bodhisatva or arhant?

T

toujour_333

a simple buddhist
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
augusta, ga
which path do u think is best?

if im not mistaken, the arhant path is strictly for theravadin buddhists, whereas the boshisatva path is both mahayana and varjayana. however, can someone explain the difference in the paths?

if im not mistaken, the bodhisatva works to become enlightened in order to help other sentient beings to become enlightened, but the arhant is just working for his/her own enlightenment. is that correct? why is the bodhisatva path seen as a more noble path than the arhant? and which path are you personally working towards?

these questions are for anyone who wishes to participate in this survey type thread. personally, i havent decided yet what path to take as far as those two go. personally, i think that one could possibly do more good for people as a buddha, so the arhant path seems better, but then again, buddhas are very rare, so the bodhisatva path also seems very noble. what is everyones perspective on this issue.

thanks and be well in peace
 
Namaste Toujour,

thank you for the post.

hmm... well.. let me say this about that...

All Three Vehicles (Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana) teach the Solitary Realizer (pratyeka-buddha), Foe Destroyer (Arhant) and Liberator (Bodhisattva) paths their main difference is where the focus on these lie.

for beings in the Hinyana Vehicle, beings that walk the Bodhisattva path are exceedingly rare and, as a consequence, such is rarely discussed. it is somewhat different in the Mahayana and Vajrayana, as you may know. for these schools beings that walk the Bodhisattva path are still rare but nevertheless, it is the path that is encouraged.

this is from a previous post...

According to Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, Hearer and Solitary Realizer Foe Destroyers (Arhan) are lower than a Budda. All three are equally liberated from cyclic existence and all will equally disappear upon death with the severance of their continuum of consciousness and form. However, while they are alive, a Bodhisattva at the effect stage is called a Buddha whereas the others are only called Foe Destroyers - those who have destroyed the foes of the afflictions, mainly desire, hatred, and ignorance - because a Buddha has special knowledge, more subtle clarivoyance, and a distinctive body. A Bodhisattva accumulates merit and wisdom for three countless aeons, thus attaining the greater fruit of Buddhahood. For Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, a person treading the path of Buddhahood is very rare.

Both Hinyana tenet systems present three vehicles which they say are capable of bearing practitioners to their desired fruit. Both present an emptiness that must be understood in order to reach the goal, and in both systems this emptiness is the non-substantialiy of persons. They prove that a person is not a self-sufficient entity and does not substantially exist as the controller of mind and body, like a lord over it's subjects. Through realizing and becoming accustomed to this insubstantiality, the afflictions and thereby, all sufferings are said to be destroyed. According to the Hinyana tenet systems the path of wisdom is the same for Hinyanists--Hearers and Solitary Realizers--and for Bodhisattvas. The length of time that practitioners spend amassing meritorious power constitutes the essential difference between the vechiles.

Hearers and Solitary realizers all eventually proceed to the Bodhisattva path. After sometimes spending aeons in solitary trance, they are aroused by Buddhas who make them aware that they have not fulfilled even their own welfare, not to mention the welfare of others. Thus, though there are three vehicles, there is only one final vehicle.

As i said in a previous posting regarding the differences in Buddhist philosophy, the best way to get an understand of the different schools is by understanding their view of emptiness

each school asserts a certain view of selflessness and proceeds from Hinyanaist schools Vaibhasika and Sautrantika to Mahayanist schools Chittamatra, Svatantrika and finally, Pransangika.

Selflessness is divided into two types: of persons and of phenomena. The selfless of persons is also divided into two: coarse and subtle. Vaibhasika and Sautrantika do not assert a selflessness of phenomena because, for them, phenomena truly exist and are other entities from a perceiving consciousness.

With regard to the personal selflessness, all systems present a subtle and coarse view. According to the non-Pransangika systems the coarse is the emptiness of a permanent, partless, independent person. The misconception of such a self is only artificial, not innate -- it is based on the assumption of a non-Buddhist system. In other words, we do not naturally misconceive the person to have the three qualities of permanence, partlessness and independence.

perhaps, this will help show the matter in another way:


Vaibhasika and Sautrantika:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

Chittamatra:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object and lack of naturally being a base of a name.

Madhyamika (Savtantrika and Prasangika):

Savtantrika:
selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: coarse: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object (though this is properly Yogachara)
subtle: lack of being an entity not posited through appearing to a non-defective consciousness.

