Arhant vs Boddhisattva... which "goal" did the Buddha teach?

[punkdbass]

Okay so let me start by saying that I have a very superficial knowledge of the concepts of an "Arhant" or "Boddhisattva." But they way I currently see it, and feel free to correct me, is that both of these concepts can be seen as ultimate "goals" in which one's spiritual practice, hopefully, would one day lead too. When I think about these concepts, I feel like the arhant is one who merely "melts away" or is wholly absorbed into the universe, while the Boddhisattva is someone who eternally strives for the well being of others.

In Eknath Easwaran's commentary on the Saints and Thousands chapter of the Dhammapada, it is said that an Arhant is a "never returner" - "their purpose in life is fulfilled and therefore they need never be born again. they may then become an arhant, one whose path in life cannot even be traced because their actions no longer leave behind the residue of karma... the cycle of birth and death no longer contains them...they act in complete freedom.. Since they lake nothing, there is nothing that life has to offer that they need or desire.

Some people feel the goal of "arhantship" is selfish, but the commentator points out that the Buddha would still advocate for actively caring for others (see Vinaya Pitaka 1.20-21)

Apparently Mahayana Buddhists do not think arhantship is the highest ideal, and went so far as to call the arhant a "private Buddha - implying that such people do not share the fruits of their attainment, deserting a suffering humanity to bask in nirvana." The Mahayana ideal was called the Bodhisattva - a term which came to mean anyone who vows to be reborn countless times, never to enter final nirvana until the last sentient being is rescued from samsara (apparently the term "Bodhisattva" had a different meaning for early Buddhism/present day Theravada tradition). Anyway, so I have a few questions:

1. Which ideal the Buddha teach? Does the Mahayana Boddhisattva ideal have any scriptural backing from the Buddha, or is it merely a later invention to appease those Buddhists who were dissatisfied with the ideal of arhantship?

2. Secondly, do you feel that the Mahayana Buddhists' apparent negative reaction to the idea of arhantship came from a misunderstanding? For the commentator, citing Vinaya Pitaka 1.20 seems to suggest that no matter where you are on the spiritual path, Buddha ALWAYS endorses/advocates for one actively giving compassion to others and helping others to be happy, even if you are an arhant..... Or, do you feel like there is something lacking is the idea of the "arhant" being the ideal or purpose for a Buddhist life?

 

[von bek]

As A Theravadin, I believe arahant is the goal. If you read the Pali canon, the Buddha repeatedly talks of four attainments on the way to full realization to Nibbana, stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, and arahant. An arahant has the same realization as a Buddha, the difference is a Buddha discovers the way on his own while arahants follow the way already established by a Buddha. (Now, this does not mean that a Buddha did not learn of Buddhism in a previous lifetime; but, it does mean that when that Buddha achieves enlightenment, he will have done so in a lifetime when the dhamma is absent from the world. Strictly speaking, each Buddha rediscovers the Buddhadhamma.)

In the Pali Canon, Gautama Buddha refers to himself as a bodhisattva prior to attaining enlightenment. Bodhisattva is not taught as a goal in the Pali texts, it is a word used to refer to beings who are to become actual Buddhas in a future lifetime.

And yes, I do believe the idea that an arahant is a selfish goal is an absurd position. It is clear that in order to attain such a state, deep compassion and wisdom must be cultivated. All concepts of self and ego have been permanently dissolved.

 

[DreadFish]

To me, it seems a bodhisattva is not a goal because you are a bodhisattva by how you act, no where you get. Anyway, it seems the definition is different between Theravada and Mahayana, so a direct comparison might not be proper. In Theravada, a Buddha is as von bek said: someone who attains awakening and reintroduces the Dhamma to the world. In Mahayana, a Buddha is pretty much the same as an arhant, a person who is fully awake, regardless of whether they heard the teachings from a Buddha or they woke up on their own.

As far as Theravada, like von bek has mentioned, the bodhisattva is someone who is on the way to becoming a Buddha. In Mahayana, a bodhisattva is a person who aspires to awaken for the benefit of all beings. Or, alternatively, I have read it as a person who, in addition to practicing for the benefit of all beings will put off their own nirvana in order to help all other beings get there first. I see the first Mahayana version as a way to inspire compassion and selfless service as a way to weaken attachment to a false sense of self and become more open. So it's great, but by no means a be-all-end-all thing. Also, certain Mahayana schools will say that, since all things are connected, one cannot be fully awakened until all are awakened, so the path of the bodhisattva is the logical conclusion.

I've also thought it silly that some people say an arhant is selfish. You can't achieve awakening if you are selfish because awakening implies freedom from attachment to an idea of an individuality that is not really there. I would say that, by definition, someone who is awake cannot be selfish. There have been plenty of arhants who have taught others after their own awakening, so I see it as a silly idea. There has been plenty of elitism toward Theravada in the history of Mahayana development.

 

[punkdbass]

Thanks guys, I guess the reason I created this thread was because the Buddhist perspective on "the purpose of life" is sort of confusing to me. I've been less interested in metaphysics lately though (I think "the purpose of life" is a more metaphysical question), and have been more interested in my practice. As the member Willamena here said, regarding the question of the Buddhist perspective on the purpose of life: "Practice is, or it isn't."

I think I can be content with not perfectly understanding purpose in life and rebirth - i.e. the more metaphysical aspects of Buddhism.. for I am more interested in experiencing mindfulness practice right now. Thanks though!

 

[crossfire]

Even in some Mahayana schools, a Bodhisattva is not awakened. Buddha referred to himself before his awakening as "an unawakened Bodhisattva."

I've posted this story quite a bit, but it fits this thread perfectly.

The Cucumber Sage

 

[von bek]

punkdbass,

You said in another thread that you had begun attending a monastery. May I ask what tradition it is?

 

[punkdbass]

punkdbass,

You said in another thread that you had begun attending a monastery. May I ask what tradition it is?

I'm not 100% sure. The member Ablaze here recommended this sangha too me, and I've been very pleased with the sangha thus far. You can check out their website here. They are associated with the "Insight Meditation Society" and Vipassana meditation.

To be fair, there are other Buddhist sanghas I could check out in Minneapolis, but I'm pretty happy with this place so far. All of their services are free, which works out great with my grad student budget haha

 

[von bek]

I'm not 100% sure. The member Ablaze here recommended this sangha too me, and I've been very pleased with the sangha thus far. You can check out their website here. They are associated with the "Insight Meditation Society" and Vipassana meditation.

To be fair, there are other Buddhist sanghas I could check out in Minneapolis, but I'm pretty happy with this place so far. All of their services are free, which works out great with my grad student budget haha

It is Theravadin. Thank you, I was simply curious. Looks like a good place.

 

[DreadFish]

I'd say that there's not really a "point" or purpose to life, it just does it's own creative thing (maybe that's the purpose). So the goal in Buddhism is to awaken to the fact of how everything is working so that we no longer experience stress and dissatisfaction, which is based on our misunderstanding of life.

Our misunderstanding of reality brings us stress and dissatisfaction and the goal of Buddhism is to understand reality so that we no longer experience these things. Then, I can only assume, reality continues to do what it does and there is peace and freedom. Regardless of what some might think, there is no getting to any place; that idea itself would be based on a misunderstanding.

Also, that place you're going to looks like a good place.

Common Ground welcomes skillful means from all Buddhist traditions as well as other spiritual traditions dedicated to wisdom and compassion.

This is totally in the spirit of the Buddha's teaching.

 

[Ablaze]

Consider this piece of wisdom from Thai Forest Monk Ajahn Chah:

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.

 

[Ablaze]

I'm not 100% sure. The member Ablaze here recommended this sangha too me, and I've been very pleased with the sangha thus far. You can check out their website here. They are associated with the "Insight Meditation Society" and Vipassana meditation.

