List of extracts for Paper 4A: Buddhism
Students are expected to study a range of texts that support and underpin their knowledge and understanding. The assessment will include two extended-response questions on an excerpt, sourced from this extracts list. The following texts are not exclusive to the topic areas under which they appear; students will need to be able to apply these texts across any suitable topic area. These are published in the A Level Religious Studies Anthology: Paper 4A – Buddhism, which can be downloaded from our website qualifications.pearson.com
Suggested translation of the Tipitaka is by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
(1) Armstrong K – Buddha, Chapter 3 Enlightenment, pp. 60–88 (Phoenix, 2002) ISBN 9780753813409
(2) de Bary W T et al – The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan, Chapter 3 The Bodhisattva, pp. 81–109 (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011) ISBN 9780307778796
(4) www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html (Samyutta Nikaya 42.3 Yodhajiva Sutta: To Yodhajiva (The Warrior))
There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the Bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In this passage, W. Rahula refutes the apparently 'common' misconception that the ideal of the Theravada is to become an Arahant, while the ideal of the Mahayana is to become a Bodhisattva and ultimately a Buddha. Rahula argues that this view is incorrect and that both Theravada and Mahayana unanimously accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest. From the beginning of the extract, he here is using questionable rhetorical tactics that need to be critically assessed. While he is technically correct that the Bodhisattva ideal variously remained a possible approach to liberation in Theravada there is very little evidence it was encouraged or practiced. Peter Harvey says "Theravada Buddhism is essentially an individual path, with the primary focus being on the individual's own effort to gain insight into the nature of reality." (Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, 2013, p. 140). This stands in stark relief to the Mahayana ideal which thinks as John Powers, argues: "The Bodhisattva is the embodiment of the ideal of the Mahayana, which seeks to help all beings attain enlightenment...The goal of the Bodhisattva is to become a Buddha, and then to help all sentient beings attain the same state." - John Powers, A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2013), p. 50.
Rahula uses a common problem in textual criticism of the ambiguity in interpretation for great effect without acknowledging his hermeneutical tradition in the wider argument of this extract. Paul Williams notes that "the Mahayana and Theravada paths share common features in that they both involve the desire to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings" (Williams, 1989, p. 98). Yet this is problematic as that there is disagreement on just what enlightenment is. Rahula here uses the rhetorical tactic of presenting an 'antithesis' perhaps indirectly drawing on Aristotle's art of rhetoric presenting the 'common view and then arguing 'categorically stated that this is incorrect'. Of course, Rahula's assertion can be widely supported by various Theravada Buddhist scholars and texts as his rhetorical ploys reflect a long Theraveda polemical and apologetic tradition. For example, scholars like Bhikkhu Bodhi argue that the Theravada scriptures also contain teachings on the Bodhisattva ideal. He notes that the Theravada tradition recognizes the existence of Bodhisattvas and their role in the attainment of Buddhahood (Bodhi, 2000, p. 35).
Furthermore, Rahula highlights the fact that the ideal of becoming an Arahant or a Bodhisattva is not mutually exclusive. He quickly turns to both a 'bait and swtich' tactic and makes a false equivalency between Theravada and Mahayana ideals. He arguably is making an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning as he will nowhere actually debate the essential metaphycial claims of Mahayana and Theravada substantial belief. For example in the text Rahula argues in the Mahayana tradition, an Arahant is regarded as someone who has attained enlightenment but has not yet reached the level of a Buddha, whereas a Bodhisattva is someone who has taken a vow to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings before becoming a Buddha. Similarly, in the Theravada tradition, an Arahant is someone who has attained enlightenment but has not yet become a Buddha (Rahula, 1996, p. 462).
Thus, Rahula argues the Bodhisattva ideal is central to both Theravada and Mahayana traditions but this must be contested as a problematic claim, especially for Theravada. As Rahula notes, making Mahayana might argue the informal falacy of false equivalency, "the Bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana and the ideal of Arahantship of Theravada are not two different and separate ideals, but practically one and the same" (Rahula, 1996, p. 463). It is in fact questionable that the ultimate aim of both traditions is to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings, and the Bodhisattva ideal is seen as the most effective way to achieve this goal for both.
In conclusion, Rahula in the passage seeks to clarify an 'apparent' misconception that the Theravada tradition aims to become an Arahant while the Mahayana tradition aims to become a Bodhisattva and ultimately a Buddha. This is a questionable antithesis assertion. Rahula compounds his rhetorical ploys with a false equivalency arguing that both traditions recognize the importance of the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest ideal in Buddhism, and the ultimate goal of both traditions is to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings. The rhetorical tactic of 'clarifying the other person's view as a misconception' at best could generously be described as a debate about definitions and at worst as a cynical 'ad hominiem' but what he is not doing is substantively arguing about the essential ideas of Mahayana.
References:
Bodhi, B. (2000). The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering. Buddhist Publication Society.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In What the Buddha Taught (pp. 461-471). Grove Press.
Williams, P. (1989). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
Harvey, P. (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge University.
Powers, J. (2013). A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Oneworld Publications.
The terms Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) are not known to the Theravāda Pali literature. They are not found in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) or in the Commentaries on the Tripitaka. Not even in the Pali Chronicles of Ceylon, the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa. The Dipavamsa (about the 4th Century A.D.) and Pali Commentaries mention Vitandavadins, evidently a sect of dissenting Buddhists holding some unorthodox views regarding some points in the teaching of the Buddha. The Vitandavadin and the Theravadin both quote the same authorities and name the sutras of the Tripitaka in order to support their positions, the difference being only in the mode of their interpretations. The Mahavamsa (5th Century A.D.) and a Commentary on the Abhidhamma refer to Vetulla – or Vetulyavadins (Sanskrit: Vaitulyavadin) instead of Vitandavadin. From the evidence of the texts, it may not be wrong to consider that these two terms – Vitanda and Vetulya – represented the same school or sect.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the Vitandavadin and the Theravadin in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage highlights that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana are not found in the Pali Canon or in the Commentaries on the Tripitaka. Instead, the text mentions the Vitandavadin and the Theravadin, who both quote the same authorities and sutras of the Tripitaka to support their positions, with the difference only in the mode of their interpretations. The Mahavamsa and a Commentary on the Abhidhamma refer to Vetulla – or Vetulyavadins (Sanskrit: Vaitulyavadin) instead of Vitandavadin.
The absence of the terms Hinayana and Mahayana in the Pali Canon has been a subject of discussion among scholars of Buddhism. According to Williams (2008), the term Hinayana was first used by the Mahayana school to refer to the older schools of Buddhism that they saw as inferior to their own. He writes, "The word 'Hinayana' (Small Vehicle) was not used to describe early Buddhism until the rise of the Mahayana, in whose texts it first appears" (p. 98).
Similarly, Keown (2013) notes that "the distinction between Hinayana and Mahayana is not found in the early Buddhist texts" (p. 168). He further explains that the term Mahayana "was applied retrospectively to an emerging school of Buddhism that had new texts, doctrines, and practices that it saw as a more effective way to achieve Buddhahood" (p. 168).
The absence of the terms Hinayana and Mahayana in the Pali Canon is significant because it suggests that the division between the two schools may not have been as pronounced in early Buddhism as it is in later traditions. As Rahula (1996) explains, "The terms Hinayana and Mahayana which are often used to differentiate two schools of Buddhism were not known in the early Buddhist literature. It is evident that there was no such division in the early Sangha" (p. 463).
Regarding the Vitandavadin and the Theravadin, Rahula (1996) explains that both groups "quote the same authorities, the same sutras of the Tripitaka in order to support their positions, the difference being only in the mode of their interpretations" (p. 463). He further notes that the terms Vitandavadin and Vetulyavadins may represent the same school or sect.
Similarly, Gethin (1998) notes that "it seems that the difference between these groups was primarily one of interpretation and emphasis rather than doctrine" (p. 124). He further explains that the Vitandavadin "were known for their sharp and often polemical criticism of other schools of Buddhism, including the Theravadins" (p. 124). However, he also notes that the Vitandavadin "were not a separate school or sect of Buddhism, but rather a subgroup within the broader community of Buddhists" (p. 124).
In conclusion, the passage highlights the absence of the terms Hinayana and Mahayana in the Pali Canon and the existence of the Vitandavadin and the Theravadin who both quote the same authorities and sutras of the Tripitaka to support their positions. The absence of these terms in the Pali Canon suggests that the division between the two schools may not have been as pronounced in early Buddhism as it is in later traditions, and the differences between the Vitandavadin and the Theravadin may have been primarily one of interpretation and emphasis rather than doctrine.
References:
Rahula (1996) Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press.
Gethin, R. (1998). The foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Keown, D. (2013) Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Williams P (2008) Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations
We learn from the Abhidhamma-Samuccaya, an authoritative Mahayana philosophical text (4th Century A.D.) that the terms Vaitulya and Vaipulya are synonymous, and that Vaipulya is the Bodhisattva-Pitaka. Now, the Bodhisattva- Pitaka is definitely Mahayana. Hence Vaitulya undoubtedly denotes Mahayana. So we can be certain that the terms Vitanda, and Vetulya used in the Pali Chronicles and Commentaries refer to Mahayana. But the terms Hinayana and Mahayana were not known to them, or ignored or unrecognised by them. It is universally accepted by scholars that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana are later inventions. Historically speaking, the Theravada already existed long before these terms came into being. That Theravada, considered to be the original teaching of the Buddha, was introduced to Ceylon and established there in the 3rd Century B.C., during the time of Emperor Asoka of India.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Vaipulya and the Bodhisattva-Pitaka in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage highlights the relationship between the terms Vaitulya, Vaipulya, and Mahayana in Buddhism. It cites the Abhidhamma-Samuccaya, a Mahayana philosophical text from the 4th century A.D., which states that Vaitulya and Vaipulya are synonymous and that Vaipulya refers to the Bodhisattva-Pitaka. The passage suggests that the Bodhisattva-Pitaka is a Mahayana text, and therefore, Vaitulya denotes Mahayana.
The idea that Vaipulya is a Mahayana text is supported by various scholars. For example, Etienne Lamotte, in his book "History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era," explains that Vaipulya is a term used in Mahayana Buddhism to refer to texts that are more extensive than the sutras. He notes that the Bodhisattva-Pitaka is one such text and describes it as "a vast collection of Mahayana Buddhist scriptures" (Lamotte, 1988, p. 291).
Similarly, Paul Williams, in his book "Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations," describes the Bodhisattva-Pitaka as a Mahayana text and states that it is "a huge corpus of literature, which is primarily concerned with the ideals and practices of the bodhisattva, the individual who seeks to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings" (Williams, 2008, p. 44).
The passage also suggests that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana were later inventions and were not known to the authors of the Pali Chronicles and Commentaries. This idea is supported by many scholars, such as Richard Gombrich, who states in his book "Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo" that "the word 'Hinayana' is not found in any Buddhist text" and that it is a term that was coined by Mahayana Buddhists to refer to the non-Mahayana schools of Buddhism (Gombrich, 1988, p. 1).
Similarly, David Kalupahana, in his book "A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities," explains that the term Hinayana was not used by the early Buddhist schools and that it was "a later term used by Mahayana Buddhists to refer to the early schools of Buddhism, which they considered to be inferior to the Mahayana" (Kalupahana, 1992, p. 14).
In conclusion, the passage highlights the relationship between the terms Vaitulya, Vaipulya, and Mahayana in Buddhism. It suggests that the Bodhisattva-Pitaka is a Mahayana text and that Vaitulya denotes Mahayana. Furthermore, the passage asserts that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana were later inventions and were not known to the authors of the Pali Chronicles and Commentaries. These ideas are supported by various scholars and their works.
References:
Gethin, R. (1998). The foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Etienne Lamotte (2013) History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era,
Gombridich R (1998) Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo
Williams P (2008) Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations
David Kalupahana, (1992) A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities,
At that time there was nothing called Mahayana. Mahayana as such appeared much later, about the beginning of the Christian Era. Without Mahayana there could not be Hinayana. Buddhism that went to Sri Lanka, with its Tripitaka and Commentaries, in the 3rd Century B.C., remained there intact as Theravada, and did not come into the scene of the Hinayana-Mahayana dispute that developed later in India. It seems therefore not legitimate to include Theravāda in either of these two categories. The Mahayana mainly deals with the Bodhisattva-yana or the Vehicle of the Pratyekabuddha-yana. For example, Asanga, the founder of the Yogacara system, in his Magnum Opus, the Yogacara Bhumisastra, devotes two sections to Sravakabhumi and Pratyekabuddha-bhumi to Bodhisattva-bhumi, which shows that all three yanas are given due consideration in the Mahayana
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the idea of the Bodhisattva-yana, and the Pratyekabuddha-yana in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In this passage, Rahula discusses the origins of the terms "Hinayana" and "Mahayana" and their relationship to the Theravada tradition of Buddhism. He argues that the terms were later inventions and were not known or recognized by the early Buddhist texts. Additionally, he suggests that the Theravada tradition, which was established in Sri Lanka in the 3rd century BCE, should not be included in either category of Hinayana or Mahayana. Instead, Rahula notes that the Mahayana tradition primarily focuses on the Bodhisattva-yana or the Vehicle of the Bodhisattva and the Pratyekabuddha-yana or the Vehicle of the Pratyekabuddha.
The idea of the Bodhisattva-yana is central to Mahayana Buddhism. As Rahula notes, the Mahayana tradition places a strong emphasis on the Bodhisattva ideal and the path of the Bodhisattva. This path is characterized by a deep commitment to the welfare of all sentient beings and the cultivation of the six perfections: generosity, ethics, patience, effort, concentration, and wisdom. According to Mahayana teachings, the ultimate goal of the Bodhisattva path is to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings, rather than solely for one's own liberation.
The Pratyekabuddha-yana, on the other hand, is a path of individual enlightenment that focuses on the realization of the nature of reality through personal insight and meditation. This path is characterized by a strong emphasis on self-reliance and individual effort, as well as a deep understanding of the interdependent nature of all phenomena.
Rahula's assertion that the Mahayana tradition gives due consideration to all three yanas (Sravakabhumi, Pratyekabuddha-bhumi, and Bodhisattva-bhumi) is supported by the writings of Mahayana scholars such as Asanga. In his Yogacara Bhumisastra, Asanga devotes two sections to the Sravakabhumi and Pratyekabuddha-bhumi before turning to the Bodhisattva-bhumi. This demonstrates that the Mahayana tradition recognizes the value and importance of all three yanas, even as it places a particular emphasis on the Bodhisattva path.
Overall, Rahula's passage clarifies the relationship between the Bodhisattva-yana and the Pratyekabuddha-yana in Mahayana Buddhism. While the Bodhisattva path is a central focus of the Mahayana tradition, the Pratyekabuddha path is also recognized as a valid path to enlightenment. Additionally, Rahula's analysis highlights the historical context in which the terms "Hinayana" and "Mahayana" arose, and suggests that these terms should not be applied to the Theravada tradition of Buddhism.
References:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In A. De Silva & P. Schwerdtfeger (Eds.), The Buddhist World (pp. 461-471). Routledge.
Williams, P. (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
Asanga. (1984). The Bodhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment: A Complete Translation of the Bodhisattvabhumi. Motilal Banarsidass.
But the state of a Sravaka or a Pratyekabuddha is inferior to that of a Bodhisattva. This is quite in keeping with the Theravada tradition which, too, holds that one may become a Bodhisattva and attain the state of a fully Enlightened Buddha; but if one cannot, one may attain the state of a Pratyekabuddha or of a Sravaka according to one's capacity. These three states may be considered as three attainments on the same Path. In fact, the Sandhinirmocana-Sutra (a Mahayana Sutra) clearly says that the Sravakayana and the Mahayana constitute one yana (ekayana) and that they are not two different and distinct 'vehicles'.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the extent and accuracy of Rahula's claim that Theravada agrees with Asangas claim that the Bodhisattva ideal is higher than the state of a Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha with reference to this passage.
In the passage, Rahula makes a claim that the Theravada tradition acknowledges that the state of a Bodhisattva is superior to that of a Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha. He further adds that the Sandhinirmocana-Sutra, a Mahayana Sutra, also acknowledges the unity of Sravakayana and Mahayana as one yana (ekayana) and that they are not two different and distinct vehicles.
Rahula's claim that the Theravada tradition acknowledges the superiority of the Bodhisattva ideal is supported by various scholars. Peter Harvey, in his book "An Introduction to Buddhism," states that "in Theravada, one may aspire to be a Bodhisattva and become a fully enlightened Buddha, but if this is not possible, one may aim for arahantship (the state of a Sravaka) or the lesser Pratyekabuddha ideal." (p. 277) He further adds that "the ideal of the arahant, which was the focus of early Buddhism, can be seen as a part of the greater Mahayana ideal of the Bodhisattva." (p. 277)
Similarly, Richard Gombrich, in his book "Theravada Buddhism," affirms that "according to the Theravada view, the ideal of the Bodhisattva is superior to that of the arahant or pratyekabuddha." (p. 215) He also acknowledges the influence of Mahayana on Theravada, stating that "it is not difficult to see how the ideal of the Bodhisattva could be integrated with that of the arahant." (p. 216)
Regarding the Sandhinirmocana-Sutra, various scholars agree with Rahula's claim that it acknowledges the unity of Sravakayana and Mahayana as one yana. David Kalupahana, in his book "A History of Buddhist Philosophy," notes that "the Sandhinirmocana-Sutra teaches the unity of the three vehicles and advocates the subordination of Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha goals to the Bodhisattva goal." (p. 170) He further adds that "the Sutra equates the practice of the two vehicles with the practice of the Bodhisattva and emphasizes the unity of the three vehicles." (p. 170)
Similarly, Paul Williams, in his book "Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations," states that "the Sandhinirmocana-Sutra argues that the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva-yanas are not different paths but rather different expressions of the same path." (p. 187) He also notes that "the Sutra advocates the superiority of the Bodhisattva-yana, but argues that the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha-yanas are still useful for those who cannot follow the Bodhisattva ideal." (p. 187)
In conclusion, it can be affirmed that Rahula's claim that the Theravada tradition acknowledges the superiority of the Bodhisattva ideal is supported by various scholars. Furthermore, his claim that the Sandhinirmocana-Sutra acknowledges the unity of Sravakayana and Mahayana as one yana is also supported by scholars. It is important to note that while there are differences between Theravada and Mahayana, the two traditions share many commonalities, and there is evidence of cross-influence between the two.
References:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In A. De Silva & P. Schwerdtfeger (Eds.), The Buddhist World (pp. 461-471). Routledge.
Williams, P. (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
David Kalupahana, (1992) A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities,
Peter Harvey () An Introduction to Buddhism
Asanga. (1984). The Bodhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment: A Complete Translation of the Bodhisattvabhumi. Motilal Banarsidass.
The Three Individuals
Now, who are these three individuals: Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and
Bodhisattva? Very briefly:
A Sravaka is a disciple of a Buddha. A disciple may be a monk or a nun, a layman or a laywoman. Bent on his or her liberation, a Sravaka follows and practises the teaching of the Buddha and finally attains Nirvana. He also serves others, but his capacity to do so is limited
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Asangas idea of the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and Bodhisattva Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In Buddhism, the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva are considered three types of individuals who are pursuing the path to enlightenment in different ways. According to the scholar W. Rahula, a Sravaka is a disciple of a Buddha who is focused on their own liberation and follows the teachings of the Buddha. However, the Sravaka's capacity to serve others is limited.
Asanga, a prominent Buddhist philosopher and practitioner, developed the concept of the Bodhisattva, which he considered to be the highest type of individual on the path to enlightenment. Asanga believed that the Bodhisattva was motivated by a deep compassion for all sentient beings and was dedicated to helping others achieve liberation as well. In contrast to the Sravaka, the Bodhisattva's capacity to serve others was limitless.
The Pratyekabuddha, or solitary realizer, is another type of individual on the path to enlightenment. The Pratyekabuddha is described as someone who attains enlightenment on their own, without the guidance of a teacher, and is focused primarily on their own liberation.
In his book "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism," Rahula provides further insight into the distinctions between the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva. He writes that "the Sravaka... is considered to be concerned with his own liberation, without bothering about the liberation of others," while the Pratyekabuddha "seeks his own enlightenment, but without any regard for the welfare of others." In contrast, the Bodhisattva is "dedicated to the welfare of all living beings" and works tirelessly to help others achieve liberation.
