Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A quick question regarding Arahants and Bodhissatvas
David
A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
If an Arahant believes in rebirth or a kind of reincarnation wouldn't they automatically be a Bodhissatva?
Am I missing something or is the difference one of perspective in your opinion?
Am I missing something or is the difference one of perspective in your opinion?
0
Comments
I think the only real difference between an Arahant and a Bodhissatva is the way that two Buddhist schools differentiate their own practises.
So no! the only thing you are missing is cultural politics.
This is the dualistic vision of Buddhism where there is individual mindstreams that become liberated.
The Bodhisattva is the non dualistic vision of Buddhism. Where there is no distinction between the individual and collective. One's own liberation is the liberation of the collective and vice versa. So for instance a Bodhisattva may be free from suffering (individually) but there is no difference for them between self and other. Thus if another is suffering that is the bodhisattvas suffering. The vision is that life is one interdependent process.
Not sure if thats clear. I'll think about it some more.
@Taiyaki; The second part is clear as a tear... It's why I chose this handle. The first bit I find very interesting as I'd think an individual mindstream being liberated would be liberated from the notion that there is an individual mindstream and would by default be interdependant on all the other mindstreams.
I guess I just have a hard time believing enlightenment could be realised absolutely until all aspects are enlightened.
@PrairieGhost; I agree however, they do delay the stopping of their wheel.
I think this quote here summarizes what the Mahayana really represents. For one on the Bodhisattva path personal liberation is only the means, but not the end. Unlike the noble Arhat who achieves cessation of conditioned existence and abides in nirvana, the Bodhisattva seeks to aid all sentient beings without exception. As Robert Thurman once put it, "We're all going to have nirvana, or there won't be any nirvana at all!" The Bodhisattva does not do what she does out of some simple feeling of charity, but rather because of the nature of reality which is interdependent origination. All sentient beings without exception lack inherent existence, which means they are, in a nominal sense, infinitely interconnected with the rest of the universe.
Indra's net is a vast web of interconnected gems and in each gem one can see the reflection of all the other gems. Master Fazang pointed out that if one were to place a black dot on a single gem it would reflect in all the other gems. This is the case with our reality. As Lord Buddha taught: all actions have consequences. We cannot escape this. Not even death robs us of our previous misdeeds. Because reality is infinitely interconnected, a single action infinitely echoes throughout time and space just as a single dot is reflected in all the gems of Indra's net.
Rebirth means that death does not rob us of our karma. This means that you cannot not exist. A kind of cherished oblivion that many people foresee following their physical demise was never accepted by any Buddhist school at any time. Buddha taught literal rebirth. Now, from the perspective of rebirth and dependent origination, the nature of unenlightened existence means that all pleasures that arise from conditionally existent phenomena will only bring temporary pleasure and when that temporary pleasure ceases one will suffer. The saying, "Live it up as you only live once" is foolish from the Buddhist perspective -- "living it up" just perpetuates attachment to desire and atman (atman being reified identity), which then perpetuates continued habitual conditioned existence which is ultimately unsatisfactory. Hence, the only lasting peace is nirvana because nirvana is unconditioned and therefore without cause for suffering. Nirvana to samsara is like health to illness. Suffering has a cause and therefore can be ceased.
However, it is said that those with wisdom do not abide in nirvana, nor do they abide in samsara. It is said that for those with wisdom there is no difference between wisdom and compassion. Wisdom of emptiness, which is dependent origination, is said to be the cradle of compassion. Why is this? Because we are all interconnected relational beings. If you saw that you were infinitely connected with all sentient beings, you would want them to be free of suffering and would do them no harm. Just as you unconditionally want your hand to be free of pain. You don't even think, "I want my hand to be free of pain." You just naturally want your hand, which you see as an extension of yourself, to be free of pain. The enlightened noble Bodhisattva likewise sees the entire matrix of reality as her self. Just as you want your hand to be free of suffering, so too does the Bodhisattva want all beings to be free from suffering. In other words if your self is suchness and suchness permeates throughout every single atom, thought and crevice of time-space, you essentially are the totality of every part. All things are identical on account of their being dependently arisen ergo empty.
And so she who actualizes emptiness also actualizes supreme compassion because ultimately the two are non-dual.
Such is the value of Mahayana in my humble estimation."
http://buddhists.livejournal.com/2690228.html
Abiding in nirvana verses neither abiding in nirvana or samsara.
Total cessation verses complete manifestation of full buddhahood.
Of course this is just theory.
That's how it seems to me. Talking about the goal in a different way.
An arahant embraces the other through giving up the self.
A boddhisatva gives up the self through embracing the other.
So what's the difference in the end? none ... And these are even very simplified theoretical statements. In practice it's always a combination of both. So really I don't see what all the fuss is about.
To me it basically comes down to this; the truth and real insight is beyond the distinctions of arahants vs bodhisattvas. And is beyond Therevada vs Mahayana, beyond duality vs non-duality. Another interesting piece of material:
http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2008/summer/balance.php
Metta!
http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2008/summer/balance.php
Metta!
Thanks.
So in this subject, I agree with @how, this is more a technicism to me.
But that was not really the point of my reply.
The Arahatta-Buddha follows in the slipstream of a Buddha. He doesn’t invent the wheel but he follows the teaching of another Samma-Sambuddha.
The Pratyeka Buddha discovers the way on his own. But he’s not capable of setting the wheel of Dharma in motion.
The Samma –Sambuddha also finds the truth on his own in a time when the Dharma is lost. His realization however is deep enough for him to set the wheel of Dharma in motion and many beings can attain Enlightenment in his slipstream.
Sumedha (an earlier life of Gautama), when he met Buddha Dipankara, was recognized as the future Samma-Sambuddha. This is why he is called the bodhisattva after that point.
A Bodhisattva vows to take the long way home of becoming a Samma-Sambuddha and not the shortcut of attaining enlightenment as an Arahant.
However; this commitment is such good karma that it catapults the reluctant Bodhisattva way up on the ladder of his spiritual career. So maybe the long way home is a shortcut after all.
The conclusion?
These are all just beautiful stories. Enter the truth here and now; there’s no other place. (IMHO)