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

(please note, the use of the term Hinyana is to denote the historical schools which used to exist in this Vehicle. in modern Buddhism, the only extant school of Hinyana Buddhism is Theraveda. thus, we simply call it Theravedan Buddhism, today)

as for which is best.... that is a matter of personal inclination, in my view.

metta,

~v
 
well toujour, like u, I'm a simple buddhist and to me, the only difference between the paths is this- most ppl investigate buddhism because they are unhappy or dissatisfied in some way, and they don't take it much further than listening to it, or reading about other ppl's theories, so they are like hearers...

on a continuum, we would then have solitary realizers, who are first hearers, but seek enlightenment for themselves, which isn't a sin, and once they realise the truths of buddhism, thats enough for them, then next come arhants, the noble ones, who like everyone else, start off as hearers, but are learned types, (or they like the outfits and the gangs) regardless, they study the doctrine and go onto teach, bringing others to buddhism, and then we have bodhisattvas...

if we look at both the mahayana and the vajrayana vehicles, then a bodhisattva is like a god, or a saint, some great being, yet really, these bodhisattvas are the gods of hinduism... avalokitesvara, the one who was lord before the world, has 1000 arms, much like Lord Brahma, who was also lord before the world (was made), and who also had 1000 arms...manjushri with his big sword is a bit like Shiva, and Amitabha, with his bowl in his hands, is probably Vishnu... this also applies to most ofthe other bodhisattvas too, who are remarkably similiar to hindu or, in vajrayana's case, Bon deities... as far as I know, buddha never mentioned the gods, and he never spoke about bodhisattvas either, although no doubt a less simple buddhist than myself can prove me wrong here, with some scriptural citation...

regardless, in my version of buddhism, a bodhisattva is someone who knows things, or is awakened (bodhi) to their own extistence, (sat", being, "tva" I), and rather than be gods, or some kind of saint, a bodhisattva is no more than an enlightened being who has awakened and found themselves...

however, a being like this is rare, in truth, as although a man might be a Lama, or a teacher, he is not neccesarily a bodhisattva, or an awakened being... most of the teachers I've met couldn't find their own ass in the dark, but hey, that's defiling the precious jewel of the sangha, so I'll shut up about that...

a theravadin can be a bodhisattva, and a mahayanist can be an arhan(t).. theravadins and mahayanists and vajrajanists are only using different models of the same vehicle, in theory...

personally, I would not worry about what different schools say about the subtle differences between the different lineages and schools if u dont know much about buddhism, unless u want to impress other buddhists with ur vast knowledge... much better that u try to adhere to the five great gifts (mahadana), or precepts, and do some "not thinking" or samatha meditation every day, and have a look at some different teachings, from all the different vehicles.. after all, sometimes the way is not the way...


gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha
 
Last edited:
if we look at both the mahayana and the vajrayana vehicles, then a bodhisattva is like a god,
Click to expand...

I'm enclined to disagree. A bodhisattva is someone who is worthy of enlightenment, but doesn't out of compassion in order to help other sentient beings. However, the question arises, what does this mean?

I like Thich Nhat Hanh's version of a Bodhisattva. He claims we can all be bodhisattva's through our actions. Yes, there are main Bodhisattva's like you mentioned, but by being kind and compassionate, you too can be a Bodhisattva. This is the main difference between Theravada and Mahayana sects. The Theravada sect claims the Arhat is the higher goal, which limits the amount of people who attain Enlightenment. This is why Theravada is sometimes called Hinayana (means "lesser vehicle" describing the amount of people available to reach the other shore).
Mahayana appeals to many more people because greater importance is placed upon the Bodhisattva as being the higher goal. This appeals to a wider range of people due to the fact that anyone can truly become a Bodhisattva (Buddha-to-be). This is where Mahayana gets it's name (Mahayana means "greater vehicle" due to a larger amount of people to cross the shore of Samsara).
 