The idea of the Bodhisattva as the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path is central to Mahayana Buddhism, which developed in India in the first century CE. Mahayana Buddhists believe that anyone can become a Bodhisattva and that the ultimate goal of the path is not simply personal liberation but the liberation of all sentient beings.
Scholars have written extensively on the concept of the Bodhisattva in Buddhism. In his book "The Bodhisattva Ideal: Essays on the Emergence of Mahayana," the scholar Bhikkhu Nyanatusita writes that "the Bodhisattva ideal is nothing less than a total commitment to the welfare of all sentient beings," and that the Bodhisattva is "an embodiment of compassion, wisdom, and power."
Another prominent scholar of Buddhism, Jan Nattier, has written about the historical development of the Bodhisattva concept in her book "A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra." Nattier argues that the concept of the Bodhisattva evolved over time and that different Buddhist schools had different understandings of what it meant to be a Bodhisattva.
In conclusion, the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva are three types of individuals on the path to enlightenment in Buddhism. While the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha are primarily focused on their own liberation, the Bodhisattva is dedicated to the welfare of all sentient beings and works tirelessly to help others achieve liberation. The concept of the Bodhisattva as the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path is central to Mahayana Buddhism and has been the subject of extensive scholarship.
References:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In A. De Silva & P. Schwerdtfeger (Eds.), The Buddhist World (pp. 461-471). Routledge.
Jan Nattier () A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra
Bhikkhu Nyanatusita () The Bodhisattva Ideal: Essays on the Emergence of Mahayana
Asanga. (1984). The Bodhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment: A Complete Translation of the Bodhisattvabhumi. Motilal Banarsidass.
A Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) is a person who realizes Nirvana alone by himself at a time when there is no Samyaksambuddha in the world. He also renders service to others, but in a limited way. He is not capable of revealing the Truth to others as a Samyaksambuddha, a fully Enlightened Buddha does.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about a Pratyekabuddha and a Samyaksambuddha in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In Buddhism, the Pratyekabuddha, also known as an Individual Buddha, is a person who achieves enlightenment on their own without the guidance of a teacher. According to scholar W. Rahula, the Pratyekabuddha realizes Nirvana alone at a time when there is no Samyaksambuddha, or fully enlightened Buddha, in the world. The Pratyekabuddha also serves others, but in a limited way, and is not capable of revealing the Truth to others as a Samyaksambuddha can.
The concept of the Pratyekabuddha is often contrasted with that of the Samyaksambuddha, who is a fully enlightened Buddha who has attained Nirvana and is capable of guiding others on the path to enlightenment. In his book "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching," the Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh writes that "a Samyaksambuddha has the ability to teach and help all beings to attain liberation," while the Pratyekabuddha "has the ability to liberate himself, but not others."
However, scholars have noted that the distinction between the Pratyekabuddha and Samyaksambuddha is not always clear-cut. In his book "The Buddhist Path to Awakening," the scholar Ringu Tulku writes that "the line between the Pratyekabuddha and Samyaksambuddha is often blurred," and that some Buddhist texts describe the Pratyekabuddha as being able to teach others to some extent.
Another scholar, Rupert Gethin, has written about the concept of the Pratyekabuddha in his book "The Foundations of Buddhism." Gethin notes that while the Pratyekabuddha is capable of attaining enlightenment on their own, without the guidance of a teacher, they are not seen as the ideal model for Buddhist practice. Instead, the Samyaksambuddha, who is capable of guiding others on the path to enlightenment, is seen as the ultimate model for Buddhist practice.
In conclusion, the Pratyekabuddha is a concept in Buddhism referring to a person who achieves enlightenment on their own and serves others in a limited way. The Pratyekabuddha is contrasted with the Samyaksambuddha, who is a fully enlightened Buddha capable of guiding others on the path to enlightenment. While the distinction between the two concepts is not always clear-cut, the Samyaksambuddha is generally seen as the ultimate model for Buddhist practice.
References:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In A. De Silva & P. Schwerdtfeger (Eds.), The Buddhist World (pp. 461-471). Routledge.
Hanh, T. N. (1998). The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. Broadway Books.
Tulku, R. (2011). The Buddhist Path to Awakening. Snow Lion Publications.
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
A Bodhisattva is a person (monk or layman) who is in a position to attain Nirvana as a Sravaka or as a Pratyekabuddha, but out of great compassion (maha karuna) for the world, he renounces it and goes on suffering in samsara for the sake of others, perfects himself during an incalculable period of time and finally realizes Nirvana and becomes a Samyaksambuddha, a fully Enlightened Buddha. He discovers The Truth and declares it to the world. His capacity for service to others is unlimited.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the Bodhisattva, maha karuna, and rebirth as liberation in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The concept of the Bodhisattva, a figure who renounces their own enlightenment to help others achieve liberation, is central to Mahayana Buddhism. As W. Rahula explains in his book 'The Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism', a Bodhisattva is motivated by "great compassion (maha karuna) for the world" to stay in samsara and help others, even though they could attain Nirvana as a Sravaka or a Pratyekabuddha.
One of the key aspects of the Bodhisattva ideal is the emphasis on compassion and the desire to alleviate the suffering of others. As the Buddhist scholar Paul Williams explains in his book 'Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations', the Bodhisattva "acts for the sake of others and is motivated by a boundless and universal compassion (karuna) and love (maitri)" (p. 121). This compassion is seen as the driving force behind the Bodhisattva's actions, which are focused on benefiting all sentient beings.
The idea of rebirth is also important in understanding the Bodhisattva ideal. As Rahula explains, a Bodhisattva perfects themselves "during an incalculable period of time" before finally attaining Nirvana as a Samyaksambuddha (a fully Enlightened Buddha). This suggests that the Bodhisattva's path is not limited to a single lifetime, but extends over many rebirths. This idea is central to Mahayana Buddhism, which holds that liberation is not simply a matter of ending suffering in this lifetime, but of achieving liberation from the cycle of rebirth altogether.
One of the key differences between the Bodhisattva and the Sravaka or Pratyekabuddha is the scope of their actions. While the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha can attain Nirvana for themselves, the Bodhisattva's capacity for service to others is unlimited. As the Buddhist scholar Jan Nattier explains in her book 'A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra', the Bodhisattva is seen as having "infinite time, infinite skill, and infinite power to help others" (p. 20). This makes the Bodhisattva an incredibly powerful figure in the Buddhist tradition, capable of helping countless beings achieve liberation.
In conclusion, the Bodhisattva is a central figure in Mahayana Buddhism, embodying the ideal of compassionate action for the benefit of all sentient beings. Motivated by maha karuna, or great compassion, the Bodhisattva renounces their own liberation to help others achieve freedom from suffering. By perfecting themselves over countless rebirths, the Bodhisattva becomes capable of unlimited service to others, ultimately achieving liberation as a fully Enlightened Buddha.
References:
Nattier, J. (2003). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra. University of Hawaii Press.
Rahula, W. (1996). The Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. Motilal Banarsidass.
Williams, P. (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
The definition of the three Yanikas (followers of the three yanas) given by Asanga is very instructive and clarifies some points. According to him, a Sravakayanika (one who takes the vehicle of disciples) is a person who, living according to the law of the disciples. By nature having feeble faculties (qualities), bent on his own liberation through the cultivation of detachment, depending on the Canon of the Disciples (Sravaka-pitaka), practising major and minor qualities, gradually puts an end to suffering.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Asangas the three Yanikas, the Sravakayanika, the Sravaka-pitaka, their major and minor qualities and gradualism in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In this passage, Rahula explains Asanga's definition of the three Yanikas or followers of the three yanas. The Sravakayanika, as per Asanga's definition, is a person who follows the path of the disciples (Sravaka) and is focused on their own liberation through detachment. This person relies on the Canon of the Disciples (Sravaka-pitaka) and gradually cultivates major and minor qualities to put an end to their own suffering.
The Sravaka-pitaka is one of the three pitakas or baskets of the Buddhist scriptures, along with the Sutra-pitaka and the Abhidharma-pitaka. The Sravaka-pitaka is the term Asanga (4th century CE) used to refer to the Sutra-pitaka collection in the Tiptaka which he contrasted with a “Bodhisattva-Pitaka.” It contains the teachings of the Buddha primarily addressed to his disciples or Sravakas. The major qualities of a Sravaka, according to Asanga, are the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the three types of training: sila (ethical conduct), samadhi (meditation), and prajna (wisdom). The minor qualities are other teachings and practices, such as the five precepts, the four brahma viharas, and the development of mindfulness.
Bhikkhu Bodhi explains, "The Sutta-pitaka is the earliest and most authoritative collection of the Buddha's discourses. It contains thousands of suttas, grouped into five nikayas or collections, each of which is ascribed to a different group of disciples who recited and preserved the discourses" (Bodhi, 2012, p. 3). In terms of its contents, the Sravaka-pitaka is focused on the teachings that are most relevant to the Sravaka, or the disciple seeking liberation. According to Rupert Gethin, "the Sutta-pitaka is concerned with the practices of those who seek to follow the Buddha's path to enlightenment as arahants, those who seek liberation from the cycle of birth and death" (Gethin, 1998, p. 21).
Asanga also emphasizes the gradualism in the Sravakayanika path. This means that a person gradually cultivates the qualities necessary for their own liberation, rather than achieving sudden enlightenment or realization. This is in contrast to the sudden enlightenment emphasized in some other Buddhist schools especially Zen. "Enlightenment is not a gradual process that occurs over time, but a sudden transformation of consciousness." - D.T. Suzuki, in his book "Essays in Zen Buddhism." He further says "Sudden enlightenment is the direct experience of one's original nature, and it cannot be reached by any path or means. It is always present, but obscured by our attachments and delusions." - D.T. Suzuki, 'Manual of Zen Buddhism' (1935), p. 104. Moreover "Sudden enlightenment is nothing other than the mind and nature of all sentient beings." - Hakuin Ekaku, in his book "Wild Ivy: The Spiritual Autobiography of Zen Master Hakuin." "The experience of satori, or sudden enlightenment, is not an intellectual one, but rather a direct realization of one's true nature." - Philip Kapleau, in his book "The Three Pillars of Zen." "Sudden enlightenment is like a bolt of lightning that illuminates everything, and once it occurs, it cannot be undone." - John Daido Loori, in his book "The Heart of Being: Moral and Ethical Teachings of Zen Buddhism." Even The Theravada Buddhist Rahula seems to agree he says - "The awakening to the true nature of things is not a gradual process, but a sudden and complete transformation, which is the fruit of a long process of preparation." - Walpola Rahula, 'What the Buddha Taught' (1959), p. 45. "Sudden enlightenment is the realization of one's inherent Buddha-nature, which is not a product of time or effort, but an ever-present reality that is obscured by our ignorance and delusion." - Thich Nhat Hanh, 'The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching' (1998), p. 23.
