What is the historical consensus on the historicity of Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana buddhism?

What is the historical consensus on the historicity of Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana buddhism?
I've read things about Theravada = early buddhism being a meme.

Historically? We do not know. Much of this becomes religious bullshittery no one can separate from fact.

We do know the basics and what is likely true. Buddhism started in Nepal, spread all over, spread to China and Southeast Asia, began to lose out to Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent, and eventually separated into different branches in China/Tibet/SEA.

Which one is the oldest? Probably Vajrayana. Theravada appears to retain fewer of the original traits, just like Mahayana.

t. Not an expert

>japan
>mayahana

>meme
All religions are technically memes.

>zen
>not Mahayana derivative

never knew about kalmykia huh interesting

I live in Japan. Nearly all the shitload of sects here are Mahayana based. (A few are Vajrayana influenced)

The interesting part is that the Buddha was from a clan known as the Shakya or Sakka and possible from the Saka people, who were Indo-Europeans. Remember that Buddhism was quite popular in Central Asia among Afghans, Tocharians, ect.

>Zen
>Not Chen through Dzogchen through Vajrayana
>inb4 anyone implies Vajrayana isn't a development of it's own extant Yogacara/Mantrayana/Tantrayana tradition, related but parallel to Mahayana

The Vajra sects got suppressed HARD somewhere between 11 and 1300.

Theravada is considered the oldest (thera in Pali means “old”), so it’s historically accepted as the oldest Buddhism, although not the original (and Theravada did pass through changes like modernization throughout history). The truth is that, just as during the formative period of Christianity, different groups appeared after Buddha’s death and started arguing about doctrine, philosophy, ethics, Buddhism even had their own big councils where discussions were held and unorthodox views expelled and different groups formed and the Pali canon accepted.
The fact that Buddhism didn’t survive in India in any form isn’t a good thing when searching for the oldest Buddhist teaching.
However, the fact that all later Buddhist schools accept the Pali canon and try to fit their own developments into it shows that the Buddhist themselves regard it as the most ancient and most authoritative Buddhist text (so much even they had to abandon or change practices that didn’t fit the Vinaya rules, aka, Vajrayana sexual practice in Tibetan monastic environment.)

Zen is Mahayana development. It’s main philosophical backgrounds are Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha, which are essential Mahayana doctrines.

>Zen
>Not Chen through Dzogchen through Vajrayana

This is flat our wrong.

It’s an academically established fact the Japanese word zen derives from Chinese Chan which in turn derives from Sanskrit dhyana. Dzogchen, meanwhile, is a purely Tibetan word that remained Tibetan and wasn’t encountered in any texts outside Tibet (and possibly India, with the Sanskri atiyoga, though the word originally wasn’t related to anything that resembled later Dzogchen)

Second, the historical chronology show that Chan appeared earlier than Dzogchen. Bodhidharma is usually placed within the 6th century. Earliest historical mentions of chan Buddhism in China date to 7th and early 8th century. At best, Dzogchen is placed in the 8th or 9th century, but the absence of significant Dzogchen texts in Sanskrit is a good sign that it's a later development not directly related to the Indian religious scene and more a local Tibetan product. Despite the Dunhuang cave syncretism, no source shows that the developing Dzogchen accepted anything of Chan or that Chan accepted something of Dzogchen.

Another further point of difference is the practice itself. Dzogchen is rooted in tantra – you need to visualize yidams; repeat mantras; engage in sexual practices; in internal body yoga; in chod – while such elements are totally absent from the simplicity of chan and zen. The absence of related rituals in chan and zen means that no significant borrowing occurred between the two.

>inb4 muh Dunhuang

Dunhuang is just one little area compared to China and Japan, the main fields of Chan Buddhism.

>Vajrayna didn’t develop out of Mahayana

First thing first. Mantrayana (path of mantra)/Tantrayana (path of tantra)/Vajrayana are synonyms. Yogacara is philosophical Mahayana schools dealing with with perception and ontology and which forms, along with Madhyamaka, Prajnaparamita, and Tathagatagarbha the philosophical background of Vajrayana. The fact that all these doctrines are Mahayana and found themselves in Mahayana shows a historical continuity.

Second, everyone who studies history of Buddhism knows that the earliest signs of Tantric influence can be found in Mahavaiocanabhisambodhi and Tattvasamgraha, whose date places them withing Mahayana rather than Vajrayana.

Third, the classic Vajrayana practices – complex visualizations and mantra recitations – are a direct result of the Mahayana developments of multiple Buddhas and bodhisattvas who are not to be revered as teachers but rather worshiped as personifications of enlightenment. It was an easy step from this Tantrism – just add wrathful deities and sexual yogas.

It’s true Mahayana wasn’t one whole monolithic current, but to say that Vajrayana developed apart from Mahayana is wrong. Vajrayana developed out of currents within Mahayana, not as something parallel. Of course, you can try to prove, but good luck going against half a decade of academic and historical research.

>The Vajra sects got suppressed HARD somewhere between 11 and 1300.

Shingon is still present in Japan.

WE

>Japanese buddhism scholars are all wrong and I am right!

Can you link a download of that pdf pls

>Which one is the oldest? Probably Vajrayana. Theravada appears to retain fewer of the original traits, just like Mahayana.

This is probably a misunderstanding.

Vajrayana Buddhism didn't really begin to pick up steam until around the 8th century CE in Tibet. The exact origins of the Theravada/Mahayana split* are murky but it probably happened around 334 BCE during the Second Buddhist council. Modern Theravada schools more or less trace their roots to King Mongkut in Thailand in the 19th century (yes, that recent) when he, disliking all the folk religion that had crept into local Buddhism, decided to go back to the roots of the Pali Canon (hence claims of originality). The Pali Canon is probably the oldest and most "original" written Buddhist work (there are several versions of various ages and they sometimes contradict each other). It was first written down in 29 BCE. The first Mahayana texts are from around 100 BCE but whether or not they actually predate the Pali Canon isn't totally clear since it had been transmitted orally until being written down.

* I'd hesitate to even use the word "split" since at least up until the times of Faxian (see Legge's "A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms", page 41 especially) both Hinayana/Theravada and Mayahana monks lived and practiced together. They're really better thought of as different modes for looking at the Dhamma that one can adopt as needed.

He was described are having blue eyes, large brows, and long, heavy eyelashes. Stop we wuzzing.

so what?

These are European traits.

not exclusively

Perhaps not, but they are never Asian traits.