Theravada Buddhism, often referred to as the “Teaching of the Elders,” is traditionally regarded as the most conservative and original form of Buddhism. Rooted in the Pali Canon, Theravada claims to preserve the earliest and purest teachings of the historical Buddha, making it the dominant form of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. However, upon closer examination of its history, doctrinal claims, and its rigid exclusivity, one can challenge the legitimacy of Theravada as the sole authentic heir to the Buddha’s teachings. This essay will explore several key criticisms that call into question the Theravada tradition’s legitimacy, arguing that it is both sectarian and historically inconsistent with the Buddha’s emphasis on inclusivity, adaptability, and non-sectarianism.

1. Theravada’s Sectarian Origins

Theravada traces its origins to the Sthavira (Sthavira-vāda) school, which broke away from the larger Mahāsāṃghika sect following the Second Buddhist Council approximately 100 years after the Buddha’s death. This schism, while doctrinal in nature, was rooted in disputes about the interpretation and adherence to the Vinaya (monastic rules). According to historical records, the majority of monks adhered to the Mahāsāṃghika, and the Sthavira sect—which evolved into Theravada—represented a minority faction. Despite this minority status, Theravada claims to be the legitimate heir to the Buddha’s teachings. However, if we examine the Buddha’s explicit teachings on schism and harmony, we encounter significant challenges to this claim.

The Buddha strongly discouraged schism within the sangha (monastic community). In fact, he regarded division as one of the most serious offenses against the Dharma, warning that a fractured sangha would hinder the propagation of the Dharma and the unity of the community. Given that Theravada is a direct descendant of a schismatic movement, its legitimacy is immediately called into question. If the Buddha forbade schisms and emphasized the importance of community harmony, how can a tradition that arose from a sectarian split claim legitimacy? The very foundation of Theravada appears to rest on a historical event that contradicts one of the Buddha’s core teachings.

2. Doctrinal Rigidity and Rejection of Other Schools

One of the defining features of modern Theravada is its doctrinal exclusivity. It regards the Pali Canon, specifically the Tipiṭaka, as the only authentic record of the Buddha’s teachings. This exclusivism often manifests in a rejection of Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, which Theravada frequently critiques as later, inauthentic developments. Some revisionist neo- or post-Theravadins go even further by rejecting not only Mahayana but also later Theravada developments, claiming that the early Buddhist texts (EBTs) provide the most accurate representation of the Buddha’s teachings.

This doctrinal rigidity is problematic for several reasons. First, it ignores the historical diversity of early Buddhism. The early Buddhist community was not a monolithic entity; instead, it comprised various groups with differing interpretations of the Dharma. Scholars now recognize that the early Nikāyas (Pali) and Āgamas (Chinese) contain substantial doctrinal overlap, suggesting that early Buddhist teachings were preserved in multiple forms across different regions. By rejecting non-Pali sources and schools, Theravada effectively dismisses a significant portion of Buddhism’s historical development, positioning itself as the sole custodian of “authentic” Buddhism.

Second, this exclusivity undermines the Buddha’s teachings on non-dogmatism and the importance of avoiding attachment to rigid views. In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha famously advised his followers not to accept teachings on the basis of tradition or authority alone but to examine them critically in light of personal experience and understanding. By contrast, Theravada’s insistence on the primacy of its own texts and teachings fosters a dogmatic attitude, which runs counter to the Buddha’s open-minded, pragmatic approach to the Dharma.

3. Theravada as a Minority Tradition

Despite its claims to authenticity, Theravada represents a minority tradition in the broader Buddhist world. The majority of Buddhists today adhere to Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, which are far more diverse and inclusive in their doctrinal outlooks. Mahayana, for example, developed the Bodhisattva ideal—a path of compassion and altruism that goes beyond the individual pursuit of enlightenment to include the liberation of all beings. Mahayana also embraced the principle of upāya (skillful means), which acknowledges that different teachings are appropriate for different people in different contexts.

In contrast, Theravada’s more individualistic focus on the Arhat path—where the goal is personal liberation—can be seen as narrower and less adaptable. The development of the Mahayana sutras, while not part of the early canon, reflects an expansive and dynamic interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings, emphasizing compassion and the universal potential for enlightenment. The wide appeal of Mahayana across Central and East Asia, as well as the spread of Vajrayana in Tibet and beyond, suggests that these schools better captured the Buddha’s message of inclusivity and skillful adaptation.

If we assume that the majority of Buddhist practitioners today identify with Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, one could argue that these schools represent a truer reflection of the Buddha’s teachings in the modern world. In a hypothetical vote on the legitimacy of Mahayana versus Theravada, it seems clear that Mahayana’s emphasis on compassion, inclusivity, and adaptability would win out over Theravada’s more rigid, individualistic interpretation of the Dharma.

4. Theravada’s Sectarianism and the Problem of Exclusivity

Theravada’s insistence on its own self-validity is not only problematic but also sectarian. By claiming exclusive authority over the Buddha’s teachings and rejecting the validity of other schools, Theravada fosters division within the broader Buddhist community. This sectarianism contradicts the Buddha’s teachings on harmony and non-sectarianism, which were central to his vision of the sangha. The Buddha warned against clinging to views and encouraged his followers to remain open to multiple interpretations of the Dharma, recognizing that different people may require different paths to liberation.

Sectarianism, by its nature, leads to dogmatism and rigidity, which stifles the dynamism and adaptability of the Buddha’s teachings. If a tradition claims that it alone holds the truth, it risks falling into the trap of ideological purity, which can lead to a sense of superiority over other schools. Such an attitude is clearly at odds with the Buddha’s teachings, which emphasize the Middle Way—a path of balance and moderation that avoids extremes in all forms, including doctrinal rigidity.

Conclusion

In light of its sectarian origins, doctrinal exclusivity, and minority status, the legitimacy of Theravada Buddhism can be reasonably questioned. The tradition’s rigid adherence to its own texts and rejection of other schools runs counter to the Buddha’s teachings on non-sectarianism, inclusivity, and the avoidance of rigid views. Moreover, Theravada’s schismatic roots suggest that it may not be the true heir to the Buddha’s teachings, especially considering the Buddha’s emphasis on maintaining harmony within the sangha.

While Theravada may offer valuable insights and practices, its claim to exclusive self-validity is ultimately sectarian and inconsistent with the Buddha’s broader vision of the Dharma. A more inclusive and adaptive approach, as found in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, may better reflect the compassionate and universal message that the Buddha intended for all beings.