Bodhisattvas of the Earth

[Unveiled Artist]

In the Lotus Sutra, The Buddha teaches that we can be Buddhas and like the Buddhas that came after Him, we too can be Buddhas as Bodhisattvas of the Earth. In other words, we all have a Buddha nature and can spread the Buddha Wisdom by interaction and helping people from suffering.

I know Buddha-nature is taught in Mahayana and I'm sure they teach about the Bodhisattvas. How does Theravada view Bodhisattvas? I read it's more of a Mahayana teachings. I was told that Mahayana is about others and Therevada is about self.

What do you think?

I wanted to put this under Theravada; but, I'm not in that school.. so I didn't know where to place this.

 

[von bek]

In Theravada, bodhisatta refers to a Buddha's lifetimes before attaining enlightenment. It also refers to him in the life he attains enlightenment, prior to doing so. When the Buddha uses the term in the Pali canon, he typically prefaces the word with "unenlightened". In Theravada we do not believe that all beings will become Buddhas. Buddhas are rare. The goal is arahantship. Arahants have the same attainment of nibbana as Buddhas; the difference is that arahants attain it by following the teachings already established by a Buddha, while each Buddha rediscovers the path for Himself.

 

[von bek]

I do want to add that bodhisattas are important within Theravada. They are future Buddhas and it is entirely possible that there may be some reading my words who are on that very path...

 

[von bek]

Also, the idea that Theravada does not concern itself with the suffering of others is flat-out wrong.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Also, the idea that Theravada does not concern itself with the suffering of others is flat-out wrong.

That comes from the unfortunate assumption (mostly made by European colonists when they first discovered Buddhism) that Theravada=Hinayana. The Hinayana that the Mahayana sutras refer to isn't a specific school but an attitude towards practice. Anyone who practices just to free themselves from vexations or attain a blissful state for themselves is practicing Hinayana, whereas the Mahayana is practice with the intent of liberating all beings. It's not for me to say what a Theravada practitioner's motivation is, so it's entirely possible that some or most or all of them are practicing with the Mahayana ideal in mind. Confusion arises because "Mahayana" is what we call the schools who produced those specific teachings, so there's an equivocation on the term. Calling one group of Buddhist sects "Mahayana" doesn't necessarily imply that the other sects are Hinayana.

It's also of course a misconception that the Theravada does not have the bodhisattva concept. That's a concept that goes back to the very beginning of the tradition, and all surviving schools have it. The Mahayana view differs from the Theravada primarily in matters of terminology, which in turn affects what concepts are emphasized. First of all, it regards full Buddhahood as attainable by all sentient beings (Buddha Nature is just a way of conceptualizing that innate capacity). And given infinite time, it is assumed that all beings will attain it. So insofar as a bodhisattva is a Buddha-in-training, everyone should want to be a bodhisattva, since everyone should be on the path to Buddhahood, which is to achieve exactly the same enlightenment that the historical Buddha achieved. The Theravada call people who achieve the same perfect enlightenment that Buddhas achieve Arhats. The Mahayana tradition calls people who achieve the utmost enlightenment Buddhas, without calling them by a different term. But in both cases the goal is to achieve what the historical Buddha did, whatever you call it.

There's actually more complicated terminology issues on both sides, with the most significant difference being the meaning of the term Samyaksambuddha, the exact criteria for which appear to differ, which accounts for the different uses of the word Arhat, and so forth. These differences can be explained by the fact that the early sectarian split occurred in a time when the exact definitions of these terms were still being worked out, so the Theravada inherited one set of conventional usages and the various Mahayana schools inherited another. So a lot of the same terms appear in Theravada and Mahayana teachings, but with somewhat different meanings.

Consequently, the two main Buddhist traditions often seem like one people divided by a common language.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow. Gosh. I completely forgot my lay knowledge on this. I'm more geared to being a Bodhisattva; yet, how I see my goal of ending people from suffering may not be the goal the Buddha taught. I'm wondering, I know He said for us to find our own paths. In the Arhat's position, they would specifically follow the Buddha's teachings (?) while the Bodhisattva would following the teachings of His true nature (or Buddha nature)? I hate to put it this way, forgive me. The former "organized" the latter "modernized" all heading to the same goal of no suffering?