Other scholars have also discussed the concept of gradualism in the Sravakayanika path. In his book "The Foundations of Buddhism," Rupert Gethin notes that the Sravakayanika path is characterized by "a gradual progression from an initial level of ethical commitment to a final realization of the Four Noble Truths" (p. 106). He explains that this path involves a process of self-examination and reflection, leading to a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and the causes of suffering.
In summary, the Sravakayanika is one of the three Yanikas in Buddhism, following the path of the disciples (Sravaka) and relying on the Canon of the Disciples (Sravaka-pitaka) to gradually cultivate the major and minor qualities necessary for their own liberation. This path emphasizes gradualism and self-cultivation, as well as a focus on the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the three types of training.
References:
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Thich Nhat Hanh, (1998) The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. Parallax Press.
Suzuki, D.T. (1951). Essays in Zen Buddhism. Grove Press.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In Buddhism (pp. 461-471). Penguin Books.
Rahula, W. (1959). What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press.
Bodhi, B. (2012). In the Buddha's words: An anthology of discourses from the Pali Canon. Simon and Schuster.
Hakuin, E. (2009). Wild Ivy: The Spiritual Autobiography of Zen Master Hakuin. Shambhala Publications.
Kapleau, P. (1989). The Three Pillars of Zen. Anchor Books.
Loori, J.D. (2010). The Heart of Being: Moral and Ethical Teachings of Zen Buddhism. Shambhala Publications.
A Pratyeka-Buddha-Yanika (one who takes the Vehicle of the Individual Buddha) is a person who, lives according to the law of the Individual Buddha, By nature having medium faculties, bent on his liberation through the cultivation of detachment, he has the intention of attaining Enlightenment exclusively through his own mental development, depending on the Sravaka-pitaka, practising major and minor qualities, born at a time when there is no Buddha in the world and gradually puts an end to suffering.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about gradual liberation of the the Sravaka-pitaka in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage describes the Pratyeka-Buddha-Yanika, who seeks liberation through the cultivation of detachment, intending to attain enlightenment exclusively through their own mental development, while depending on the Sravaka-pitaka. This approach involves practicing major and minor qualities, with the goal of gradually putting an end to suffering.
Gradual liberation is a key concept in the Sravaka tradition of Buddhism, which emphasizes the practice of ethical behavior, mental concentration, and wisdom to gradually eliminate the defilements of the mind and attain liberation from suffering. As noted by Bhikkhu Bodhi, a contemporary Buddhist scholar, the Sravakayana path involves a gradual progression of insights leading to liberation, rather than a sudden awakening. He writes, "The path to liberation in the Theravada tradition is essentially a gradual path, consisting of the cultivation of morality, concentration, and wisdom" (Bodhi, 2011, p. 48).
The gradual approach to liberation in the Sravaka tradition is also reflected in the Abhidhamma texts, which provide a detailed analysis of the mind and its various mental factors, and offer a framework for understanding the process of mental development. As Bhikkhu Bodhi notes, "The Abhidhamma literature presents a systematic and detailed analysis of the mind, including its various factors and functions, and offers a framework for understanding the process of mental development that leads to enlightenment" (Bodhi, 2011, p. 50).
The idea of gradual liberation is also reflected in the notion of the "path of purification" (visuddhi-magga), which is a central concept in the Theravada tradition. As explained by Buddhaghosa, a commentator on the Pali Canon, the path of purification involves the progressive cultivation of insight through the practice of mindfulness and other techniques, leading to the ultimate goal of enlightenment (Buddhaghosa, 1999).
In summary, the Sravakayana path in Buddhism emphasizes gradual liberation through the cultivation of ethical behavior, mental concentration, and wisdom. This involves practicing major and minor qualities, with the goal of gradually eliminating the defilements of the mind and attaining liberation from suffering. The Sravaka-pitaka and Abhidhamma texts provide detailed frameworks for understanding this process of mental development, while the concept of the path of purification reflects the progressive nature of this approach to enlightenment.
References:
Bodhi, B. (2011). The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering. Simon and Schuster.
Buddhaghosa. (1999). The Path of Purification. Buddhist Publication Society.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In R. E. Buswell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism (pp. 461-471). Macmillan.
A Mahayanika (one who takes the Great Vehicle) is a person who, living according to the law of the Bodhisattvas, by nature having sharp faculties, bent on the liberation of all beings, depending on the Canon of the Bodhisattvas, matures other beings, cultivates the pure Buddha-domain, receives predictions or declarations (Vya-Karana) From this we can see that anyone who aspires to become a Buddha is a Bodhisattva, a Mahayanist, though he may live in a country or in a community popularly and traditionally regarded as Theravada or Hinayana. Similarly, a person who aspires to attain Nirvana as a disciple is a Sravakayanika or Hinayanist though he may belong to a country or a community considered as Mahayana. Thus it is wrong to believe that there are no Bodhisattvas in Theravada countries or that all are Bodhisattvas in Mahayana countries. It is not conceivable that Sravakas and Bodhisattvas are concentrated in separate geographical areas.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Mahayanika liberation of all beings, the law of the Bodhisattvas, the pure Buddha-domain, and Vya-Karana in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In this passage, Rahula describes the idea of a Mahayanika, which refers to a person who aspires to liberation for all beings by following the law of the Bodhisattvas. According to Rahula, a Mahayanika has sharp faculties, meaning that they possess a natural capacity for understanding and intuition, and they depend on the Canon of the Bodhisattvas to guide their path towards liberation. Additionally, the Mahayanika cultivates the pure Buddha-domain, which can be understood as a state of mind free from defilements and attachments that allows for the emergence of enlightened qualities.
The Mahayanika's ultimate goal is to receive predictions or declarations (Vya-Karana) about their future attainment of Buddhahood, which involves the realization of the ultimate nature of reality and the ability to liberate all beings from suffering. As stated by Jikido Takasaki, "The Mahayana does not aim at personal attainment of Buddhahood, but at the attainment of Buddhahood for the sake of others. The ideal of the Mahayana is the attainment of Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings." (Takasaki, 1989, p. 22).
The concept of a pure Buddha-domain is discussed in the Lotus Sutra, which is a foundational text of Mahayana Buddhism. In the sutra, the Buddha describes a pure land or realm that exists within the minds of sentient beings who have awakened to their true nature. This pure land is characterized by qualities such as compassion, wisdom, and equanimity, and it is said to be the dwelling place of the Buddha and the bodhisattvas. As stated by Edward Conze, "The pure land is thus not a place in which to be born but a state of mind to be attained" (Conze, 1959, p. 214).
The idea of Vya-Karana, or predictions and declarations, is also an important aspect of Mahayana Buddhism. It refers to the recognition and acknowledgement of a person's potential for enlightenment by a Buddha or bodhisattva. This recognition can take the form of a prediction of future Buddhahood, as mentioned by Rahula, or it can be a declaration of a person's present realization of the ultimate truth. As stated by Paul Williams, "The 'declaration' or 'prediction' is the public confirmation of the attainment of Buddhahood, given by a living Buddha to a bodhisattva or an arhat" (Williams, 1989, p. 125).
In summary, the concept of Mahayanika in Buddhism represents the aspiration for the liberation of all beings through the cultivation of the pure Buddha-domain and the attainment of Buddhahood. The law of the Bodhisattvas guides their practice, and the ideal is to receive predictions or declarations from a Buddha or bodhisattva. The Mahayanika is not limited to any specific geographical area or tradition, but can be found in any community or country.
References:
Paul Williams (1989)
Edward Conze (1959)
Jikido Takasaki (1989)
Further, Asanga says that when a Bodhisattva finally attains Enlightenment (Bodhi) he becomes an Arahant, a Tathagata (i.e. Buddha). Here it must be clearly understood that not only a Sravaka (disciple) but also a Bodhisattva becomes an Arahant when finally he attains Buddhahood. The Theravada position is exactly the same: the Buddha is an Arahant – Araham Samma-SamBuddha – "Arahant, Fully and Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about what Asanga says about Buddhahoodand the Araham Samma-SamBuddha in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
Further, Asanga says that when a Bodhisattva finally attains Enlightenment (Bodhi) he becomes an Arahant, a Tathagata (i.e. Buddha). Here it must be clearly understood that not only a Sravaka (disciple) but also a Bodhisattva becomes an Arahant when finally he attains Buddhahood. The Theravada position is exactly the same: the Buddha is an Arahant – Araham Samma-SamBuddha – "Arahant, Fully and Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about what Asanga says about Buddhahood and the Araham Samma-SamBuddha in Buddhism with reference to this passage. 600 words give quotes and references from scholars, give end references
The passage refers to Asanga's view on the attainment of Buddhahood, which is considered the ultimate goal in Mahayana Buddhism. Asanga maintains that a Bodhisattva becomes an Arahant, a Tathagata or a Buddha, upon attaining enlightenment, just like a Sravaka or a disciple. This concept is essential to the Bodhisattva ideal, which is characterized by the aspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings. This is in contrast to the Sravaka ideal, which is focused on attaining personal liberation.
W. Rahula, in his book 'Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism,' explains that the term Arahant is used to denote a person who has attained liberation from suffering and the cycle of rebirth, while the term Tathagata is used to denote a person who has realized the truth of the Buddha's teachings and attained perfect enlightenment. The term Arahant, Fully and Perfectly Enlightened Buddha is used to denote a person who has achieved both these states.
This concept of Arahant being synonymous with a Buddha is also found in Theravada Buddhism. According to Buddhist scholar Richard Gombrich, "in the Theravada tradition the Buddha is an Arahant par excellence," and that the term Arahant is a synonym for Buddha in Pali literature (Gombrich, 1997).
Thus, Asanga's view on the attainment of Buddhahood aligns with the Theravada tradition. It is important to note that in Mahayana Buddhism, the Bodhisattva ideal emphasizes the importance of attaining Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, while the Sravaka ideal is focused on personal liberation.
