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.
How is an Arahant different from a Bodhisattva?
This article by Bhikku Bodhi is a fair minded and well researched overview of the differences between the Mahayana ideal of the Bodhisattva and the Theravada ideal of the Arahant.
Though I think the article overall is excellent and I learned a great deal from it, as a Vajrayana student I had some minor points of disagreement.
First, a minor issue of the terminology that he uses, to call the extreme Mahayana position elitist and the extreme Theravada position purist, is a bit prejudicial. I understand that he doesn't agree with either position but it seems like "elitist" has more of a negative connotation. Of course some Mahayanists are elitist, it always makes me cringe a little when people start talking about "the lesser vehicle; Hinayana."
In both cases we are only talking about an elite composed of those who have reached the highest ideal of spiritual development. As the author himself says, the term arahant "was used to denote a person who had attained the ultimate goal, for this is what made one worthy of veneration and offerings."
Secondly, when Bhikku Bodhi asks why the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha did not include the Bodhisattva path, he doesn't consider the possibility that the Buddha may have seen that only a few of his students were suitable for a teaching which should be kept secret until enough people to form a practice community would be ready to receive it. Here I think that the author is making the same mistake as many western historians who devalue the influence of esoteric and oral traditions because they are not able to be studied in the way that written traditions are. Of course there is no recorded proof for such a course of events, but given the extraordinary achievements of oral traditions in forming and preserving coherent societies we should not ignore the possibility entirely.
0
Comments
A bodhisatta,from my understanding(I am from the Theravada tradition,so may not be correct here)puts off enlightenment with the intention of returning until all sentient bengs are ready to cross over.
I will be happy for anyone in Vajrayana/Mahayana traditions to clarify any mistakes in my understanding here.
With metta
In fact a bodhisattva practices for all beings because that path liberates you from the ego quickly. The bodhisattva wants to become a buddha as quickly as they can manage so that they can be of greater benefit to all.
The one who strives to become a 'Samyak Sambuddha' is called the 'Maha-Bodhisatta'. But this doesn't mean that if you think it today you will be called as such. You first need to get a confirmation from another 'Samyak Sambuddha'.
A Samyak Sambuddha is a fully enlightened one who teachers others.Not sure if Lord Buddha got confirmation from another Buddha before setting out to teach the dhamma.
Please forgive me if I am mistaken but you seem to be a little upset from seeing the word Hinayana.From how I have read the posts above both Naljorpa and Dorje(both Vajrayana tradition sounding names)do not seem to like the term,with Dorje suggesting it be filed and tucked away for good.Neither one of them used it in reference to the Theravada tradition.
According to the traditional story contained in the Buddhavamsa (as well as a few other scattered sources) regarding the lineage of the Buddhas, Gotama (then Sumedha) declared his aspiration for buddhahood at the feet of the Buddha Dipankara. Dipankara via prophecy affirmed that Sumedha would indeed master the ten perfections and gain full awakening eons in the future, and this is when they say his path to buddhahood began. Because of this, Theravada (and possible other traditions as well) generally holds that becoming a buddha is extremely difficult and is only possible after declaring your aspiration to become a buddha in the presence of a living buddha.
I think it's an appropriate term given context. As you yourself point out, the Mahayana position is that only a few of the Buddha's disciples were suitable for these higher or more advanced teachings, which themselves have been passed down orally and through hidden sutras that are kept 'secret' and only transmitted to a select number of students who're deemed ready to receive them.
So, basically, the not-so-bright masses get the teachings on nibbana (self-enlightenment), while the smaller, more advanced group gets the secret teachings on buddhahood (enlightenment for all), hence the traditional distinction between the 'greater' (i.e., higher/compassionate) and 'lesser' (i.e., lower/selfish) vehicles. That's how some people see it, at least.
However, being 'elite' isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can mean that you're the best at something, for example. After all, the Buddha himself is called a bull among men (Snp 3.11), supreme among those who can be released (Iti 112) and the ultimate leader (Thag 6.9).
As you're probably aware, this is mainly because of what the Buddha says in DN 16:
Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him, saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. Whosoever may think that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him, it is such a one that would have to give last instructions respecting them. But, Ananda, the Tathagata has no such idea as that it is he who should lead the community of bhikkhus, or that the community depends upon him. So what instructions should he have to give respecting the community of bhikkhus?
Here, the Buddha denies that he has any secret teaching. Of course, if he did have any, you wouldn't expect him to announce it to everyone since they wouldn't be secret anymore, but many Theravadins have a difficult time accepting the validity of secret teachings because of this one passage.
