Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Understanding the major Buddhist schools isn't just about memorizing names and regions—you're being tested on how a single religious tradition diversifies in response to different cultural contexts, philosophical questions, and spiritual needs. These schools demonstrate core concepts you'll encounter throughout the course: syncretism, monasticism vs. lay practice, soteriology (paths to salvation), and the tension between individual and collective spiritual goals. Each school represents a distinct answer to fundamental questions: Who can achieve enlightenment? How quickly? Through what methods?
Don't just memorize which school is practiced where. Know what philosophical principle each school emphasizes and how they compare on key issues like the role of meditation, the importance of texts vs. experience, and whether enlightenment is achieved through self-effort or other-power (faith and devotion). These distinctions are exactly what FRQ prompts will ask you to analyze.
These schools share a common thread: enlightenment comes primarily through individual effort, discipline, and meditative practice. The practitioner does the work themselves.
Compare: Theravada vs. Zen—both emphasize meditation and self-effort, but Theravada relies heavily on scriptural authority (Pali Canon) while Zen often de-emphasizes texts in favor of direct experience. If an FRQ asks about different approaches to religious authority, this contrast is your go-to example.
Mahayana ("Great Vehicle") traditions expand the path to enlightenment beyond monastics, emphasizing that all beings can and should be saved. Compassion becomes as important as wisdom.
Compare: Mahayana (general) vs. Pure Land—both reject the idea that only monks can achieve enlightenment, but Pure Land takes accessibility further by emphasizing faith and devotion over meditation or philosophical study. This illustrates how traditions adapt to meet the needs of ordinary practitioners.
Vajrayana developed sophisticated ritual technologies designed to accelerate the path to enlightenment, incorporating tantric practices that require expert guidance.
Compare: Vajrayana vs. Zen—both promise relatively rapid enlightenment, but through opposite means. Zen strips practice down to essential meditation; Vajrayana adds elaborate ritual complexity. Both require a qualified teacher, but for different reasons: Zen masters guide through koans and direct pointing; Lamas transmit secret teachings and empowerments.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Self-power (jiriki) | Theravada, Zen |
| Other-power (tariki) | Pure Land |
| Monastic emphasis | Theravada |
| Lay accessibility | Mahayana, Pure Land |
| Bodhisattva ideal | Mahayana, Vajrayana |
| Meditation-centered | Theravada, Zen |
| Devotion-centered | Pure Land |
| Esoteric/tantric practice | Vajrayana |
| Scriptural authority | Theravada (Pali Canon), Mahayana (various sutras) |
| Teacher authority | Vajrayana (Lama), Zen (master) |
Which two schools most strongly emphasize self-effort as the path to enlightenment, and how do their methods differ?
A student claims that Pure Land and Theravada represent "opposite" approaches to Buddhist practice. What evidence would support this claim regarding who can achieve enlightenment and how?
Both Vajrayana and Zen promise accelerated paths to enlightenment. Compare and contrast their approaches to ritual complexity and the role of the teacher.
If an FRQ asked you to explain how Buddhism adapted to different cultural contexts, which school best illustrates syncretism with indigenous religious traditions? What specific elements demonstrate this blending?
The Bodhisattva ideal appears in multiple schools. Explain this concept and identify which schools emphasize it most strongly—then explain why Theravada takes a different approach to the question of helping others achieve enlightenment.