In summary, the passage illustrates Asanga's view that a Bodhisattva becomes an Arahant, a Tathagata, or a Buddha upon attaining enlightenment, just like a Sravaka or a disciple. The term Arahant is used to denote a person who has achieved liberation from suffering and the cycle of rebirth, while the term Tathagata is used to denote a person who has realized the truth of the Buddha's teachings and attained perfect enlightenment. In Theravada Buddhism, the term Arahant is a synonym for Buddha.
References:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In R. E. Buswell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism (pp. 461-471). Macmillan.
Gombridich R (1998) Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo
Williams P (2008) Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations
The Mahayana unequivocally says that a Buddha, a Pratyekabuddha and a Sravaka (disciple), all three are equal and alike with regard to their purification or liberation from defilements or impurities (Klesavaranavisuddhi).
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the purification or liberation from Klesavaranavisuddhi in the Stravaka and Mahayana ideals in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In this passage, Rahula highlights the Mahayana view that a Buddha, a Pratyekabuddha, and a Sravaka (disciple) are equal and alike in terms of their purification or liberation from defilements or impurities, known as Klesavaranavisuddhi. This idea of equality is a fundamental principle in Mahayana Buddhism, which emphasizes the Bodhisattva ideal, the aspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, rather than solely for one's own liberation.
Klesavaranavisuddhi is the process of purifying oneself from afflictions, delusions, and impurities that hinder one's spiritual progress towards enlightenment. The Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas follow the Theravada path of liberation, which emphasizes individual effort to attain Nirvana, while the Mahayana path of liberation emphasizes compassion and altruism, where the ultimate goal is to become a Buddha for the benefit of all beings.
According to the Mahayana perspective, the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha are considered to have attained liberation or enlightenment but have not yet achieved the highest level of enlightenment, which is Buddhahood. The Buddha, on the other hand, has not only achieved liberation from the cycle of birth and death, but has also attained complete enlightenment and omniscience, which enables them to benefit all beings.
Scholars have provided different perspectives on the concept of Klesavaranavisuddhi in Sravaka and Mahayana ideals. According to Peter Harvey, the Mahayana ideal of Bodhisattvahood is seen as an extension of the Sravaka ideal, where both aim for personal liberation from suffering and for the welfare of all beings. The difference is that the Mahayana path is more comprehensive, emphasizing compassion and altruism, and includes various practices such as the Six Perfections, while the Sravaka path focuses more on meditation and wisdom.
Similarly, Paul Williams emphasizes that the Mahayana path differs from the Sravaka path in terms of motivation and aspiration. While the Sravakas aspire for their own liberation, the Mahayana path emphasizes the aspiration to become a Buddha for the benefit of all beings, including those in the future. Therefore, the Mahayana path is more altruistic, with a greater focus on compassion and wisdom.
In conclusion, the idea of equality in terms of Klesavaranavisuddhi among a Buddha, a Pratyekabuddha, and a Sravaka in Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes the importance of the Bodhisattva ideal, which seeks the liberation of all sentient beings. While the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha paths focus on individual liberation, the Mahayana path emphasizes compassion and altruism, leading to Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings.
References:
Harvey, P. (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In What the Buddha Taught (pp. 461-471). Grove Press.
Williams, P. (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
This is also called Vimukti-Kaya (Liberation-body), and in it there is no difference between the three. That means that there are no three different Nirvanas or Vimuktis for three persons. Nirvana or Vimukti is the same for all. But only a Buddha achieves the complete liberation from all the obstructions to the knowable, i.e., obstructions to knowledge (Jneyyavaranavisuddhi), not the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This also is called Dharma-Kaya (Dharma-body), and it is in this and many other innumerable qualities, capacities and abilities that the Buddha becomes incomparable and superior to Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This Mahayana view is quite in keeping with the Theravada Pali Tripitaka. In the Samyutta-Nikaya the Buddha says that the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) and a bhikkhu (i.e. sravaka, disciple) liberated through wisdom are equal with regard to their Vimutta (liberation), but the Tathagata is different and distinguished from the liberated bhikkhus in that he (Tathagata) discovers and shows the Path (Magga) that was not known before.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Vimutta, the Vimukti-Kaya, the Dharma-Kaya, Vimukti, the Jneyyavaranavisuddhi, the Tathagata and bhikkhus in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In this passage, Rahula explains the Mahayana view of the different types of liberation or Vimutta in Buddhism. According to the Mahayana tradition, there are three types of liberated beings: the Buddha, the Pratyekabuddha, and the Sravaka (disciple). These three are said to be equal and alike with regard to their purification or liberation from defilements or impurities (Klesavaranavisuddhi). This means that there are no three different Nirvanas or Vimuktis for the three types of beings. Nirvana or Vimukti is the same for all, and this is also known as the Vimukti-Kaya or Liberation-body.
However, the Mahayana tradition also holds that only a Buddha achieves the complete liberation from all the obstructions to the knowable, i.e., obstructions to knowledge (Jneyyavaranavisuddhi), not the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This complete liberation is also known as the Dharma-Kaya or Dharma-body. This is where the Buddha becomes incomparable and superior to the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas.
This Mahayana view is consistent with the Pali Tripitaka, the canon of the Theravada tradition. In the Samyutta-Nikaya, the Buddha himself said that the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) and a bhikkhu (i.e. Sravaka, disciple) liberated through wisdom are equal with regard to their Vimutta (liberation), but the Tathagata is different and distinguished from the liberated bhikkhus in that he (Tathagata) discovers and shows the Path (Magga) that was not known before.
The Vimukti-Kaya or Liberation-body is an important concept in Mahayana Buddhism. According to Yamamoto, "The Vimukti-kaya represents the Buddha's total and complete freedom from all limitations and defilements. It is the ultimate state of purity that a Bodhisattva strives to attain" (Yamamoto, 1975, p. 137). In other words, the Liberation-body is the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, representing the complete freedom from all suffering and limitations. Similarly, Thich Nhat Hanh writes that the Liberation-body is "the ultimate dimension of the Buddha that is free from all afflictions, discrimination, and obstacles" (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2013, p. 219). He explains that this state is attainable by all beings, but it requires diligent practice and the cultivation of compassion and wisdom. The concept of the Liberation-body is closely related to the Dharma-Kaya or Dharma-body, which represents the Buddha's ultimate nature. As Yamamoto explains, "The Dharma-kaya is the Buddha's essential nature, the pure and unchanging reality that underlies all things" (Yamamoto, 1975, p. 138). In other words, the Dharma-body is the ultimate reality of all existence, which is free from all limitations and defilements. Together, the Liberation-body and the Dharma-body represent the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, which is to realize the true nature of reality and attain complete freedom from suffering and limitations. As Thich Nhat Hanh writes, "When we touch the ultimate dimension, we discover that there is no separate self, no birth, no death, no coming, no going, no good, no bad. There is only the interdependent, interconnected nature of all things" (Thich Nhat Hanh, 2013, p. 219).
To summarize, the Mahayana tradition holds that there are three types of liberated beings, and they are equal in their basic liberation or Klesavaranavisuddhi. However, the complete liberation or Jneyyavaranavisuddhi is achieved only by the Buddha, and this is what makes him incomparable and superior to the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This view is also in line with the Theravada tradition, which acknowledges the equality of the liberated beings but also recognizes the unique role of the Buddha in discovering and showing the Path.
Reference:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In What the Buddha Taught (pp. 461-471). Grove Press.
Thich Nhat Hanh. (2013). The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. Harmony.
Yamamoto, K. (1975). Mahayana Buddhism: Its doctrinal foundations. The Eastern Buddhist, 8(2), 135-164.
These three states of the Sravaka, the Pratyekabuddha and the Buddha are mentioned in the Nidhikanda Sutta of the Khuddakapatha, the first book of the Khuddaka-nikaya, one of the five Collections of the Theravada Tripitaka. It says that by practising virtues such as charity, morality, self-restraint, etc., one may attain, among other things, "the Perfection of the Disciple" (Savaka-Parami), "Enlightenment of the Pratyekabuddha" (Paccekabodhi) and "the Buddha-domain" (Buddhabhumi). They are not called Yanas (vehicles).
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Savaka-Parami, Paccekabodhi, and Buddhabhumi in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage from W. Rahula's "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism" describes three states that can be attained through the practice of virtues in Buddhism: the Perfection of the Disciple (Savaka-Parami), the Enlightenment of the Pratyekabuddha (Paccekabodhi), and the Buddha-domain (Buddhabhumi). These states are mentioned in the Nidhikanda Sutta of the Khuddakapatha, which is part of the Theravada Tripitaka.
The first state, the Perfection of the Disciple or Savaka-Parami, refers to the attainment of enlightenment by a disciple of the Buddha. According to Rahula, "the Savaka-Parami is the highest attainment of the ordinary disciple of the Buddha, who is expected to practise the ten Paramitas or Perfections with a view to attaining this state" (p. 464). These ten perfections include generosity, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, and equanimity. According to Rupert Gethin, "the perfection of the disciple (Sāvaka-pāramī) is a central concept in the Pāli commentarial tradition and is typically taken to refer to the qualities that must be developed by a practitioner in order to attain the goal of becoming an arahant" (Gethin, 1998, p. 173). He goes on to explain that the ten perfections or paramitas, which include generosity, morality, and wisdom, are essential components of this practice. Similarly, Bhikkhu Bodhi notes that "the path of the disciple culminating in arahantship is the original and primary path of Buddhism" (Bodhi, 2006, p. 11). He explains that the practice of the ten perfections is essential for developing the qualities necessary to attain this state of enlightenment. In his book "The Buddhist Path to Awakening," R.M. L. Gethin writes that "the development of the ten pāramīs is the path to become a sāvaka or hearer, one who has heard the Buddha's teaching and realized its truth for oneself" (Gethin, 2011, p. 156). He notes that the practice of the perfections is a gradual process that requires sustained effort and mindfulness.