That comes from the unfortunate assumption (mostly made by European colonists when they first discovered Buddhism) that Theravada=Hinayana. The Hinayana that the Mahayana sutras refer to isn't a specific school but an attitude towards practice. Anyone who practices just to free themselves from vexations or attain a blissful state for themselves is practicing Hinayana, whereas the Mahayana is practice with the intent of liberating all beings. It's not for me to say what a Theravada practitioner's motivation is, so it's entirely possible that some or most or all of them are practicing with the Mahayana ideal in mind. Confusion arises because "Mahayana" is what we call the schools who produced those specific teachings, so there's an equivocation on the term. Calling one group of Buddhist sects "Mahayana" doesn't necessarily imply that the other sects are Hinayana.

It's also of course a misconception that the Theravada does not have the bodhisattva concept. That's a concept that goes back to the very beginning of the tradition, and all surviving schools have it. The Mahayana view differs from the Theravada primarily in matters of terminology, which in turn affects what concepts are emphasized. First of all, it regards full Buddhahood as attainable by all sentient beings (Buddha Nature is just a way of conceptualizing that innate capacity). And given infinite time, it is assumed that all beings will attain it. So insofar as a bodhisattva is a Buddha-in-training, everyone should want to be a bodhisattva, since everyone should be on the path to Buddhahood, which is to achieve exactly the same enlightenment that the historical Buddha achieved. The Theravada call people who achieve the same perfect enlightenment that Buddhas achieve Arhats. The Mahayana tradition calls people who achieve the utmost enlightenment Buddhas, without calling them by a different term. But in both cases the goal is to achieve what the historical Buddha did, whatever you call it.

There's actually more complicated terminology issues on both sides, with the most significant difference being the meaning of the term Samyaksambuddha, the exact criteria for which appear to differ, which accounts for the different uses of the word Arhat, and so forth. These differences can be explained by the fact that the early sectarian split occurred in a time when the exact definitions of these terms were still being worked out, so the Theravada inherited one set of conventional usages and the various Mahayana schools inherited another. So a lot of the same terms appear in Theravada and Mahayana teachings, but with somewhat different meanings.

Consequently, the two main Buddhist traditions often seem like one people divided by a common language.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I don't think the Mahayana approach really distinguishes between the Buddha's teaching (meaning the teachings that are thought to come directly from the founder of the tradition) and the Buddha's teaching (meaning any teaching that comes from enlightened mind and points the way to Buddhahood). In any case, a bodhisattva vows to master all teachings, all approaches to Dharma. After all, a Buddha must be able to give people whatever teachings they need in their particular situation.

When it comes to the difference between that and the Arhat path, the tricky thing is that the Mahayana tradition also has the word Arhat but means something different by it. In the Theravada, an Arhat is someone who has attained the same full enlightenment of the Buddha. In the Mahayana, an Arhat is someone whose enlightenment is imperfect, placing them on a tier below a full Buddha. Arhats have removed their own vexations, but they have not sought to attain full Buddhahood in order to teach and save other beings. Hence the focus on the bodhisattva path and the cultivation of bodhicitta, which is how you attain full Buddhahood.

The thing is, the Mahayana Arhat is associated with the term shravaka or "voice-hearer," which indicates someone who has practiced the exoteric aspect of basic Buddhadharma but hasn't made the leap to the more profound teachings and consequently has a limited perspective. If you're sensing some sectarian polemic there, you're almost certainly correct. All early schools engaged in that, for better or worse. The thing is, the Mahayana Arhats are not meant to be the Theravada Arhats, as the Theravada didn't exist yet as such when the Mahayana scriptures were written. Nor were their antecedents, the Sthaviravada, the primary antagonist of the early Mahayana movement (that appears to have been the Sarvastivadins, another Mahasanghika sect that doesn't exist anymore).

So it's not as if the Mahayana use of the term Arhat is meant to be a swipe at the Theravada, or even referencing them directly, although it can look that way because Mahayana scriptures do associate imperfect enlightenment with those who only stick to the very early teachings and refuse to acknowledge the deeper teachings that were revealed after. And that can sound a lot like the Theravada, who are the only ones with a very restricted canon that makes a point of excluding the Mahayana literature. But even that was a later development, as Sri Lankan Theravada, which was originally quite open and cosmopolitan, underwent a restorationist purging of Mahayana influence around the 12 century CE. And even then some of it remains in the secondary literature of the Pali Canon.