To be fair, there are other Buddhist sanghas I could check out in Minneapolis, but I'm pretty happy with this place so far. All of their services are free, which works out great with my grad student budget haha

Common Ground is first-rate in its preservation of the Buddha's noble teachings. It was through this sangha that I attended my first of several extended, residential, silent meditation retreats at no cost. It was also through this sangha that I underwent Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction training free of charge. It was through this sangha that I learned qigong and yoga. It was also through this sangha that I connected with so many wise and compassionate beings on the path to awakening. Operating exclusively in the spirit of dana or generosity, its offering of Buddhist programs and community-building opportunities is astounding. And no, this is not a promotional ad, but rather a fond reflection on a previous place of practice. So glad to hear you've been enjoying it so far, punkdbass.

:namaste

 

[punkdbass]

Common Ground is first-rate in its preservation of the Buddha's noble teachings. It was through this sangha that I attended my first of several extended, residential, silent meditation retreats at no cost. It was also through this sangha that I underwent Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction training free of charge. It was through this sangha that I learned qigong and yoga. It was also through this sangha that I connected with so many wise and compassionate beings on the path to awakening. Operating exclusively in the spirit of dana or generosity, its offering of Buddhist programs and community-building opportunities is astounding. And no, this is not a promotional ad, but rather a fond reflection on a previous place of practice. So glad to hear you've been enjoying it so far, punkdbass.

:namaste

Yea I meant to send you a message thanking you for recommending CG, as well as for always (subtly) pushing me to start attending a sangha. Getting involved with a sangha definitely has made a world of difference in my practice - and I'm sure the same goes for most others. I don't think one necessarily needs to join a sangha (although I'd highly recommend it for most novice Buddhists), but practicing mindfulness with a community makes it a lot easier to tread the 8-fold path - whereas I think if one largely pursues Buddhism on their own, it's a lot easier to deviate from the 8 fold path but without even knowing it, since you don't really have anyone to help guide you.

 

[von bek]

Yea I meant to send you a message thanking you for recommending CG, as well as for always (subtly) pushing me to start attending a sangha. Getting involved with a sangha definitely has made a world of difference in my practice - and I'm sure the same goes for most others. I don't think one necessarily needs to join a sangha (although I'd highly recommend it for most novice Buddhists), but practicing mindfulness with a community makes it a lot easier to tread the 8-fold path - whereas I think if one largely pursues Buddhism on their own, it's a lot easier to deviate from the 8 fold path but without even knowing it, since you don't really have anyone to help guide you.

Seeing that the place you are attending places a huge emphasis on vipassana practice is really great. I know that it will be of benefit to you!

May you be happy and free from suffering!
:namaste

 

[punkdbass]

Seeing that the place you are attending places a huge emphasis on vipassana practice is really great. I know that it will be of benefit to you!

May you be happy and free from suffering!
:namaste

Thanks von bek! It's definitely a step in the right direction for me. May you be happy and free from suffering as well

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay so let me start by saying that I have a very superficial knowledge of the concepts of an "Arhant" or "Boddhisattva." But they way I currently see it, and feel free to correct me, is that both of these concepts can be seen as ultimate "goals" in which one's spiritual practice, hopefully, would one day lead too. When I think about these concepts, I feel like the arhant is one who merely "melts away" or is wholly absorbed into the universe, while the Boddhisattva is someone who eternally strives for the well being of others.

And that, indeed, is a fairly orthodox view.

What that actually means, including whether they are divergent paths, is a bit of an endless and arguably pointless controversy.

Is it even possible for a true Arhant to be so blind to Interdependent Origination as to not care about compassion?

I suppose I will never know, but intuitively it seems... unlikely.

1. Which ideal the Buddha teach? Does the Mahayana Boddhisattva ideal have any scriptural backing from the Buddha, or is it merely a later invention to appease those Buddhists who were dissatisfied with the ideal of arhantship?

