahāyāna emphasis on universal liberation is a direct and necessary conclusion of the Buddha’s core teachings. And this is where I believe traditional Theravāda interpretations fall short; not in their commitment to the Dharma, but in their failure to carry non-self to its final, inescapable conclusion.
A critique of expansion
Sometimes there is a need for clarification; sometimes a topic or an idea warrants discussion. Even the Buddha themselves encouraged inquiry. Therefore, it is unreasonable to reject Mahāyāna texts outright simply because they are not the “original Dharma.” However, when expanding on the teachings, often through stories, parables, and commentary, there is always a risk: either the teacher introduces a reinterpretation that alters the meaning, or the reader misinterprets the reinterpretation. In both cases, the Dharma is at risk of distortion.
Not all expansions are harmful. We can distinguish between helpful expansion, which deepens understanding and clarifies meaning, and harmful expansion, which obscures the original teachings. Helpful expansion serves the Dharma by making it more accessible, refining complex ideas, or emphasizing neglected aspects. Harmful expansion, however, arises when additions, however well-intended, introduce distortions that shift the focus away from the Buddha’s core insights.
The greatest danger of such expansion is that over time, reinterpretations accumulate, stories evolve, and the core teachings become buried under layers of speculation and mythology.
Some Mahāyāna texts remain largely faithful to the Dharma’s logical conclusions, such as the emphasis on bodhicitta, but others introduce elaborate cosmologies, deities, and esoteric elements that, if taken wholesale, risk diverting practitioners from the Buddha’s original insights. The Buddha themselves warned against such distractions. In the parable of the poisoned arrow, they made it clear that metaphysical speculation has no bearing on liberation. Likewise, the Kālāma Sutta and the Eightfold Path emphasize wisdom, personal effort, and critical inquiry, an approach that stands in contrast to the faith-based practices that later developed in many Mahāyāna traditions.
Thus, if expansion is to serve its purpose, it must deepen understanding, not replace it. The further a teaching moves from the original Dharma, the greater the risk of losing sight of what is essential: the Three Jewels, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. As followers of the Middle Way, should we not act with mindfulness of our influence? If, through misunderstanding or embellishment, we lead others away from the path, even unintentionally, can we truly say we are still practicing it?
Conclusion
This concludes my gripes with the established major Buddhist schools of thought. The Dharma, as I see it, calls for a path that neither clings to an individualistic approach to liberation nor loses itself in metaphysical elaborations. The Theravāda school, for all its rigor and preservation of the earliest texts, does not fully embrace the logical consequence of suffering’s universality: compassion as an intrinsic necessity, not an optional virtue.
The Mahāyāna school, on the other hand, carries this principle forward but often overextends, adding layers of celestial realms, cosmic Buddhas, and devotional elements that risk obscuring the original insights.
If the historical Buddha’s teachings are the raft to cross the river, then we must be careful neither to abandon the raft too soon nor to build a palace upon it. The destination lies somewhere in-between: where compassion and wisdom are inextricable, where self and other dissolve in interdependence, but where the Dharma remains grounded in its original clarity. That, I believe, is the Middle Way forward.