punkdbass
I will be what I will be
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?
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?
Last edited: