To preface this post, I am not a buddhist. I am a practitioner of many buddhist practices and beliefs, mostly in line with those of Theravada, but I would not consider myself an official buddhist. So this post comes more from an outside perspective, and I hope to gain some insight into the Mahayana practices and beliefs of buddhism. I am not trying to suggest one sect is better than another, but rather trying to see if my ideas of Mahayana buddhism have been painted in a bad light.

My ideas of Mahayana do come from a lot of online reading, however I have never read direct texts, and many of these assumptions may be misinterpretations.

The main idea i get from Mahayana buddhism is that full Buddhahood is believed to only be achieved by becoming a bodhisattva first. My understanding of the Bodhisattva vow is that one will forgo their own enlightenment/ Nirvana and continue to rebirth so that all beings may be liberated and that they may achieve full Buddhahood.

But if full buddhahood can only be achieved through being a bodhisattva (through the understood parameters i laid out), then wouldn't that deny The Buddha of being a Buddha? Since there are still many beings that have not achieved Nirvana and paranirvana.

Does being a bodhisattva mean only to attempt at educating the beings of the universe, rather than waiting for the liberation of all?

This does come more from my own view of some Mahayana buddhists talking down on Theravada buddhists, and that without taking a bodhisattva vow, Theravada buddhists will never achieve full buddhahood.

I do believe one should help where they can in helping others achieve Nirvana, but educating and helping to liberate others until there is no one left to liberate makes it seem as if becoming a Buddha is impossible currently and in the past.

Any education on this point is very helpful, and I am happy to learn if any of these ideas are misconceptions.