Basically, the Buddhist family tree is a lot more complicated and recursive than the simple Mahayana vs. Theravada narrative would suggest. In any case, I don't think there's a huge difference in approach between either school, although the terminology is confusing in the way each one uses the same words to mean different things. But if you're interested in the bodhisattva path, then a good place to start is the famous book on the subject by Shantideva, of which there are various translations and commentaries. There are also bodhisattva precepts that you can formally take, which go beyond the basic 5 lay precepts. And you can recite the bodhisattva vow.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That does sound complicated. Ill have to reread, I didnt get the alert. Do you by chance know of any books with the actual collection of sutras? I see them in university libraries but only as excerts in stores.

I don't think the Mahayana approach really distinguishes between the Buddha's teaching (meaning the teachings that are thought to come directly from the founder of the tradition) and the Buddha's teaching (meaning any teaching that comes from enlightened mind and points the way to Buddhahood). In any case, a bodhisattva vows to master all teachings, all approaches to Dharma. After all, a Buddha must be able to give people whatever teachings they need in their particular situation.

When it comes to the difference between that and the Arhat path, the tricky thing is that the Mahayana tradition also has the word Arhat but means something different by it. In the Theravada, an Arhat is someone who has attained the same full enlightenment of the Buddha. In the Mahayana, an Arhat is someone whose enlightenment is imperfect, placing them on a tier below a full Buddha. Arhats have removed their own vexations, but they have not sought to attain full Buddhahood in order to teach and save other beings. Hence the focus on the bodhisattva path and the cultivation of bodhicitta, which is how you attain full Buddhahood.

The thing is, the Mahayana Arhat is associated with the term shravaka or "voice-hearer," which indicates someone who has practiced the exoteric aspect of basic Buddhadharma but hasn't made the leap to the more profound teachings and consequently has a limited perspective. If you're sensing some sectarian polemic there, you're almost certainly correct. All early schools engaged in that, for better or worse. The thing is, the Mahayana Arhats are not meant to be the Theravada Arhats, as the Theravada didn't exist yet as such when the Mahayana scriptures were written. Nor were their antecedents, the Sthaviravada, the primary antagonist of the early Mahayana movement (that appears to have been the Sarvastivadins, another Mahasanghika sect that doesn't exist anymore).

So it's not as if the Mahayana use of the term Arhat is meant to be a swipe at the Theravada, or even referencing them directly, although it can look that way because Mahayana scriptures do associate imperfect enlightenment with those who only stick to the very early teachings and refuse to acknowledge the deeper teachings that were revealed after. And that can sound a lot like the Theravada, who are the only ones with a very restricted canon that makes a point of excluding the Mahayana literature. But even that was a later development, as Sri Lankan Theravada, which was originally quite open and cosmopolitan, underwent a restorationist purging of Mahayana influence around the 12 century CE. And even then some of it remains in the secondary literature of the Pali Canon.

Basically, the Buddhist family tree is a lot more complicated and recursive than the simple Mahayana vs. Theravada narrative would suggest. In any case, I don't think there's a huge difference in approach between either school, although the terminology is confusing in the way each one uses the same words to mean different things. But if you're interested in the bodhisattva path, then a good place to start is the famous book on the subject by Shantideva, of which there are various translations and commentaries. There are also bodhisattva precepts that you can formally take, which go beyond the basic 5 lay precepts. And you can recite the bodhisattva vow.

 

[Vishvavajra]

That does sound complicated. Ill have to reread, I didnt get the alert. Do you by chance know of any books with the actual collection of sutras? I see them in university libraries but only as excerts in stores.

Depends which sutras you mean. The earliest sutras, the Agamas, are hard to find in English. The Madhyama Agama, which is similar but not identical to the Theravada Majjhima Nikaya, is available on Amazon, and the same group is working on the rest, slowly but surely. But the early scriptures aren't the main focus of Mahayana practice and study; they're like the Old Testament: the foundational stuff that shows where the tradition begins and provides context for the later stuff.

The most important Mahayana sutras are all available in English, although you have to get them individually rather than as a collection. Red Pine does excellent translations, along with the original scholastic commentary, if you don't mind his outdated Romanization system for Chinese names.

The Way of the Bodhisattva (or Bodhicaryavatara) isn't technically a sutra, since Shantideva writes in his own voice rather than attributing it to the Buddha via Ananda, but it's still an important scripture.

As for all the scriptures together, they would look something like this:

But maybe I'm not understanding your question, so let me know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You understand. Gosh. I wouldnt even know where to start. I wanted to find the core teachings of the Buddha. I read online that has the sutra collection (dont know which but its not a one sit read) about practices for layman since a lot of them, ex how high ones bed should be, what to where, are specifically monastic rules. I was thinking theravada falls into this category.