Personally, I don't Bhikkhu Bodhi is dismissing the possibility as much as he's simply pointing out the fact that "no teachings about a bodhisattva path or bodhisattva practices are included in the discourses regarded as coming down from the most archaic period of Buddhist literary history," and this perplexes him since he's a Theravadin monk who's sympathetic to the bodhisattva ideal and is looking for a way to bridge the gap between traditions.
Also I don't claim that (admittedly hypothetical) secret oral teachings are necessarily higher than exoteric teachings. For any particular person the highest teachings are the ones that will be of the greatest help in guiding their progress towards enlightenment, which Sakyamuni was supremely skilled at discerning and providing.
I was not aware of the passage you quote from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, like many Vajrayana students I really need to read more widely in the Sutras in order to have a better understanding of the historical development of Buddhist views.
From my limited present understanding, it seems that another possibility at work here, is that in the awesome fullness of the Buddha's teachings, rather than being divided into esoteric and exoteric streams with one held within "the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back," perhaps within the mindstreams of the listeners were planted seeds. As Bhikku Bodhi says "This altruistic dimension might be seen as the "seed" from which the bodhisattva doctrine developed and thus as one of the elements in ancient Buddhism that contributed to the emergence of the Mahāyāna."
Another such seed, implying different dimensions of instruction, might be the idea that the Buddha's very life was a teaching, as well as his recorded words. "First, he serves as an example, the supreme example; almost every aspect of his life is exemplary, but above all, his very person demonstrates the possibility of attaining perfect freedom from all the fetters of the mind, complete release from suffering, release from the pitfalls of birth and death."
Another potential seed would be the notion that different types of students are best served by very different types of teachings. "He is perfect in all respects, and the most important of his perfections is his ability to teach the Dharma in ways that are best suited to the capacities of those who come to him for guidance. His teaching is always exactly suited to the capacities of those who seek his help, and when they follow his instructions, they receive favorable results, whether it be merely the gain of faith or the attainment of liberation."
By the way, your blog "leaves in the hand" is very interesting. I'm adding it to my rss feed.
No, you were clear. I was just saying that I think it's an appropriate term given the context, just as purism or dogmatism can be appropriate terms to describe attitudes within Theravada. The point Bhikkhu Bodhi is making, I think, is that these words are describing attitudes that some within each tradition have towards the other, and that these are based on misunderstandings more than anything substantial, even though there's some truth to them as well.
You're right, you didn't say that they were necessarily 'higher.' I didn't mean to imply that that was your view, sorry about that. I was mainly referring to "only a few of his students were suitable for a teaching which should be kept secret until enough people to form a practice community would be ready to receive it" when I said, "As you yourself point out..."
It definitely can't hurt.
That's a nice way of looking at it.
Cool. It's mainly just a place to collect my thoughts and better posts for future reference, but I'm not opposed to people actually reading it, either.
Personally, after being a Vajrayana practitioner for many years, I found that the Theravada Forest Tradition resonated with me far more when I encountered it... and continued to revitalise my practice and understanding together with my readings of suttas in the Pali Canon.
.
Did you receive anutarra (or ati) yoga tantra empowerment(s) from a qualified lineage master(s) and maintain the samayas associated with them?
If not your statement is very misleading.
Without the empowerments and samaya you were not a Vajrayana practitioner for a single day, let alone "many years".
"Do not be a bodhisattva, do not be an arahant, do not be anything at all. If you are a bodhisattva, you will suffer, if you are an arahant, you will suffer, if you are anything at all, you will suffer."
more here http://www.purifymind.com/ChahQuotesSimiles.htm
There are some areas in which Theravada and Mahayana (Zen here) have to respectfully not try and shoe-horn each other into each other's understanding.
edit. same goes for Zen and Tibetan.
It is natural to collapse Buddhism into our own tradition. Ask someone what Buddhism is and a Vajrayana person will give the vajrayana line, the Zen person the Zen line, and the Theravadin person the Theravadin line.
While I am satisfied with the traditional exegesis that the vajrayana teaching was bestowed by Shakyamuni in the form of Vajrasattva rather than in his physical body and that the Mahayana sutras were true records of his words in the nirmanakaya form, I am not sure that it matters greatly to me personally whether Mahayana and Vajrayana trace back to Lord Shakyamuni or not.
As far as I am concerned, my own tsawai lama was a Buddha and if the teachings only traced back as far as his own enlightened mind, that would be quite enough authority for me. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it is better. I am quite content to test the teachings in the crucible of experience and analysis rather than rely purely on the authority of a hoary antiquity. I don't think that buddhahood is so far away. There have been countless realized beings throughout the history of Dharma in this world.