I personally believe there is no wrong path towards liberation (while avoiding extremes of course), this is where the 10,000 dharma doors come in. This is why I believe all three sects (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajradhara) all basically get along. Remember, Nirvana means the EXTINCTION OF ALL NOTIONS. To say one is wrong and the other is right would be against this, and one would be clinging to their personal beliefs, which must be escaped to begin with.
 
if we look at both the mahayana and the vajrayana vehicles, then a bodhisattva is like a god, or a saint, some great being, yet really, these bodhisattvas are the gods of hinduism... avalokitesvara, the one who was lord before the world, has 1000 arms, much like Lord Brahma, who was also lord before the world (was made), and who also had 1000 arms...manjushri with his big sword is a bit like Shiva, and Amitabha, with his bowl in his hands, is probably Vishnu... this also applies to most ofthe other bodhisattvas too, who are remarkably similiar to hindu or, in vajrayana's case, Bon deities... as far as I know, buddha never mentioned the gods, and he never spoke about bodhisattvas either, although no doubt a less simple buddhist than myself can prove me wrong here, with some scriptural citation...
Click to expand...
Careful not to draw similarities between religions because some of the iconography is the same. If we were to do that, then you might think Catholics were heading the same direction as Hari Krishnas and Nyingmapa yogis just because they all use a mala. What we know today as 'Hinduism', and Tantric Buddhism grew in the same area with a similar goal, and there was a lot of exchange because of that. However, it's far too complex a situation to make such sweeping statements.

Another epithet of the enlightened one is pali: sattha devamanussanam "Teacher of Gods and Humans". On many occasions he instructed devas, nagas (serpent-like creatures), yakkhas (local spirits) etc. It was Brahma Sahampati who offered a golden wheel to the Buddha that he may teach the precious Dharma.

The Jataka tales are an accepted part of the Theravadin canon. They include the stories of the Buddha's previous lives as a Bodhisattva.

His Holiness Sakya Trizin says there are three motivating factors for liberation from samsara. The first is fear, of the suffering of samsara. We go for refuge and walk the path because we don't want to suffer anymore. This is primary motivating factor of the Arhat.
The second is compassion. We see the suffering of sentient beings (who have all been our mothers who cared for and cherished us in previous lives,) and we're moved to find a lasting answer to their misery. This is the motivating factor of the bodhisattva, and is more efficient than that of the Arhat.
 
well, I dont draw comparisions between the systems because the iconography might appear the same, but because of the facts. If we want buddhism to be the same as any other religion, with its gods and all the bowing and scraping, then this is okay, as long as all we want to do is appease peasants, who do not have the wherewithal or the education to appreciate buddhism for the great philosophy it is, and need gods to bow and scrape in front of, and it is okay, as long as we accept that we are destroying what is so unique and powerful about buddhism in the first place.

for me, all this goes to show is that buddhism really is in a state of decline. what is buddhism, after all? Is it no more than fairy tales for children? baldies in robes staring at the wall and convincing themselves their working for a better world, filling their heads full of fairy tales?

jatakas are great, for five year olds, but are worthless to me. I do not believe they are the teachings of buddha. Nor do I believe that Buddha was some kind of god. I think that like me, and like u, and even like Jesus, he was a man. I don't believe Buddha ran round India speaking with big serpents and ghosts, but that is just my opinion. Buddhism is not about the gods. Buddhism is ultimately, about finding peace within urself, knowing the self, and finding happiness by conquering suffering. For yourself. Compassion is overrated, and easily turns to pity. Equanimity is easier.

I would say that yes, hare krsnas are heading in the same direction as catholics, as they are both turning towards their gods, both praying, both hoping for a revelation, succour, comfort, etc, etc.

as for the mothers thing: I hate it, its so cliche. "we should love all sentient beings like our mothers". I am indifferent to my own. I have no compassion for her. All these little sound bites we attach ourselves to- and say- this is the way... But is it the way?

Compassion, like everything else, can be a fetter. Most people who investigate buddhism don't do it because they are compassionate and want to help the world. They do it because they're searching, like everyone else is, for something to make them happy and complete, or as u say, to avoid suffering. If they were really that filled with love for humanity that they want to devote themselves to the dharma, then yes, I'll vote for them, but I'd much prefer it if they did an afternoon a week in a charity shop instead. I'd prefer they earned a living and lived in the real world, and really made a difference via a career in medicine or social work or science. Staring at the wall and kidding urself ur becoming an enlightened being, like the buddha, or fantasising imaginary beings to people ur own bardo just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

If people tell me that they are being good buddhists because they are so filled with compassion they had no choice, then I offended that they will not be honest. I ask every buddhist I encounter- what made u choose buddhism, then, and everytime they say- because I was unhappy, or because I was suffering. I have only ever met 1 buddhist who said they got further into buddhism because they liked the doctrine and it made sense to them. Just one.

As I said in my initial post, we can all be bodhisattvas, but this has little to do with compassion. In much the same way we can all be enlightened beings, and attain "buddhahood", in our own lifetime, in the here and now.
 
