Welcome to Gaia! ::

In my research of Buddhism, I have found some differences between Mahayana and Theravada doctrines, but one in particular puzzles me. In Mahayana Buddhism, it is as if the Buddha’s loving devotion and devout sharing of the way were part of the realization of enlightenment; i.e. if he had not shown a sense of compassionate oneness with others, that would prove that he was still caught in the web of self-seeking tanha.
Whereas in Theravada Buddhism, the Buddha could have easily passed into nirvana without telling anyone of the way, and he would still be enlightened…
I tend to believe in the former rather than the latter, because I just want to believe in the love of every person…

Thoughts…

The issue lies in that theravada only views him as an Arhat - therefore the bodhisattva way is not needed in Theravada.

In Mahayana, the bodhisattva way is crucial.

This does not mean, however, they Theravada denies the existence of Bodhisattvas - it i s just reserved for those who become Supreme Nirmanakayas like shakyamuni.

I side with Mahayana.

I also side with the Mahayana interpretation that boundless compassion and the need to spread the Dharma were necessary prerequisites for Shakyamuni's attainment of perfect enlightenment. [Its generally said by the Mahayanists that the Buddha had served as a bodhisattva for a prolonged period of time prior to rebirth as Gautama and the vigil under the Bodhi Tree].

However, I admit that almost everything I've learned of the Theravada views has come from Mahayana sources...Are there any well-versed Theravadans here who can add their views?

Eliminating the accounts of past lives from the tale (which we of course cannot objectively find evidence for outside similar scriptures), I'm open to the argument that boundless compassion and diligent teaching is a characteristic of a Buddha (and likely true Arhat) upon enlightenment (and is perhaps not a prereq for attaining enlightenment). However, there are few, if any, emotional states outside unconditional compassion that is capable of breaking the mental bonds of the "Self" while causing the mind to reach out in all directions to suffering sentient beings...and a principle reason for Gautama's leaving the royal court was his feelings of compassion for all the sentient beings around him...

But a Buddha would not "Want" anything... neutral

A Buddha would not "want" anything out of selfish desires and with mental/emotional attachment. However, since the attainment of Buddhahood is widely thought to entail boundless compassion for suffering beings as well as "transcendent" knowledge of those sufferings (past, present, and future within individual consciousness-streams), Buddhas are thought to actively seek the spiritual betterment of unenlightened beings. In Mahayana Buddhism this "function" or "activity" of a Buddha is generally held to be an automatic, natural outgrowth of the Enlightened state.

Hmmm...it is my understanding that the Dharma (as Law/Teaching/Truth) is what is individually realized during the enlightenment process as well as what is communicated to others to aid their own enlightenment, but is usually held to be distinct from "reality (mind) as it actually is," dharmata. You're probably thinking of the Buddha as Dharma-kaya, the Body of Truth, which I understand is more or less equivalent to dharmata, Suchness (Tathata), and Emptiness (Shunyata). According to the Mahayana Three Bodies (Trikaya) doctrine, the physical manifestation of the Buddha is Nirmana-kaya or "Body of Transformation" behind which there is the power of the Sambhoga-kaya or "Body of Bliss." Of course, there is also talk of lowly dharmas* ("phenomena") in the literature, evidently to throw us all in a loop xp

*dharma + tathata = dharmata as "suchness of phenomena"???

It is hard to imagine that enlightenment, which fundamentally entails discovery and understanding, can only arise through preaching to others. That's kind of like learning from teaching about something one doesn't understand; self-knowledge should come before the imparting of knowledge to others. However, my understanding is that "after a certain point of achievement on the path to enlightenment, one may have to advance further by aiding others." Of course, such altruism may be a natural consequence of partially-realizing the Dharma.