Consistency and reductionism are an ever-present danger. Just because a system of thought or a history is consistent doesn't mean it is true. There could be multiple levels of truth, in fact. We could have what the Theravadins believe as one truth and what Mahayanists believe as another equivalent truth. Beyond that, it could be that many other systems are equally true whether Hindu, Christian, Muslim.
As a culture, we have lost the ability to say "us" and "we". Everything devolves around warring sets of credentials. The way to bridge the gap is to worry less about holes in our historical record and to focus on what is true and useful in contemplation. In the words of the inimitable Frankenfurter:
"Don't dream it, be it."
Thank you for this wonderful thread. It was delightful to read.
Blessings and Metta,
Karma Dorje
How then does this story of the Buddha teaching the Mahayanist ideals to a few in secret and word not getting out for centuries work? That does not seem at all the way the Buddha operated, does not seem like it would have been necessary, and goes a long way toward undermining the validity of former teachings that were greatly detailed over the course of 45 years by the Buddha. Forgive me if I'm a little blind here, but it just doesn't make sense. Inconsistencies like that are red flags. I'm not a member of any one school, so don't take it as a personal bias; just a red flag.
In this way, our Future Gotama had adorned himself with the flower of prophecy, "This man will certainly become a Buddha amongst three kinds of beings (men, Devas and Brahmas)", uttered by the twenty-four Buddhas, ranging from Dipankara to Kassapa, out of the twenty seven Buddhas who appeared in the period of time lasting four asankhyeyya and one hundred thousand aeons. Throughout that period of four asankhyeyya and one hundred thousand aeons, the Bodhisatta had endeavoured to fulfil the Perfections (Parami), sacrifices (caga) and virtues through practices (cariya) by the aforesaid four means of development (bhavana) and reached the pinnacle of the fulfillment of all these requisites conducive to the attainment of Buddhahood. This being so, in the last existence as a Future Buddha when he was reborn as Prince Vessantara, he brought to termination the entire period of Parami-accumulation by performing all the final acts of merit which surpassed everything, which was beyond comparison and which was to be crowned with success of enlightenment. This commanded the awe and veneration even of the inanimate great earth (mahapathavi) that quaked and trembled seven times. And having ended his life-span in the human abode, the Future Buddha was reborn as a Deva by the name of Setaketu in the abode of Tusita. He was endowed with the ten attributes in which he was superior to other Devas, namely, (1) long life; (2) physical beauty; (3) great happiness; (4) immense wealth and retinue; (5) authority and power, (6) sense of sight; (7) sense of hearing; (8) sense of smell, (9) sense of taste; (10) sense of touch.
source: http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/gotama/gotama01.htm
From a historical perspective, we don't really know much directly about how the Buddha taught. Different schools have different understandings, it sounds like your reading has been from a Theravada perspective, which of course is going to deprecate the possibility of an esoteric aspect to Dharma. I don't think that Vajrayana undermines Sutric Buddhism at all, in fact it is an essential part of our practice and understanding, without which enlightenment would not be possible.
In one of my replies to another poster above, I outlined a way of looking at the Buddha's teaching that both respects the idea that he was completely open, and that he was also creating the potential for future growth within the Dharma.
"From my limited present understanding, it seems that another possibility at work here, is that in the awesome fullness of the Buddha's teachings, rather than being divided into esoteric and exoteric streams with one held within 'the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back,' perhaps within the mindstreams of the listeners were planted seeds. As Bhikku Bodhi says 'This altruistic dimension might be seen as the "seed" from which the bodhisattva doctrine developed and thus as one of the elements in ancient Buddhism that contributed to the emergence of the Mahāyāna.'
Another such seed, implying different dimensions of instruction, might be the idea that the Buddha's very life was a teaching, as well as his recorded words. 'First, he serves as an example, the supreme example; almost every aspect of his life is exemplary, but above all, his very person demonstrates the possibility of attaining perfect freedom from all the fetters of the mind, complete release from suffering, release from the pitfalls of birth and death.'
Another potential seed would be the notion that different types of students are best served by very different types of teachings. 'He is perfect in all respects, and the most important of his perfections is his ability to teach the Dharma in ways that are best suited to the capacities of those who come to him for guidance. His teaching is always exactly suited to the capacities of those who seek his help, and when they follow his instructions, they receive favorable results, whether it be merely the gain of faith or the attainment of liberation.'"
Does that resonate with your understanding of Buddhadharma?