Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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

DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
edited June 2012 in Buddhism Basics
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?

Comments

  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    edited June 2012
    This may sound like a flaming post to some but from this zen view...
    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.
  • AmeliaAmelia Veteran
    I agree with how.
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    An Arhat ends in paranirvana. This is release with no remainder of body/mind.
    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.
  • I have no views on this topic save one; it's the Dalai Lama's view also. A bodhisattva does not deliberately delay enlightenment.
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    This may sound like a flaming post to some but from this zen view...
    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.
    I figured that was the case.

    @Taiyaki;
    An Arhat ends in paranirvana. This is release with no remainder of body/mind.
    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.
    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 have no views on this topic save one; it's the Dalai Lama's view also. A bodhisattva does not deliberately delay enlightenment.
    I agree however, they do delay the stopping of their wheel.



  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    "Huayan Master Fazang in the Tang Dynasty once wrote, "Seeing that form is emptiness manifests great wisdom and one does not abide in samsara. Seeing that emptiness is form manifests great compassion and one does not abide in nirvana. When form and emptiness are non-dual, compassion and wisdom are not different."

    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
  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    The difference is personal liberation verses liberation of everything.
    Abiding in nirvana verses neither abiding in nirvana or samsara.
    Total cessation verses complete manifestation of full buddhahood.

    Of course this is just theory.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    I think the only real difference between an Arahant and a Bodhissatva is the way that two Buddhist schools differentiate their own practises.

    That's how it seems to me. Talking about the goal in a different way.
  • SattvaPaulSattvaPaul South Wales, UK Veteran
    According to Mahayana, Arhats still have subtle obscurations.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Nirvana is nirvana. ;)
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited June 2012
    A possible oversimplified description:
    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.

    A student of Buddhism asked, “Which do you think is the best path: that of the arahant or that of the bodhisattva?”
    “That kind of question is asked by people who understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism!” Ajahn Sumedho replied.

    Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all—if you are anything at all you will suffer.” —Ajahn Chah
    Another interesting piece of material:
    http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2008/summer/balance.php

    Metta!
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    A bodhisattva dedicates hi/hers life to ending suffering for all sentient beings, and vows to not end the cycle of rebirth for him/herself until all suffering is eliminated. The arhat doesn't take such a vow. When s/he enters parinirvana, there's no more rebirth for him/her.
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    A possible oversimplified description:
    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.
    There is no fuss at all as far as I can see. And I agree. Being non-sectarian I do what I can to reconcile the Sangha.

    A student of Buddhism asked, “Which do you think is the best path: that of the arahant or that of the bodhisattva?”
    “That kind of question is asked by people who understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism!” Ajahn Sumedho replied.

    Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all—if you are anything at all you will suffer.” —Ajahn Chah
    Another interesting piece of material:
    http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2008/summer/balance.php

    Metta!

    Thanks.

  • ArthurbodhiArthurbodhi Mars Veteran
    If I'm not wrong or you can correct me, the Buddha was a bodhisattva and also was an arahant and entered parinirvana. And according to many mahayana buddhists, he after his parinirvana (specialy Amitabha and other "cosmics" Buddhas) still can help sentients beings to get enlightenment.

    So in this subject, I agree with @how, this is more a technicism to me.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited June 2012


    There is no fuss at all as far as I can see.

    Fuss was maybe an exaggeration indeed.
    But that was not really the point of my reply.
  • zenffzenff Veteran
    edited June 2012
    The theory – as far as I know -is that there are three ways of becoming a Buddha.

    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) :)
Sign In or Register to comment.