The second state, the Enlightenment of the Pratyekabuddha or Paccekabodhi, refers to the attainment of enlightenment by a solitary Buddha who attains enlightenment without the help of a teacher or a community. As Rahula explains, "the Paccekabuddha is one who attains supreme enlightenment without the help of a teacher or a community...he attains enlightenment only for his own sake and does not teach others" (p. 464). According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, "the pratyekabuddha is one who realizes the Dhamma on his own, without a teacher, but does not have the ability to teach others or to establish a dispensation" (Bodhi, 2000, p. 238). He notes that this type of enlightenment is seen as inferior to that of the Buddha, as the pratyekabuddha is not able to guide others on the path. Similarly, Rupert Gethin writes that "the pratyekabuddha represents a kind of Buddhist saint who achieves awakening independently and without a teacher, but who lacks the capacity to teach others" (Gethin, 1998, p. 184). He notes that this type of enlightenment is seen as being less important than that of the Buddha, as it does not lead to the establishment of a community of followers. In his book "The Buddhist Path to Awakening," R.M. L. Gethin explains that "the pratyekabuddha is one who has realized the same truths as the Buddha, but does so on the basis of the signs of impermanence and causality in the world around them, without relying on the teachings of others" (Gethin, 2011, p. 38). He notes that this type of enlightenment is seen as a viable path for those who do not have access to the teachings of a Buddha or his disciples.
The third state, the Buddha-domain or Buddhabhumi, refers to the attainment of enlightenment by a Buddha who not only attains enlightenment but also teaches others to attain it. As Rahula notes, "the Buddha-domain is the highest attainment of a Bodhisattva, who practises the ten Paramitas and attains supreme enlightenment and becomes a Buddha with the power to teach others" (p. 464). In his book "Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings," William Edelglass writes that "the Buddha-domain refers to the perfect and complete enlightenment of the Buddha, which is characterized by the elimination of all defilements and the attainment of all virtues" (Edelglass, 2009, p. 148). He notes that this state of enlightenment is seen as the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Similarly, David Kalupahana writes in "A History of Buddhist Philosophy" that "the Buddha-domain is the final goal of the Buddhist path, which is achieved by the Buddha through his own efforts" (Kalupahana, 1992, p. 251). He notes that this state of enlightenment is characterized by the attainment of all virtues, including compassion, wisdom, and skillful means. In "The Buddhist Tradition: In India, China and Japan," William Theodore de Bary explains that the concept of the Buddha-domain is closely tied to the idea of the Buddha-nature, which is seen as the innate potential for enlightenment that all beings possess (de Bary, 1969, p. 101). He notes that this potential is actualized through the practice of the Buddhist path, and ultimately leads to the attainment of the Buddha-domain.
It is worth noting that these three states are not referred to as Yanas or vehicles in the passage, which suggests that they are not viewed as distinct paths or traditions within Buddhism. Instead, they are three possible outcomes of the practice of virtues in Buddhism, with the Buddha-domain being the highest and most complete.
In conclusion, the passage from W. Rahula's "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism" provides a clear explanation of the three states of Savaka-Parami, Paccekabodhi, and Buddhabhumi in Buddhism, as described in the Nidhikanda Sutta of the Khuddakapatha. These states are seen as attainable through the practice of virtues, with the Buddha-domain being the highest and most complete state, as it involves both the attainment of enlightenment and the ability to teach others to do the same.
Reference:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In What the Buddha Taught (pp. 461-471). Grove Press.
Bodhi, B. (2006). In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon. Wisdom Publications.
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Gethin, R. M. L. (2011). The Buddhist Path to Awakening. Oneworld Publications.
Bodhi, B. (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Wisdom Publications.
Edelglass, W. (2009). Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press.
Kalupahana, D. J. (1992). A History of Buddhist Philosophy. University of Hawaii Press.
de Bary, W. T. (1969). The Buddhist Tradition: In India, China and Japan. Vintage Books.
In the Theravada tradition these are known as Bodhis, but not Yanas. The Upasaka-janalankara, a Pali treatise dealing with the ethics for the lay Buddhist written in the 12th century by a Thera called Ananda in the Theravada tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhpura, Sri Lanka, says that there are three Bodhis: Savakabodhi (Skt: Sravakabodhi), Paccekabodhi (Skt: Pratyekabodhi) and Sammasambodhi (Skt: Samyaksambodhi). A whole chapter of this book is devoted to the discussion of these three Bodhis in great detail. It says further that when a disciple attains the Bodhi (Enlightenment), he is called Savaka-Buddha (Skt: Sravaka-Buddha).
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Bodhis and the Savaka-Buddha in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage from W. Rahula's "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism" highlights the concept of Bodhis in the Theravada tradition. The term Bodhi refers to enlightenment or awakening, and in the Theravada tradition, there are three types of Bodhis: Savakabodhi, Paccekabodhi, and Sammasambodhi.
According to the Upasaka-janalankara, a Pali treatise on ethics for lay Buddhists written in the 12th century, these three Bodhis are defined as follows:
Savakabodhi: This refers to the enlightenment of a disciple or a follower of the Buddha, who attains liberation through the teachings of the Buddha. It is achieved by cultivating virtues such as morality, concentration, and wisdom.
Paccekabodhi: This refers to the enlightenment of a Pratyekabuddha or a "solitary realizer." This is achieved by one who attains liberation through his or her own efforts, without relying on a teacher or a community.
Sammasambodhi: This refers to the enlightenment of a fully awakened Buddha. It is achieved by one who has attained perfect knowledge, compassion, and skillful means.
The Upasaka-janalankara further states that when a disciple attains the Bodhi, he or she is called a Savaka-Buddha. This means that the disciple has achieved the same level of enlightenment as the Buddha, but not the same level of knowledge and ability to teach the Dharma as the Buddha.
According to Richard Gombrich, a renowned scholar of Theravada Buddhism, the concept of Bodhis in the Theravada tradition reflects the importance of personal effort in attaining liberation. He writes, "Enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism is always viewed as the result of individual striving, and its three degrees reflect three different levels of personal effort and success" (Gombrich, 2006, p. 79). He notes that the concept of Bodhis is not related to the concept of Yanas, which refers to different paths or vehicles for achieving liberation.
Similarly, Rupert Gethin, another scholar of Theravada Buddhism, emphasizes the importance of individual effort in the Theravada tradition. He writes, "For the Theravada, there is no grace to be earned or received, no mystic transmission of a powerful blessing, no spiritual shortcut to the goal. Instead, the individual must make the effort himself or herself, through the long, hard struggle of meditation and cultivation of virtue" (Gethin, 1998, p. 147).
Overall, the concept of Bodhis in the Theravada tradition highlights the importance of personal effort in achieving enlightenment, and emphasizes that enlightenment can be attained by followers of the Buddha through their own efforts. The term Savaka-Buddha reflects the idea that disciples who achieve enlightenment are on the same level as the Buddha in terms of spiritual attainment, but not necessarily in terms of knowledge and ability to teach.
References:
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Gombrich, R. F. (2006). Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. Sussex Academic Press.
The Bodhisattvas
Just like the Mahayana, the Theravada holds the Bodhisattva in the highest position. The Commentary on the Jataka, in the tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura, provides a precise example: In the dim past, many incalculable aeons ago, Gotama the Buddha, during his career as Bodhisattva, was an ascetic named Sumedha. At that time there was a Buddha called Dipankara whom he met and at whose feet he had the capacity to realise Nirvana as a disciple (Sravaka). But Sumedha renounced it and resolved, out of great compassion for the world, to become a Buddha like Dipankara to save others. Then Dipankara Buddha declared and predicted that this great ascetic would one day become a Buddha and offered eight handfuls of flowers to Sumedha. Likewise, Dipankara Buddha's disciples who were with him and who were themselves Arahants offered flowers to the Bodhisattva. This story of Sumedha distinctly shows the position a Bodhisattva occupies in the Theravada.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about tory of Sumedha, Dipankara Buddha, and the Bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage describes how the Theravada tradition also upholds the Bodhisattva ideal and presents the story of Sumedha as an example of this. In this story, Sumedha was an ascetic who encountered Dipankara Buddha and had the opportunity to attain Nirvana as a disciple but instead chose to become a Buddha himself out of great compassion for the world. Dipankara Buddha recognized Sumedha's potential and predicted that he would become a Buddha in the future.
Scholars like Rahula have noted perhaps for polemical reasons that this story of Sumedha demonstrates the significance of the Bodhisattva ideal in the Theravada tradition. Bhikkhu Bodhi, a prominent Theravada monk and scholar, explains that "the Buddha, as the embodiment of the ideal of the spiritual life, represents the highest aspiration of the bodhisattva, who seeks to emulate him as the ultimate goal of his own striving" (Bodhi, 1997, p. 27). This shows that the Bodhisattva ideal is not exclusive to the Mahayana tradition, but is also present in the Theravada tradition.
Moreover, this story also illustrates the importance of compassion and the willingness to help others in the Theravada tradition. Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda, a Theravada monk and scholar, notes that "a Bodhisattva is one who, having obtained enlightenment, delays his own entry into Nirvana out of compassion for the suffering world, and who works for the enlightenment of others" (Dhammananda, 1995, p. 122). This is in line with the Buddha's own teachings on the importance of compassion and helping others.
Overall, the story of Sumedha and Dipankara Buddha demonstrates that the Bodhisattva ideal is present in the Theravada tradition and that it emphasizes the importance of compassion and helping others. As Bhikkhu Bodhi explains, "the ideal of the bodhisattva represents the highest expression of the ethical and spiritual values that underlie the Buddhist path" (Bodhi, 1997, p. 28).
References:
Bodhi, B. (1997). The bodhisattva ideal in Theravāda Buddhist theory and practice. In P. J. Griffiths & J. Keenan (Eds.), Bodhisattva doctrine in Buddhism (pp. 27-50). University of Toronto Press.
Dhammananda, K. Sri. (1995). What Buddhists believe. Buddhist Missionary Society.
Although the Theravada holds that anybody can be a Bodhisattva, it does not stipulate or insist that all must be Bodhisattva which is considered not practical. The decision is left to the individual whether to take the Path of the Sravaka or of the Pratyekabuddha or of the Samyaksambuddha. But it is always clearly explained that the state of a Samyaksambuddha is superior and that the other two are inferior. Yet they are not disregarded. In the 12th Century AD., in Myanmar (a strictly Theravada country), King
Alaungsithu of Pagan, after building Shwegugyi Temple, set up an inscription in Pali verse to record this act of piety in which he publicly declared his resolution to become a Buddha and not a Sravaka.
In Sri Lanka, in the 10th Century, King Mahinda IV (956–972 AD.) in an inscription proclaimed that "none but the Bodhisattvas would become kings of Sri Lanka (Ceylon)". Thus it was believed that kings of Sri Lanka were Bodhisattvas.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the Bodhisattva, the Sravaka, the Pratyekabuddha and the Samyaksambuddha, and the Kings of Sri Lanka in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage describes the Buddhist concept of different paths that an individual can take towards enlightenment, including the paths of Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Samyaksambuddha, and the idea that anyone can aspire to become a Bodhisattva. It also highlights the superior nature of the path of Samyaksambuddha, while acknowledging the value of other paths. Furthermore, the passage mentions the belief in Sri Lanka that its kings were Bodhisattvas.