I'm fairly sure that there is scriptural backing, but that matters little to me personally. The concept is worthy on its own terms.

Whether it justifies the ill wish against the ideal of the Arhant is something else entirely.

2. Secondly, do you feel that the Mahayana Buddhists' apparent negative reaction to the idea of arhantship came from a misunderstanding? For the commentator, citing Vinaya Pitaka 1.20 seems to suggest that no matter where you are on the spiritual path, Buddha ALWAYS endorses/advocates for one actively giving compassion to others and helping others to be happy, even if you are an arhant... Or, do you feel like there is something lacking is the idea of the "arhant" being the ideal or purpose for a Buddhist life?

Personally, I find the idea of a fully realized person somehow still being lacking in compassion obviously self-contradictory.

My current take on the controversy is that the Mahayana Vehicle chose at some point to emphasize the Boddhisattva as an ideal in order to encourage the development metta and other paramitas. For whatever reason it seemed necessary or at least convenient at the time. It may well be that it has always been a good idea.

The perception that an actual Arhant will be "defective" to the point of failing to have such basic moral motivations, though... that I can only assume to be a mistake.

Quite frankly, I doubt most Buddhists would even know how to tell an Arhant from a Boddhisattva, much less have an actual good reason (or opportunity) to choose one path over the other - and that is assuming that they are indeed divergent paths in the first place.

When push comes to shove, most of the reason to even care about those distinctions is attachment to expectations and pride.

 

[crossfire]

And that, indeed, is a fairly orthodox view.

What that actually means, including whether they are divergent paths, is a bit of an endless and arguably pointless controversy.

Is it even possible for a true Arhant to be so blind to Interdependent Origination as to not care about compassion?

I suppose I will never know, but intuitively it seems... unlikely.




I'm fairly sure that there is scriptural backing, but that matters little to me personally. The concept is worthy on its own terms.

Whether it justifies the ill wish against the ideal of the Arhant is something else entirely.

You gotta remember that Bodhisattvas seek rebirth in realms of suffering in order to help others, so naturally, behavior like targeted ill-will would be necessary to accomplish rebirth in a hellish realm. It would seem that arhants would be a good focus for the necessary ill-will, as they would likely not allow this ill-will to spread.

Personally, I find the idea of a fully realized person somehow still being lacking in compassion obviously self-contradictory.

Agreed.

My current take on the controversy is that the Mahayana Vehicle chose at some point to emphasize the Boddhisattva as an ideal in order to encourage the development metta and other paramitas. For whatever reason it seemed necessary or at least convenient at the time. It may well be that it has always been a good idea.

The perception that an actual Arhant will be "defective" to the point of failing to have such basic moral motivations, though... that I can only assume to be a mistake.

See above.

Quite frankly, I doubt most Buddhists would even know how to tell an Arhant from a Boddhisattva, much less have an actual good reason (or opportunity) to choose one path over the other - and that is assuming that they are indeed divergent paths in the first place.

Even the Mahayana acknowledge stream-entrant signs as first stage of arhant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotāpanna

When push comes to shove, most of the reason to even care about those distinctions is attachment to expectations and pride.

Actually, discernment when it comes to such matters can be quite helpful when dealing with beings on each of the respective paths, this point in particular from the above linked wiki article:

Rebirth

A Sotāpanna will be safe from falling into the states of misery (they will not be born as an animal, ghost, or hell being). Their lust, hatred and delusion will not be strong enough to cause rebirth in the lower realms. A Sotāpanna will have to be reborn at most only seven more times in the human or heavenly worlds before attaining nibbana.[10] It is not necessary for a Sotāpanna to be reborn seven more times before attaining nibbana, as an ardent practitioner may progress to the higher stages in the same life in which he/she reaches the Sotāpanna level by making an aspiration and persistent effort to reach the final goal of nibbāna.[11]​