This is the link:
A Complete Buddhist Sutra Collection

I only have the Lotus Sutra but that is I assume like NT commentary compared to what you mentioned. Id have to research what sutras are considered mahayana. It wouldnt hurt to look at the others. Ill look that book up.

Depends which sutras you mean. The earliest sutras, the Agamas, are hard to find in English. The Madhyama Agama, which is similar but not identical to the Theravada Majjhima Nikaya, is available on Amazon, and the same group is working on the rest, slowly but surely. But the early scriptures aren't the main focus of Mahayana practice and study; they're like the Old Testament: the foundational stuff that shows where the tradition begins and provides context for the later stuff.

The most important Mahayana sutras are all available in English, although you have to get them individually rather than as a collection. Red Pine does excellent translations, along with the original scholastic commentary, if you don't mind his outdated Romanization system for Chinese names.

The Way of the Bodhisattva isn't technically a sutra, since Shantideva writes in his own voice rather than attributing it to the Buddha via Ananda, but it's still an important scripture.

As for all the scriptures together, they would look something like this:

But maybe I'm not understanding your question, so let me know.

 

[Vishvavajra]

You understand. Gosh. I wouldnt even know where to start. I wanted to find the core teachings of the Buddha.

Don't be discouraged. If you want the core Mahayana experience, look at the Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, the Vimalakirti Sutra, and the Lotus Sutra. While it's true those were composed after the Agamas, the Mahayana view is that they faithfully encapsulate the core teachings of the Buddha. In fact the Heart Sutra alone can be seen as the entirety of the teachings in just a few lines. A lot of folks imagine that in order to get to the heart of the teachings you have to strip away all the later stuff and just focus on the very earliest material. But what these sutras do is condense and refine that earlier material into a digestible form that develops the philosophy therein to its logical conclusions. It's a living tradition, and some things really do get better with time, as people have a chance to explore and extrapolate and figure out what works best. The Lotus Sutra is often seen as the culmination of this process.

Those four sutras are all very profound and very stimulating. The early scriptures can often feel like you're slogging through Leviticus, whereas these will challenge you and engage your imagination. If you read only those four and nothing else, and have something like a commentary to help you understand them, then you'll have a respectable background in Mahayana teachings. It will not substitute for your daily practice, but it you will understand the meaning behind the practice.

In addition to those there are the Lankavatara Sutra and the Shurangama Sutra, both of which have been influential in the Chan tradition, as well as the three Pure Land Sutras. They can be seen as supplementing the material in the previous four and are a bit more technical. I haven't made it through all of those yet.

I read online that has the sutra collection (dont know which but its not a one sit read) about practices for layman since a lot of them, ex how high ones bed should be, what to where, are specifically monastic rules. I was thinking theravada falls into this category.

This is the link:
A Complete Buddhist Sutra Collection

There's nothing wrong with the site. The lack of editorial commentary might make some of those difficult to understand, since none of the sutras were composed on the assumption that someone with zero background would be reading them. And it's basically the Pali Canon with some Mahayana scriptures thrown in, so in effect it's kind of Theravada+, or pre-restorationist Theravada. But that might be less of an ideological position and more just the fact that the Pali suttas are easy to find in English translation, whereas the Agamas of the Mahayana canon are not (mostly because they're not widely read by laymen in any case).

As for practices for laymen, the 5 Precepts are standard across all schools (avoid killing, stealing, lying, and indulging in sexual immorality and intoxication). Further precepts are taken by certain people for certain reasons, but I wouldn't worry about that right now. As a layman you can sleep where you want and wear what you want and exercise your own discretion in most aspects of your life. But vegetarianism is very much encouraged even for laymen, especially in the Chinese tradition.

As for the role of enlightened laymen in the Mahayana tradition, the Vimalakirti Sutra is a nice treatment of the subject (and fun to read too). It firmly rejects the notion that deep enlightenment is only for monastics.

 

[von bek]

I second the recommendation of Red Pine's work. I really enjoy reading his translations. I have copies of his Lankavatara Sutra and Diamond Sutra. I used to have a copy of his translation of the Heart Sutra but I have since donated it to my monastery's library. Regarding his work in general, I think he does a great job of assembling commentary from teachers throughout the centuries that greatly helps in understanding how the texts have been used in the Chan/Zen tradition. I used to have a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra translated by D.T. Suzuki, which I also have donated to the monastery. It is good; but, Red Pine's translation is more readable. Plus, Red Pine includes commentary, which is missing from the Suzuki edition.