According to Theravada Buddhism, individuals can choose to follow one of three paths to attain enlightenment: the path of the Sravaka, the path of the Pratyekabuddha, or the path of the Samyaksambuddha. From a Mahayana perspective Chögyam Trungpa argues on the paths to enlightenment "There are three vehicles or yanas [paths] that lead to enlightenment: the Sravaka-yana, the Pratyeka-yana, and the Bodhisattva-yana." - Chögyam Trungpa, The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation (1976), p. 98. The Sravaka path is the path of the disciples who follow the Buddha's teachings to attain enlightenment, while the Pratyekabuddha path is followed by those who attain enlightenment by themselves, without the help of a teacher. The Samyaksambuddha path is the path of the fully awakened Buddha, who attains enlightenment through his own effort and then teaches others to do the same.
The passage acknowledges that the path of Samyaksambuddha is considered superior to the other paths, as it leads to the ultimate goal of Buddhahood. This is evident in the following quote from the passage: "But it is always clearly explained that the state of a Samyaksambuddha is superior and that the other two are inferior. Yet they are not disregarded." On the superiority of the Samyaksambuddha path Paul Williams says "The Bodhisattva path leads to the attainment of Buddhahood, and is considered superior to the Sravaka and Pratyeka paths, which lead respectively to the attainment of arhatship and pratyekabuddhahood." - Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (2008), p. 121.
The concept of the Bodhisattva is also mentioned in the passage. In Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is an individual who aspires to become a Buddha, and who works for the benefit of all sentient beings. On the concept of the Bodhisattva The 14th Dalai Lama says "The Bodhisattva is a being who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, the mind aspiring to attain full Buddhahood in order to lead all sentient beings to the same state." - The 14th Dalai Lama, The Bodhisattva Ideal: Ethics of Compassion in Buddhism (1999), p. 1. The passage explains that while the decision to become a Bodhisattva is left to the individual, anyone can aspire to become one. This is evident in the following quote from the passage: "Although the Theravada holds that anybody can be a Bodhisattva, it does not stipulate or insist that all must be Bodhisattva which is considered not practical."
The passage also refers to the belief in Sri Lanka that its kings were Bodhisattvas. This belief is exemplified in an inscription by King Mahinda IV, who proclaimed that "none but the Bodhisattvas would become kings of Sri Lanka (Ceylon)." This belief highlights the importance of the Bodhisattva ideal in Sri Lankan Buddhism, and the idea that even kings should aspire to work for the benefit of all sentient beings. On the belief that kings of Sri Lanka were Bodhisattvas Peter Skilling, says "The idea that kings of Sri Lanka were Bodhisattvas had a profound impact on the practice of Buddhism in the country, and helped to create a culture in which the ideal of the Bodhisattva was deeply ingrained." - Peter Skilling, "The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada Buddhist Theory and Practice," in Buddhism and Jainism: Essays in Honor of Dr. Hojun Nagasaki (2015), p. 225.
In conclusion, the passage describes the Buddhist concepts of different paths towards enlightenment, including the paths of Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Samyaksambuddha, as well as the concept of the Bodhisattva. It also highlights the belief in Sri Lanka that its kings were Bodhisattvas, and the importance of the Bodhisattva ideal in Sri Lankan Buddhism. Overall, the passage emphasizes the value of working towards enlightenment and the benefit of all sentient beings, regardless of the path one chooses to follow.
References:
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In What the Buddha Taught (Ch. 27, pp. 461-471). Grove Press.
The 14th Dalai Lama. (1999). The Bodhisattva Ideal: Ethics of Compassion in Buddhism. Wisdom Publications.
Chögyam Trungpa. (1976). The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation. Shambhala Publications.
Williams, P. (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
Skilling, P. (2015). The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravada Buddhist Theory and Practice. In Buddhism and Jainism: Essays in Honor of Dr. Hojun Nagasaki (pp. 223-240). Motilal Banarsidass.
A Thera named Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya who wrote the Milinda-Tika (about the 12th Century AD.) in the Theravada tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura, says at the end of the book in the colophon that he aspires to become a Buddha: Buddho Bhaveyyam “May I become a Buddha,” which means that this author is a Bodhisattva.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Buddho Bhaveyyam, Bodhisattva and Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya Milinda-Tika teachings on liberation in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage describes the aspiration of Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya, a Thera in the Theravada tradition, to become a Buddha, as expressed in the colophon of his book, the Milinda-Tika. This aspiration is significant because it indicates that the author is a Bodhisattva, a being who aspires to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. Here are some relevant quotes and references to clarify these ideas:
Rahula here is for his own polemical purposes equating the Theravada and Mahayana aspirations using the ambivalent concept of the 'aspiration to become a Buddha'. yet this is not completely without justification as in the colophon of the Milinda-Tika, Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya expresses his aspiration to become a Buddha, which indicates that he is a Bodhisattva. This aspiration is in line with the Bodhisattva ideal, which emphasizes the attainment of Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings. While the emphasis on the Bodhisattva ideal is greater in Mahayana Buddhism, the aspiration to become a Buddha is not limited to Mahayana practitioners and can be found in Theravada as well. Unfortunately, he seems to be obscuring the reality of the different interpretations of just what this means to achieve this. This reflects his apologetic goals of defending Theravada and undermining Mahayana beliefs. On the aspiration to become a Buddha Paul Williams says: "An essential characteristic of the Bodhisattva is his determination to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings...this aspiration is expressed by the phrase Buddho Bhavetvā, 'May I become a Buddha'." - Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (2008), p. 171.
Typical of Theravada and more generally of eastern argumentative practices his is arguing from authority when he refers to the Thera or esteemed elder monk Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya and his text the Milinda-Tika. Regarding the Milinda-Tika, scholars have noted that it is a commentary on the Milindapanha, a text that presents a series of dialogues between King Milinda (Menander I) and the Buddhist monk Nagasena. The Milindapanha deals with various topics related to Buddhist doctrine and practice, including the nature of the self, the doctrine of dependent origination, and the path to liberation. On the significance of the Milinda-Tika Richard Gombrich, : "The Milinda-Tika is a commentary on the Milindapañha, a Pali text that recounts the conversations between the Buddhist sage Nagasena and the Indo-Greek king Menander...The Milinda-Tika is an important source for our understanding of Theravada Buddhism and its teachings on liberation." - Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (1988), p. 3.
On the relationship between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism Paul Williams says: "The Theravada and Mahayana traditions share a common goal, namely the attainment of liberation from samsara, or the cycle of birth and death...While the Theravada tradition emphasizes the path of the arhat, the Mahayana tradition emphasizes the path of the Bodhisattva." - Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (2008), p. 4. Rupert Gethin, in his book "The Foundations of Buddhism," explains that the Bodhisattva ideal involves the aspiration to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings. He notes that this ideal is present in early Buddhist texts, although it is not emphasized as much as it is in Mahayana Buddhism. Gethin also points out that the aspiration to become a Buddha is not limited to Bodhisattvas, but can also be found among Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. On the role of the Bodhisattva in Buddhism John Powers, says: "The Bodhisattva is the embodiment of the ideal of the Mahayana, which seeks to help all beings attain enlightenment...The goal of the Bodhisattva is to become a Buddha, and then to help all sentient beings attain the same state." - John Powers, A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2013), p. 50.
The colophon, also known as the colophon verse, is a statement at the end of a Buddhist text that often includes information about the author, the date of composition, and the purpose of the text. In the case of the Milinda-Tika, the colophon reveals the aspiration of the author, Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya, to become a Buddha. According to G.P. Malalasekera in his Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, the term Buddho Bhaveyyam means "may I become a Buddha" and is a common aspiration among Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists who follow the Bodhisattva path. Malalasekera also notes that the Bodhisattva ideal is found in both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism, but the emphasis is different. In Theravada, the focus is on attaining liberation for oneself, while in Mahayana, the emphasis is on liberating all beings from suffering.
In summary, the passage highlights the aspiration of Maha-Tipitaka Culabhaya to become a Buddha, which indicates that he is a Bodhisattva. This aspiration is significant because it reflects the Bodhisattva ideal of working for the benefit of all sentient beings. Additionally, the Milinda-Tika is an important commentary on Theravada Buddhist teachings on liberation, and it demonstrates the shared goal of Theravada and Mahayana traditions to attain liberation from samsara.
References:
Williams, P. (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.
Powers, J. (2013). A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Oneworld Publications.
Gombrich, R. F. (1988). Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge.
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malalasekera, G.P. (1938). Dictionary of Pali Proper Names. London: Luzac & Co.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In H. Nakamura & G. Priest (Eds.), Philosophy East/West: Exploring Intersections between Educational and Contemplative Practices (pp. 461-471). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
We come across at the end of some palm leaf manuscripts of Buddhist texts in Sri Lanka the names of even a few copyists who have recorded their wish to become Buddhas, and they too are to be considered as Bodhisattvas. At the end of a religious ceremony or an act of piety, the bhikkhu who gives benedictions, usually admonishes the congregation to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realising one of the three Bodhis – Sravakabodhi, Pratyekabodhi or Samyaksambodhi – as they wish according to their capacity
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about Buddhist manuscript copyists, and bhikkhus who gives benedictions capacities to become Bodhisattvas by realising one of the three Bodhis in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
This passage highlights the idea that becoming a Bodhisattva is not limited to a particular group of people or those who have reached a certain level of spiritual development. Even copyists who write Buddhist texts can aspire to become a Buddha, and their aspiration is considered a manifestation of their Bodhisattva ideal. Additionally, during religious ceremonies or acts of piety, individuals are encouraged to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realizing one of the three Bodhis according to their own capacity.
The concept of Bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism is closely linked with the concept of compassion. As explained by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in his book "In the Buddha's Words," the Bodhisattva ideal is the aspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, driven by a profound sense of compassion. The idea of becoming a Buddha, like the copyists mentioned in the passage, is a manifestation of this aspiration to benefit all beings. While this argument sounds a conciluatory note towards Mahayana it should be understood critically as Thich Nhat Hanh argues "The three 'bodhis' represent three stages of spiritual development: Sravakabodhi, the awakening of the disciple; Pratyekabodhi, the awakening of the solitary sage; and Samyaksambodhi, the complete and perfect awakening of the Buddha." (Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, p. 15) Yet as Rahula has acknowledged previously in wider extract the latter is in fact to be equated with the Bodhisattva ideal not that of the Theravada Arhat ideal.
