Arhat and Bodhisattva

[Brian]

I openly acknowledge my profound ignorance of Buddhism but this article intrigued me:

http://www.lionsroar.com/between-arhat-and-bodhisattva

 

I would welcome polite feedback on it, please?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Some smart points! I don't get nirvana or emptiness anything like enough to really grasp all of what he's saying, but there's something compelling in his idea that 'In the equipoise of the middle way, the infinite and the void are sustained. They complement each other; they balance each other out.'

 

It's very strange that the Buddha is said to have initially not wanted to teach, and that the Pali Canon says nothing about the bodhisattva path. I don't buy the idea that people at the time weren't ready for Mahayana. Come on.   Yet the bodhisattva ideal is incredible compassion - I see no way taking it seriously couldn't be beneficial - and emptiness makes sense, it's just taking anatta further. 

 

Practice probably answers these questions more than any amount of pondering could, of course.

[ChiForce]

Wait a minute, I thought all Arhats are Bodhisattva.  The difference is the vehicle in which the cultivator chooses to realize his or her enlightenment.  The Arhat is the Theravada Buddhism ideal in which the study and the intellectualization of the suttas are the means to realize enlightenment.  We are talking about monks. 

 

In the samyaksamkaya and Pratyeka paths, the cultivator obtains enlightenment on his or her own efforts without teachers...when the time of the Dharma teaching is lost.  We are talking about other mortal beings became highly realized celestial beings, but not through the Buddhist monk community....like the Chinese 8 Taoist immortals.  Beings managed to realize enlightenment by pondering and realizing the 12 dependent origination of suffering within its historical time frame and its own historical content.  Their enlightenment is historical in context and derived from the social and historical substances of their own lives.  

 

In the Mahayana path, the cultivator chooses to realize enlightenment only when he or she has saved and liberated all sentiment beings from suffering.  

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

[...]The Arhat is the Theravada Buddhism ideal in which the study and the intellectualization of the suttas are the means to realize enlightenment.  We are talking about monks.

 

[...]In the Mahayana path, the cultivator chooses to realize enlightenment only when he or she has saved and liberated all sentiment beings from suffering.[...]

 

In Theravada, awakening comes from vipassana (directly realizing impermanence, dukkha, anatta, dependent origination, four noble truths, etc). Shamatha and virtue are also needed of course. Intellectual study can help, but doesn't bring about awakening. Laypeople can achieve the same awakening, the lifestyle just makes it harder.

 

My understanding of the bodhisattva path is that one tries to reach awakening, but with the aim of still being reborn themselves so that they can keep guiding others to awakening. This is the same basic practice, but with the development of bodhichitta, and realizing emptiness in addition to what an arhat realizes. I think a pratyekabuddha is basically a Buddha who decides not to teach.  

 

But I'm fairly confused, tbh. *shrug* 

[Seeker of Wisdom]

*ignore, double post*

Edited August 17, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[ChiForce]

In Theravada, awakening comes from vipassana (directly realizing impermanence, dukkha, anatta, dependent origination, four noble truths, etc). Shamatha and virtue are also needed of course. Intellectual study can help, but doesn't bring about awakening. Laypeople can achieve the same awakening, the lifestyle just makes it harder.

 

My understanding of the bodhisattva path is that one tries to reach awakening, but with the aim of still being reborn themselves so that they can keep guiding others to awakening. This is the same basic practice, but with the development of bodhichitta, and realizing emptiness in addition to what an arhat realizes. I think a pratyekabuddha is basically a Buddha who decides not to teach.  

 

But I'm fairly confused, tbh. *shrug* 

Right, you can not liberate all sentiment beings in one life time.  So, another rebirth is called for and in order....  Of course, we are talking about a rebirth in the next eon, not the immediate, next rebirth.... 

[doc benway]

I openly acknowledge my profound ignorance of Buddhism but this article intrigued me:

http://www.lionsroar.com/between-arhat-and-bodhisattva

 

I would welcome polite feedback on it, please?

I think there is a relatively easy was to approach this issue.

 

Personal practice. 

 

Whether we aspire to liberate ourselves or liberate ourselves with the express intention of liberating all sentient beings, the journey begins here and now with my own personal practice. When I reach the level of arhat, I am confident that I will know where to go from there.

 

Concerning myself with that now is nothing more than a distraction from my current practice. 

[Edward M]

I'm probably the most ignorant on this thread, but i clicked on the link, and immediately saw the Ajahn Chah quote: don't be an arhant dont be a boddhisattva be nothing or you will suffer.

 

This is a great quote, and has a lot of truth in it.  If you are aspiring to be 'something' other than yourself, if you are giving yourself any type of label, whether in the present or in the future, then you are not being your own true authentic self and hence will suffer.

 

It just comes down to honesty in the present.  If you 'get somewhere' in someone else's eyes and they chose to label you, fine, but don't become or identify with the label, that takes one away from themselves. 

 

Have a feeling that is what Steve in the post above was also getting at..

 

Hope i haven't strayed off topic?

 

Peace,

Edward

[Jeff]

I openly acknowledge my profound ignorance of Buddhism but this article intrigued me:

http://www.lionsroar.com/between-arhat-and-bodhisattva

 

I would welcome polite feedback on it, please?

 

There is a meaningful difference between the two. From the Avatamsaka Sutra...

 

Great bodhisattvas have no attachment to Buddha and do not develop attachments; 

they have no attachment to the teachings and do not develop attachments; they have 

no attachment to lands and do not develop attachments; they have no attachments 

to sentient beings and do not develop attachments. They do not see that there are 

sentient beings, yet they carry on educational activity, civilizing and teaching ways 

of liberation; they do not give up the practices of bodhisattvas with great compassion 

and great commitment. Seeing buddhas and hearing their teachings, they act accordingly; 

trusting the buddhas they plant roots of goodness, ceaselessly honoring and serving them. 

 

They are able to shake infinite worlds in the ten directions by spiritual powers; their minds are 

broad, being equal to the cosmos. They know various explanations of truth, they know how 

many sentient beings there are, they know the differences among sentient beings, they know 

the birth of suffering, they know the extinction of suffering; while knowing all acts are like reflected 

images, they carry out the deeds of bodhisattvas. They sever the root of all subjection to birth. 

 

They carry out practices of bodhisattvas for the sole purpose of saving sentient beings and yet 

do not practice anything. Conforming to the essential nature of all buddhas, they develop a mind 

like an immense mountain. They know all falsehood and delusion, and enter the door of omniscience. 

Their knowledge and wisdom are broad and vast and unshakable, due to the attainment of true enlightenment. 

This is the insight of practical knowledge of equally saving all sentient beings in the ocean of birth and death.

[Brian]

Thank you, Jeff.

[Spotless]

When one is realized an "eon" is not a long time - eon's cease.

One does not endure the rise of the sentient beings.

[Spotless]

It should not be a surprise that at first the Buddha did not want to teach.

 

Pull the image you have of Buddha down to that of being a friend next to you (or an enemy), even the self of you that you despise.

 

He/she is nothing more or less.

 

Upon achieving no inertia - complete transformation is not complete - it is and never is.

 

Everything falls away - "nothing" remains in complete presence - compiling a teaching to nothingness where no compilation takes place - it was not "he" that did not "want to teach" - the teaching was yet to come forth.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Spotless