Like the difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. The Great Wheel and Ancient Teaching.
Mahayana's purpose is like trying to get everyone else closer to enlightenment, while Theravada is said to be the quickest path to self-enlightenment.
Attachment is still there with Mahayana (to keep the soul here to help others towards enlightenment) while attachment for Theravada is "gone" to get towards enlightenment.
Of the two, Theravada would be considered more transformative while Mahayana is said to be more translative.
First, let us distinguish between attitudes [hinayana, mahayana] and schools [theravada, mahayana]. People often do theravada=hinayana which is sometimes but not always accurate.
All that I have read, dealt with, and studied of Buddhism counter-agrees with your assessment.
Probably the biggest difference is in aspiration, mahayana and vajrayana aim for an enlightenment that is "further" than that of hinayana/theravada. Specifically, the enlightenment of vajrayana/mahayana encompasses that of hinayana but then goes further. The only sense I can possibly see in the statement "hinayana gets to enlightenment faster!" is that of a shallower level of enlightenment.
To the question "what is enlightenment?" one answer, and the hinayana one, would be "dissolution of self in the causal abyss of void/formlessness." And that is there. However, and this is the point of zen, taoism, vajrayana, etc, there is still a deeper answer that includes and goes beyond that answer. The 10 pictures of zen keep going until number 10 [sage enters the market], they
dont stop at 8 which is that "dissolution of self in formlessness."
The purpose of mahayana [and all those other ones] is somewhat complicated, and while people *might* express it in the way you put it "Mahayana's purpose is like trying to get everyone else closer to enlightenment", thats not a very accurate statement technically. No offense intended, I've read similar things in religion books, but its really a poor translation/understanding, and that poor understanding directly comes from the relation between "self and other." I would say "mahayana seeks to take others across the river
with you", which still isnt that much of an improvement over the previous assessment. However, clearly, "with" is quite different than "they should go first". Part of this is still a language issue [how does one talk about the transpersonal?], but basically it comes down to "the perceived difference between self and other is ultimately false", as buddhism likes to say "there is neither self nor not-self."
What lies beyond formlessness is the simultaneous co-emergence of form and formlessness. Yes, one can go to the void, and yes one can dissolve there, but if one can "let go of" the void, one will be led to see a deeper relationship between form and formlessness, and there "equal footing." Hence that 10th zen oxherding picture. THAT view of enlightenment lies at the heart of mahayana, vajrayana, zen, taoism, vedanta, etc. In buddhism, both the heart sutra and diamond sutra [the ashtavakra gita of hinduism is another very good example] clearly express this view. "Form is not other than formlessness, formlessness is not other than form."
If I had to simplify the mahayana/hinatana difference down to a single sentence, it would be the following "if all of existence is a manifestation of the one primal formlessness, and in the world of form you choose to self annihilate int he void while leaving all others behind, then you are not adequately fessing up to the detail that everything came from that original one, the purpose, the insight, the value of mahayana is to realize that detail and fess up to it." That does NOT mean that "I delay my enlightenment until everyone else goes first!" [Note: bodhisattva vows ARE often talked about in the way of that last sentence, but that returns to a language issue of the relation between self and other, and people ought to do a better job of saying "with" instead of "others go first." Most/all books dealing with bodhisattava level stuff written by people practicing on that level [as opposed to religious studies authors for example] were clear about the "with" attitude, even if my high school history book was not.
Tat tvam asi: Thou art that. Personally I prefer speaking in negation, so I would paraphrase as "that is not other than, or separate from, or distinct from, your own deepest self."
More colloquially, and as Ken Wilber put it, "Sure, you can get off the 'wheel of death and rebirth' and 'let go of suffering', but then you look back and see that all your friends are still stuck in it, and then its not nearly as fun, and you realize that since at the deepest level of your being you are all somehow connected, you realize that you didnt completely get off of the wheel, that only a part got off the wheel, and there is still more to do because you want all to get off of the wheel." THAT is the heart of the mahayana. The detail that 'all else is not other than your deepest self" ties into a language issues and is the big detail in the "self not-self" relationship. Hinayana stops at the causal/void/formless, but the non-dual still lies beyond along with its deeper truths and realization. Truths and realizations that in the "relative world" [vajrayana system referring to "two truths" and the relative reality and ultimate reality, though ultimately even that distinction is false] seem paradoxical
Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form.
So, like I said, all that I've that I've studied, learned, and practices leads to the exact opposite of your conclusion. And regardless of what I say, or how anyone feels about what I may say, the heart sutra and diamond sutra, [and zen, and vedanta, and vajrayana, and taoism, etc etc etc] are all very clear about this.