Namaste Francis,

thank you for the post.

Francis king said:
well, I dont draw comparisions between the systems because the iconography might appear the same, but because of the facts.
Click to expand...

however, it is those facts which are in question. the Buddha Dharma does not advocate worship of any being, let alone Buddhas.

If we want buddhism to be the same as any other religion, with its gods and all the bowing and scraping, then this is okay, as long as all we want to do is appease peasants, who do not have the wherewithal or the education to appreciate buddhism for the great philosophy it is, and need gods to bow and scrape in front of, and it is okay, as long as we accept that we are destroying what is so unique and powerful about buddhism in the first place.
Click to expand...

are you aware that Buddha Dharma has four, distinct philosophical schools... it is not a monolithic philosophical entity?

the Buddha Dharma is not like the other religious paradigms upon this world system though it shares many core ethical and moral values with most religious traditions.

if, as you say, peasants cannot appreicate the finer philosophical arguments, does that mean that they should be deprived of the Dharma, in whichever manner is most beneficial to them?

jatakas are great, for five year olds, but are worthless to me.
Click to expand...

then i would suggest that you are missing the point of them. by the same token, those teachings may not be apropos for you... that said, they may be beneficial to other beings. would you deny them?

I do not believe they are the teachings of buddha. Nor do I believe that Buddha was some kind of god.
Click to expand...

You are free to hold whatever view you'd like about the Suttas, that is something you need to work out for yourself.

it is positive that you do not view Buddhas as gods for they are not. they are Buddhas and Buddhas and deities and devas are not the same thing.

Buddhism is ultimately, about finding peace within urself, knowing the self, and finding happiness by conquering suffering. For yourself. Compassion is overrated, and easily turns to pity. Equanimity is easier.
Click to expand...

that is why the Suttas advocate that one develop Wisdom and Compassion, together, so that they can compliment each other.

as for the mothers thing: I hate it, its so cliche. "we should love all sentient beings like our mothers". I am indifferent to my own. I have no compassion for her. All these little sound bites we attach ourselves to- and say- this is the way... But is it the way?
Click to expand...

so you desire to see her suffer? do you feel compassion for any being?

Compassion, like everything else, can be a fetter.
Click to expand...

naturally. this is why the highest view in Buddhism is "no view".

Most people who investigate buddhism don't do it because they are compassionate and want to help the world.
Click to expand...

you will pardon me, i'm sure, for not being completely trusting of your knowledge of the motivation of most people for anything, let alone something such as their motivation for exploring a particular religious paradigm.

i have found little value in speculating upon others intentions, your mileage may differ.

Staring at the wall and kidding urself ur becoming an enlightened being, like the buddha, or fantasising imaginary beings to people ur own bardo just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

for you, perhaps this is so, for other beings, perhaps it is not. Bodhidharma is said to have cut off his eye lids to stare at a wall, perhaps there is some value there that you are just not seeing.

If people tell me that they are being good buddhists because they are so filled with compassion they had no choice, then I offended that they will not be honest. I ask every buddhist I encounter- what made u choose buddhism, then, and everytime they say- because I was unhappy, or because I was suffering. I have only ever met 1 buddhist who said they got further into buddhism because they liked the doctrine and it made sense to them. Just one.
Click to expand...

that is now, two. I discovered the Dharma through the process of searching and went further into it due to the clear lucidity of the teachings and the experiental method of practice.

metta,

~v
 
bodhi_mindisfree said:
I personally believe there is no wrong path towards liberation (while avoiding extremes of course), this is where the 10,000 dharma doors come in. This is why I believe all three sects (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajradhara) all basically get along. Remember, Nirvana means the EXTINCTION OF ALL NOTIONS. To say one is wrong and the other is right would be against this, and one would be clinging to their personal beliefs, which must be escaped to begin with.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, I am currently researching the paths of buddhism and it just doesn't end, I get so far into studying and then it leads off down another path... Going to take some time... Toujour gave me some nice advice and I am following that to a certain extent but, yeah lots of doors.
 
Well, according to some Sutras, many Arhats who appeared in the Buddha's period are actually great Bodhisttvas.
 
Hi everybody!

Clearly, the Mahayana and Theravada teachings on the subject differ. However, I think there is nothing to worry about. I believe that, when we finally have the choice before us, we will all have the same information available, and people from either tradition will end up making the right choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top