Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi (Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddha, 2010, accesstoinsight.org); edited and expanded by Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly
 |
| Maitreya, the Future-Buddha, dressed as a Central Asian king high in India's Himalayas |
.
I. Competing Buddhist Ideals
 |
| Vajrayana "Buddha Boy," Nepal (maitriya.info) |
The arahant (Sanskrit arhat, enlightened individual) ideal and the bodhisattva (buddha-to-be, supremely enlightened) ideal are often considered the respective guiding ideals of Theravāda ("Teaching of the Enlightened Elders," the first students of the historical Buddha) Buddhism and Mahāyāna ("Greater Vehicle," the idea of waiting for a messiah or savior rather than making the individual effort now that the historical Buddha advocated) Buddhism.
 |
| Theravada "Buddha Girl," USA (Wisdom Q) |
This assumption is not entirely correct, for the Theravāda tradition has (now) absorbed the bodhisattva ideal into its framework and thus recognizes the validity of both arahantship and Buddhahood as objects of aspiration.
It would therefore be more accurate to say that the arahant ideal and the bodhisattva ideal are the respective guiding ideals of Early Buddhism and (later) Mahāyāna Buddhism.
By "Early Buddhism" I (Bhikkhu Bodhi) do not mean the same thing as Theravāda Buddhism that exists in the countries of Southern Asia. I mean the type of Buddhism embodied in the archaic Nikāyas (Volumes) of Theravāda Buddhism and in the corresponding texts of other schools of Indian Buddhism that did not survive the general destruction of Buddhism in India.
 |
| Modern Western ascetic, tattoo proves it? (golfian.com) |
It is important to recognize that these ideals, in the forms that they have come down to us, originate from different bodies of literature stemming from different periods in the historical development of Buddhism.
If we don't take this fact into account and simply compare these two ideals as described in Buddhist canonical texts, we might assume that the two were originally expounded by the historical Buddha himself. And we might then suppose that the Buddha -- living and teaching on the Ganges plain in the 5th century C.E. -- offered his followers a choice between them, as if to say:
"This is the arahant ideal, which has such and such features, and that is the bodhisattva ideal, which has such and such features. Choose whichever one you like." [Note 1]
- NOTE 1: There is also a third model of the Buddhist spiritual life, that of the pacceka-buddha (Sanskrit pratyeka-buddha). The pacceka-buddha is similar in many respects to the enlightened-disciple or arahant, except that whereas the disciple arahant attains enlightenment under the guidance of a Buddha, the pacceka-buddha (like a samma-sambuddha) gains enlightenment without any outside guidance. Otherwise, the combination of qualities that constitute this type is essentially the same. In the literature of the Buddhist systems, we often read of three types of enlightened ones -- Pali: sāvakas, pacceka-buddhas, and sammā-sambuddhas (Sanskrit: śrāvakas, pratyeka-buddhas, and samyak-sambuddhas) -- and of the three "vehicles" (yāna) that lead to these attainments: the śrāvaka-yāna, the pratyekabuddha-yāna, and the bodhisattva-yāna.
The Mahāyāna sūtras (discourses), such as the (apocryphal) Mahāprajñā-pāramitā Sūtra (the Heart Sutra) and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra (the Lotus Sūtra), give the impression that the Buddha did teach both ideals.
Such sūtras, however, certainly are not archaic. To the contrary, they are relatively late (latter day) attempts to schematize the different types of Buddhist practice that had evolved over a period of roughly 400 years after the Buddha's pari-nirvāṇa.
The most archaic Buddhist texts -- the Pali language Nikāyas and their counterparts from other early schools (some of which have been preserved in the Chinese language Āgamas or "Scriptures" and the Tibetan Kanjur or "Translation of the Word") -- depict the ideal for the Buddhist disciple as the arahant.
The most archaic Buddhist texts -- the Pali language Nikāyas and their counterparts from other early schools (some of which have been preserved in the Chinese language Āgamas or "Scriptures" and the Tibetan Kanjur or "Translation of the Word") -- depict the ideal for the Buddhist disciple as the arahant.
The Mahāyāna sūtras, composed a few centuries later in a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, depict the ideal for the Mahāyāna follower as the bodhisattva. Now some people argue that because the arahant is the ideal of Early Buddhism, while the bodhisattva is the ideal of later Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Mahāyāna must be a more advanced or highly developed type of Buddhism, a more ultimate teaching compared to the simpler, more basic teaching of the Nikāyas.
That (foolishness) is indeed an attitude common among Mahāyānists, which I will call "Mahāyāna elitism." An opposing attitude common among conservative advocates of the Nikāyas rejects all later developments in the history of Buddhist thought as deviation and distortion, a fall away from the "pristine purity" of the ancient teaching. I call this (foolish) attitude "Nikāya purism."
Taking the arahant ideal alone as valid, Nikāya purists reject the bodhisattva ideal, sometimes forcefully and even aggressively.
I have been seeking a point of view that can do justice to both perspectives, that of the Nikāyas and the early Mahāyāna sūtras, a point of view that can accommodate their respective strengths without falling into a soft and easy syncretism, without blotting out conceptual dissonances between them, without abandoning faithfulness to the historical records -- yet one which also recognizes that these records are by no means crystal clear and are unlikely to be free of bias.
This task has by no means been easy. It is much simpler to adopt either a standpoint of "Nikāya purism" or one of "Mahāyāna elitism" and hold to it without flinching. The problem with these two standpoints, however, is that both are obliged to neglect facts that are discomforting to their respective points of view. More
 |
| American Bhikkhu Bodhi |
Although I am ordained as a Theravāda Buddhist monk, in this essay I am not going to be defending the opinions of any particular school of Buddhism or trying to uphold a sectarian point of view. For six years, I have lived in Chinese Mahāyāna monasteries, and my understanding of Buddhism has been particularly enriched by my contact with the teachings of the Chinese scholar-monk Master Yinshun (1906-2005) and his most senior living pupil, Master Renjun, the founder of Bodhi Monastery in New Jersey. My first purpose is to draw out from the texts what the texts say explicitly, and also what they imply, about these two competing ideals of the Buddhist life. At the end, when I draw my conclusions, I will clearly state them as such, and they will be entirely my own. Sometimes I will not draw conclusions but instead raise questions, pointing to problems in the history of Buddhism that I am acutely aware of but unfortunately cannot resolve. It is quite possible that what I consider a nuanced and balanced point of view will draw fire from partisan advocates on both sides of the divide. However, from the standpoint of my present understanding, I have no choice but to take this risk.
Is there a violent Rapture in Buddhism?
ReplyDelete