It has to be noted however that this theoretical argument has met opposition from some scholars with others arguing that it is superfluous and did not give an obvious explanation to the origin of Mahayana Buddhism. Even though these three arguments have been supported by a number of scholars there is still a lot of debate with reference to the origin of Mahayana with a number believing that its origin was a movement inspired by the lay, however, it has been observed that individuals with such beliefs have closed their thinking around a literature written about the origin of Mahayana sutra. It became important that a wider view is brought forward thus encouraging the schools to drift from this restricted literature and have widened their scope to capture the earlier literature on Mahayana which perfectly present the early life related to Mahayana.

The Mahayana had a strong doctrine which helped in making it strong and enhanced its development not only in the early stages but also over the years since the basis for such doctrines were easily embrace by the masses, the main one was that of widespread deliverance of the masses from afflictions which was obvious a likable idea to any being. It additionally held high Buddha's existence and bodhisattvas that exemplified the character and nature of Buddha and it represented Buddha as the most high and all perfect.

Differences between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism

There are a number of issues that distinct Mahayana and Theravada most of which are ideological in nature one of such being in the belief on enlightenment, the Mahayana have a belief in working towards enlightenment while Theravada on the other hand believes that there are individual efforts that bring about enlightenment. The other difference comes on reasoning about wisdom whereas Theravada believes in trying very hard for wisdom first,...

There is a focus on meditation among the Theravada which necessitates an individual to have special ardor but on the other hand the Mahayana support world related practice and that in the general community (Schopen, 2).
The other issue that brings a distinction in the two is the language diffusion and teaching with the Mahayana scriptures commonly having local language translation while the Theravada language is mainly in Pali with a bit of local language incorporation. The Mahayana is widely accepted and even taught in all schools which is not the case with Theravada which is not easily accepted thus facing numerous rejections. It is therefore evidence that the Mahayana involve the locals to a greater extent as compared to Theravada thus bringing about a lot of local influence to the Mahayana individuals and consequently the local religious cultures are integrated into the modern culture by the Mahayana (Williams, 16).

The last and one of the most significant disparity is that on the highlighting of the Bodhisattva, which is also referred to as spiritual guide, the Mahayana held this concept so high due to the manner in which Buddha significantly considered it (Williams, 16). It has to be noted at this point that the original Buddhists did not consider this concept so significant and it only became worthy with the advancement of Mahayana Buddhism thus bodhisattvas can no longer be ignored.