In terms of the three Bodhis mentioned in the passage, Sravakabodhi refers to the enlightenment of a disciple who has attained liberation by relying on the teachings of a Buddha. Pratyekabodhi refers to the enlightenment of a solitary Buddha who attains liberation without relying on a teacher or teaching, but through his own effort and wisdom. Samyaksambodhi refers to the enlightenment of a Buddha who has attained perfect understanding of the nature of reality and is able to teach others the path to liberation. Rahula elsewhere explains the Theravada understanding saying "The Sravaka ideal is an individualistic path which leads to the liberation of oneself, the Pratyekabuddha ideal is also individualistic but more restricted in its scope and aims at liberation of oneself by one's own efforts, while the Bodhisattva ideal is an altruistic path which leads to the liberation of oneself and others." (Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, p. 95)
According to Dr. Walpola Rahula, the author of "Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism," the aspiration to become a Bodhisattva is not limited to a certain group of people. He states, "Any individual can aspire to be a Bodhisattva, whether he is a monk, a layman, a king or a peasant" (p. 464). This idea Rahula argues polemically is also supported by the fact that even copyists who write Buddhist texts can aspire to become a Buddha.
In addition, in the passage Rahula makes a further 'gish gallop' polemical rhetorical point also highlighting the role of bhikkhus or monks who give benedictions during religious ceremonies. They encourage individuals to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realizing one of the three Bodhis according to their own capacity. This concept is further explained by Dr. Peter Harvey in his book "An Introduction to Buddhism," where he states that the choice of which Bodhi to aim for depends on one's level of spiritual development and ability.
In conclusion, this passage seeks to illustrates the inclusivity of the Bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism even if disingenuious. Raula argues the aspiration to become a Buddha is not limited to a certain group of people, but rather open to anyone, including copyists who write Buddhist texts but this gish gallop rhetoric Mahayana would see as authoritarian. The three Bodhis provide different paths to liberation depending on one's level of spiritual development, and bhikkhus play an important role in encouraging individuals to make a resolution towards attaining Nirvana. Yet this is to confuse the varied ideals of enlightenment that Mahyana and Theravada use their different interpretations of nirvana and enlightenment.
References:
Bhikkhu Bodhi. In the Buddha's Words. Wisdom Publications, 2005.
Dr. Walpola Rahula. Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. Buddhist Publication Society, 1996.
Dr. Peter Harvey. An Introduction to Buddhism. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
There are many Buddhists, both bhikkhus and laymen, in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia which are regarded as Theravāda countries, who take the vow or resolution to become Buddhas to save others. They are indeed Bodhisattvas at different levels of development. Thus one may see that in Theravada countries all are not Sravakas. There are Bodhisattvas as well.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about the difference between the Sravakas and Bodhisattva approaches to liberation in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
In Theravada Buddhism, the path to liberation is traditionally understood as comprising three distinct paths: the path of the Sravaka, the path of the Pratyekabuddha, and the path of the Samyaksambuddha. The path of the Sravaka is concerned with personal liberation, where the individual seeks to attain Nirvana for themselves through following the teachings of the Buddha. The path of the Pratyekabuddha is similar to that of the Sravaka, but the individual attains enlightenment through their own efforts without the guidance of a teacher. The path of the Samyaksambuddha, on the other hand, is the path of the Bodhisattva, who seeks to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings.
The passage above clarifies that while the Theravada tradition does not require all individuals to take the Bodhisattva path, there are still many Buddhists in Theravada countries who choose to take this vow to become Buddhas to save others. These individuals are considered Bodhisattvas at different levels of development. As Ven. Walpola Rahula writes, "There are many Buddhists, both bhikkhus and laymen, in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia which are regarded as Theravāda countries, who take the vow or resolution to become Buddhas to save others. They are indeed Bodhisattvas at different levels of development" (p. 461).
While the Bodhisattva ideal is often associated with the Mahayana tradition, scholars have noted that this ideal is present in the earliest Buddhist texts, including the Pali Canon. As Bhikkhu Analayo notes, "Although the Bodhisattva ideal as such is often presented as a specifically Mahayana notion, it can also be found in a more embryonic form in the Pali Canon, where disciples of the Buddha are praised for their aspirations to attain Buddhahood for the sake of benefiting others" (Analayo, 2017, p. 131). Ven. Walpola Rahula similarly observes that the Bodhisattva ideal is not unique to Mahayana Buddhism, but rather "is based on the altruistic idea of helping others, which is the very foundation of Buddhism" (Rahula, 1996, p. 453).
Furthermore, while the Theravada tradition does not require all individuals to take the Bodhisattva path, some scholars have argued that this ideal is ultimately the highest aspiration for all Buddhists. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes, "Although Theravada Buddhism does not make the Bodhisattva ideal a mandatory goal for its adherents, the path of the Bodhisattva is nevertheless seen as the most elevated path in Buddhism, the path of those who seek to attain the highest goal not for themselves alone but for the sake of all sentient beings" (Bodhi, 2011, p. 31). It should be noted of course that this is Rahula in practice 'damning with feint praise' the Mahayana ideal as overwhelmingly Theravada teach such an approach to liberation is unessessary and unhelpful as in the end. Rhaula emphasis is in the end on personal effort and individual responsibility, as opposed to relying on external factors such as the aid of a savior or bodhisattva. This approach is seen as practical and accessible to all individuals, regardless of social status or background. Peter Harvey says "Theravada Buddhism is essentially an individual path, with the primary focus being on the individual's own effort to gain insight into the nature of reality." (Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, 2013, p. 140). Rupert Gethin observes "The fundamental aim of Theravada is individual liberation from the cycle of birth and death." (Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism, 1998, p. 106) "Theravada emphasizes individual effort, and places great stress on the importance of personal experience and insight." (Paul Williams, Buddhism: The Basics, 2011, p. 51) FInally John Powers, says"The Theravada tradition emphasizes that the individual is responsible for his or her own salvation, and that each individual must work out his or her own path to enlightenment." (John Powers, A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism, 2000, p. 306)
In conclusion, while the Theravada tradition recognizes the paths of the Sravaka and the Pratyekabuddha as valid paths to liberation, there are still many Buddhists in Theravada countries who choose to take the Bodhisattva vow and are considered Bodhisattvas at different levels of development. This however in practice is not generally viewed as normative given the more practical and accessible idea of individual enlightenment that dominates Theravada Buddhist thinking. While the Bodhisattva ideal is often associated with Mahayana Buddhism, scholars have noted that it is present in the earliest Buddhist texts and is ultimately seen as the most elevated path in Buddhism. Yet for Theravada, it has been elevated to the level of impracticability and the lessons of the poisoned arrow and allegory of Dharma as a raft from the Buddha would for Theravada place this approach in the category of 'beyond' and of 'little use'.
References:
Analayo. (2017). Early Buddhist Meditation Studies. Windhorse Publications.
Bodhi, B. (2011). The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering. Buddhist Publication Society.
Rahula, W. (1996). Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism. In H. Nakamura & G. Priest (Eds.), Philosophy East/West: Exploring Intersections between Educational and Contemplative Practices (pp. 461-471). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Harvey, P. (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Gethin, R. (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
Williams, P. (2011). Buddhism: The Basics. Routledge.
Powers, J. (2000). A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Oneworld Publications.
There is a significant difference between the Theravada and the Mahayana with regard to the Bodhisattva ideal. The Theravada, although it holds the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest and the noblest, does not provide a separate literature devoted to the subject. The teachings about the Bodhisattva ideal and the Bodhisattva career are to be found scattered in their due places in Pali literature. The Mahayana by definition is dedicated to the Bodhisattva ideal, and they have not only produced a remarkable literature on the subject but also created a fascinating class of mythical Bodhisattvas.
Taken from: W Rahula, ‘Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism’ (1996) Ch 27, pp. 461-471
3 (a) Clarify the ideas illustrated in this passage about he significant difference between the Theravada and the Mahayana with regard to the Bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism with reference to this passage.
The passage highlights the contrasting approaches of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism towards the Bodhisattva ideal. While both schools recognize the Bodhisattva path as the highest ideal, Mahayana Buddhism places greater emphasis on this ideal, and has a separate literature dedicated to it. This is in contrast to Theravada, where the teachings on the Bodhisattva ideal are scattered throughout the Pali canon.
The scholar, Paul Williams, explains that the Mahayana concept of the Bodhisattva "is a fundamental rethinking of the Buddhist path" (Williams, 2008, p. 11). In Mahayana, the goal of the path is no longer individual liberation but rather the liberation of all beings. As Williams writes, "The Mahayana idea of the bodhisattva is of one who seeks to obtain not his or her own individual enlightenment, but enlightenment for all sentient beings" (Williams, 2008, p. 14). This altruistic ideal of the Bodhisattva is emphasized in Mahayana texts such as the Lotus Sutra and the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra.
In contrast, Theravada Buddhism emphasizes the individual path to liberation, with the goal of attaining arahantship. According to the scholar Richard Gombrich, "The Theravada does not conceive of the Buddha as primarily a saviour of others; he is primarily an example for others to follow" (Gombrich, 1996, p. 146). The emphasis in Theravada is on personal effort, and the goal is to attain liberation for oneself, rather than to save all beings.
This difference in approach is reflected in the respective literatures of the two schools. While the Theravada canon contains teachings on the Bodhisattva ideal, these are not given the same prominence as they are in Mahayana texts. As the scholar Peter Harvey notes, "There is no separate Theravada scripture dedicated to the Bodhisattva ideal as there is in the Mahayana" (Harvey, 2013, p. 191). Rather, the teachings on the Bodhisattva path are found in the Jataka stories, the Dhammapada, and other texts.
In summary, the passage highlights the difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism in their approach to the Bodhisattva ideal. While both schools recognize the importance of the Bodhisattva path, Mahayana places a greater emphasis on it, with a separate literature dedicated to the subject. In contrast, Theravada places more emphasis on individual liberation, with the goal of attaining arahantship.
References:
Gombrich, R. F. (1996). Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge.
Harvey, P. (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
Williams, P. (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge.