The bodhisattva doctrine is considered a central aspect of Mahayana Buddhism and is considered a key aspect of the Buddhist path to enlightenment. The doctrine emphasizes the ideal of the selfless, compassionate being who seeks to alleviate the suffering of others, and who has made a vow to forgo their own personal enlightenment in order to work for the salvation of others.
"The Bodhisattva's thought of compassion,
Like the sun and moon,
Shines forever in the sky
Of the world-transcending mind."
-Shantideva, Bodhicharyavatara
"The Bodhisattva's practice is to give,
Not just to friends, but to all beings,
With a mind free from the stain of stinginess,
And with a mind of compassion for all."
-Shantideva, Bodhicharyavatara
In contrast Theravada argue that while the Bodhisattva is an important even a very high goal in Buddhism it is not in the end the final goal which is the Arthat path goal of Nibbana. The Buddha says in the Tipitaka. Suttapitaka. Khuddakanikaya. Dhammapada “Purity or impurity depends on oneself, No one can purify another.” Moreover Theravda Buddhists would point out that Dhammapada 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another. teaches that the goal of the path of Purification is Nibanna.
Yet Mahayana disagree and argue that the significance of the the bodhisattva doctrine is also closely associated with the ideal of the bodhisattva vow, which is a commitment to put the welfare of others before one's own personal spiritual goals. This ideal is seen as a key aspect of the bodhisattva path and is considered essential for attaining enlightenment.
"The Bodhisattva's vow is to save all living beings,
Not just those of the present, but those of the future,
Endlessly, without ever tiring,
Without ever giving up"
-Avalokiteśvara, The Bodhisattva of Compassion
The bodhisattva doctrine is also considered to be of great significance in Buddhism, because it provides a framework for understanding the nature of reality, which is characterized by emptiness or the absence of inherent existence. This understanding is considered to be essential for attaining enlightenment and for helping other sentient beings to attain enlightenment. The bodhisattva doctrine also emphasizes the importance of compassion, altruism and the cultivation of the perfections or paramitas as essential aspects of the path towards enlightenment. This is seen as a key aspect of the bodhisattva path.
In favour of this view is the Mahayana argument that the Bodhisattva ideal puts sufficient emphasis on the important factors which is overlooked by other views. Basham displays this strongly in his listing of the Six Paramitas, which each have a particularly compassionate edge to them. This is strong in the sense that it cultivates the mind set of ‘Bodhicitta’ which is not as emphasised in other goals of Buddhism, such as the Ahrat Path. This view is made stronger by authority figures, such as the Dalai Lama, who said that ‘in order to achieve sound altruism… you have to grow a genuine compassion towards your enemy that is unbiased.’ This is made more compelling when given the fact that the current Dalai Lama is an emanation of the Buddha of compassion, Avalokitesvara. Therefore, the Bodhisattva ideal is the true goal of Buddhism due to its emphasis on altruism. However, this view can be undermined by appealing to the Pali Canon. In particular, the Buddha is quoted as saying ‘Be ye lamps onto yourselves.’ This is a clear indication of the goal being something which comes from within and the essence of Nirvana is from the inside. While this view is strong, it can be better interpreted as in line with Basham’s extract. The extract says how ‘the Bodhisattva is lonely, with no… companion.’ These two quotes align in the send to that be a lamp onto yourself requires no companions. The ‘lamp’ which the Buddha talks about can be interpreted as being the compassionate side of the Bodhisattva ideal. Therefore, the view that the Bodhisattva ideal is the true goal of Buddhism remains strong.
Another way in which this view can be shown to be the true form of Buddhism is how it uniquely takes into account the notion of skilful means. This is not present in any other form of Buddhist thinking, such as the aforementioned Ahrat path. Basham names this in his extract in regard to ‘skill in knowing the right means.’ This in incorporated into the longer list of 10 paramitas. This is strong as clearly from an objective standpoint morality cannot be strictly deontological. For many, to simultaneously hold the virtue of ‘supreme wisdom’ (which Basham also names) and not being able to calculate better outcomes of events. Therefore, the Bodhisattva ideal due to its unique emphasis on this virtue, from an albeit Western perspective, makes more sense than any counter. But, a criticism of this is that the Bodhisattva ideal does not develop the right kind of mind set. Only one of the virtues in which Basham names can be directly related to the important insight which Buddhism values so highly; that of meditation. Bodhi states how ‘this method [meditation without consideration of Theravada Jhanas] is called the vehicle of bare insight and those who practise in this mode are known as ‘dry insighters.’ This is due to no cultivation of what Rinpoche calls ‘primordial awareness,’ which means the Bodhisattva ideal cannot be true form of Buddhism. But when directly comparing, it is clear that the counter view does not take into account the many other Mahayana views on meditation, such as Sunyata meditation which can arguably achieve the same goal. Moreover, other ideals of Buddhism offer no answer to the doctrine of Upya apart from rejecting it all together and offering no alternative.
From this perspective, it is clear that the Bodhisattva ideal is the true goal of Buddhism as the others offer less and simply attempt to redefine terms to make themselves the true form of Buddhism. It is clear that the Bodhisattva ideal encompasses all that other paths do and more, such as the doctrine of Upya. Therefore, the Bodhisattva ideal remains the true goal of Buddhism.
Theravdaa would argue that the way of the arhat is the way of the historical Buddha and the closest path to the one the Buddha followed. * The Buddha initiated the Sangha, its rules and disciplines and established the basic principles of monasticism and the path of wisdom through meditation. * The way of the arhat is much more focused on insight and wisdom than on wordly matters. * The arhat would also deny that their tradition is selfish as they have understood the concept of anatta ‘not self’ and overcome the feeling of thirst and craving. * Arhats view their community as that within the monastic discipline, the Sangha. * Also the role of monks in such Theravadin communities as Sri Lanka and Thailand are as a role model for society as they are traditionally ‘forest dwellers’ and as such has become part of their culture and to change this way of life may upset the followers of Buddhism. * An arhat may argue that although it would seem that the bodhisattva has gone through a much longer process, infact the arhat has already done so through their meditation on the Dhamma. * The arhat would argue that the bodhisattva and arhat are on equal terms when the bodhisattva reaches stage ten and the arhat becomes a ‘non-returner’.
in contrast Mahayana would argue that the arhat path seems to emphasise personal spiritual development and therefore would seem to lack contact with the community. The way of the bodhisattva is much more open to all. * An arhat path can be accused of being an elitist division of Buddhism as it is generally accepted that only those within the monasteries can achieve nibbana. * The relationship between the bodhisattva and the community would seem a lot more open due to the emphasis being on helping others through skilful means and the focus on compassion for all sentient beings. The bodhisattva path could claim to be superior due to its length and complexity. * Through the bhumis (stages) and paramitas (perfections) the bodhisattva moves to the point of enlightenment only to illustrate the perfect state of selflessness (anatta) by refusing enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteshvara and are trusted as they will help those in need no matter of their previous lifestyle. The bodhisattva aims to return to the world of samsara to benefit others whereas the arhat aims only to escape from the world and reach the state of parinibbana.
In conclsuion
Arthur Basham, an Australian historian and Indologist, is well-known for his account of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine in his book "The Wonder That was India". Basham's account of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine is considered an important contribution to the field of Buddhist studies, but his account has also been met with some criticisms.
One of the strengths of Basham's account is that it provides a detailed historical overview of the development of the Bodhisattva Doctrine, tracing it from its earliest origins in Indian Buddhism to its later developments in Mahayana Buddhism. Basham's account is considered one of the most comprehensive historical overviews of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine.
Another strength of Basham's account is that it emphasizes the continuity between the early Buddhist and Mahayana understandings of the Bodhisattva Doctrine. Basham argues that the Bodhisattva Doctrine was not a later development in Buddhism but was present in the early Buddhist texts and it evolved over time.
However, some scholars have criticized Basham's account of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine, arguing that it is too narrowly focused on Indian Buddhism and does not adequately address the later developments of the doctrine in other regions such as China and Tibet.
In reference to Basham's account of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine, the scholar Paul Williams states:
"Basham's account of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine is an important contribution to the field of Buddhist studies, but it is too narrowly focused on Indian Buddhism and does not adequately address the later developments of the doctrine in other regions such as China and Tibet."
In summary, Basham's account of the evolution of the Bodhisattva Doctrine is considered an important contribution to the field of Buddhist studies.
Walpola Rahula, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk, and scholar is well-known for his account of the Bodhisattva doctrine in his book "What the Buddha Taught". Rahula's account of the Bodhisattva doctrine is considered an important contribution to the field of Buddhist studies, but his account has also been met with some criticisms.
One of the weaknesses of Rahula's account of the Bodhisattva doctrine is that it is heavily influenced by the Theravada understanding of the doctrine and may not be fully representative of the Mahayana tradition. Rahula's account, as a Theravada monk, may have a limited perspective on the Mahayana tradition.
Another weakness of Rahula's account is that it tends to present the Bodhisattva doctrine as a later development in Buddhism, rather than as an integral part of early Buddhist teachings. This may not be entirely accurate as some scholars argue that the Bodhisattva doctrine was present in the early Buddhist texts and it evolved over time.
Additionally, some scholars have criticized Rahula's account of the Bodhisattva doctrine for not sufficiently addressing the role of the transcendent bodhisattvas and the concept of merit transfer, which are central aspects of Mahayana tradition.
In reference to Rahula's account of the Bodhisattva doctrine, the scholar Paul Williams states: "Rahula's account of the Bodhisattva doctrine is heavily influenced by the Theravada understanding of the doctrine and may not be fully representative of the Mahayana tradition. Additionally, Rahula's account tends to present the Bodhisattva doctrine as a later development in Buddhism, rather than as an integral part of early Buddhist teachings."
In summary, Rahula's account of the Bodhisattva doctrine is considered an important contribution to the field of Buddhist studies, but it has some weaknesses. Rahula's account is heavily influenced by the Theravada understanding of the doctrine, which may not be fully representative of the Mahayana tradition. Additionally, Rahula's account tends to present the Bodhisattva doctrine as a later development in Buddhism, rather than as an integral part of early Buddhist teachings. Furthermore, Rahula's account may not sufficiently address the role of the transcendent bodhisattvas and the concept of merit transfer, which are central aspects of Mahayana tradition.
The Lotus Sutra is considered one of the most important and revered texts in Mahayana Buddhism, and it is often considered to be one of the most significant teachings about the Bodhisattva doctrine. yet while many scholars argue that the sutra includes some of the most important and comprehensive teachings about the Bodhisattva doctrine not all even with Mahayana Buddhism agree.
The Lotus Sutra emphasizes the idea that all beings have the potential to attain enlightenment and become a Bodhisattva. In the Lotus Sutra, the Bodhisattva is described as someone who practices altruism and compassion and aspires to achieve Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings. The text states, "For the sake of all living beings, I will become a savior, a guide, a teacher, a spiritual friend." (Lotus Sutra, Chapter 2) The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, has said, "The Lotus Sutra is one of the most important texts in Mahayana Buddhism, providing a complete and comprehensive guide to the development of the bodhisattva spirit of compassion and wisdom."
One of the strengths of this claim is that the Lotus Sutra presents a comprehensive understanding of the Bodhisattva path, outlining the different stages that a bodhisattva must progress through on the way to enlightenment. The sutra describes in detail the ten grounds of the bodhisattva, which are ten stages of spiritual development that a bodhisattva must progress through to reach full enlightenment.
Another strength of this claim is that the Lotus Sutra also emphasizes the importance of the perfections or paramitas, which are the six practices that a bodhisattva must develop in order to progress along the path. The sutra presents these perfections in a way that is easy to understand and apply in daily life, making them accessible to all practitioners.
However the view the Lotus Sutra contains the most significant teachings about the Bodhisattva doctrine is not universally accepted and has been criticized by some Buddhist scholars. Given the idea of an OPEN CANNON, Upaya and the Trikaya doctrine new revelation is always possible and latter texts may supersuceed earlier texts. Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki: reflecting Zen distain for texts over experience says "The Lotus Sutra, although highly venerated in China, Japan, and other Mahayana countries, is not considered to be the most authoritative text by all schools of Buddhism." Further Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh: "The Lotus Sutra is just one of many valuable Buddhist texts and should not be seen as the supreme or exclusive teaching on the Bodhisattva path." Buddhist scholar Paul Williams: argues "While the Lotus Sutra is an important text in Mahayana Buddhism, it is not the only source of teachings on the Bodhisattva path and should not be given undue prominence." Thus while the Lotus Sutra is an important text in the Mahayana tradition, it should not be considered the definitive source of teachings on the Bodhisattva doctrine. Other Buddhist texts, such as the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, also provide important teachings on the Bodhisattva path.
In response it could additionally be argued the Lotus Sutra teaches the idea of "Ekayana" or "One Vehicle," which states that all beings have the potential to attain buddhahood and that there is only one vehicle or path to enlightenment, which is the Lotus Sutra. This doctrine expands the traditional understanding of the Buddhist path which was limited to the select few who were believed to be capable of attaining enlightenment. And in reference to the significance of the Lotus Sutra for the Bodhisattva doctrine, the scholar Donald S. Lopez Jr states: "The Lotus Sutra is one of the most important and revered texts in Mahayana Buddhism and it is considered one of the most significant teachings about the Bodhisattva doctrine, as it presents a comprehensive understanding of the Bodhisattva path, outlining the different stages that a bodhisattva must progress through on the way to enlightenment and emphasizing the importance of the perfections or paramitas."
In summary, it can be said that the Lotus Sutra includes some of the most significant teachings about the Bodhisattva doctrine. The sutra presents a comprehensive understanding of the Bodhisattva path, outlining the different stages that a bodhisattva must progress through on the way to enlightenment, emphasizing the importance of the perfections or paramitas, and teaching the idea of "Ekayana" or "One Vehicle," which expands the traditional understanding of the Buddhist path and makes it accessible to all beings.
The Lotus Sutra is considered one of the most important and revered texts in Mahayana Buddhism, and it is often considered to be one of the most significant teachings about Mahayana wisdom. Many scholars argue that the sutra includes some of the most important and comprehensive teachings about Mahayana wisdom in response to other Buddhist claims.
One of the strengths of this claim is that the Lotus Sutra emphasizes the idea of "Ekayana" or "One Vehicle," which states that all beings have the potential to attain buddhahood and that there is only one vehicle or path to enlightenment, which is the Lotus Sutra. This doctrine expands the traditional understanding of the Buddhist path which was limited to the select few who were believed to be capable of attaining enlightenment. This teaching of "Ekayana" or "One Vehicle" responds to the claims of other Buddhist traditions that were exclusive in nature.
Another strength of this claim is that the Lotus Sutra teaches the idea of "upaya" or "skillful means," which holds that the Buddha employs various methods to teach the Dharma to different beings in accordance with their capacities and tendencies. This teaching of "upaya" or "skillful means" emphasizes the idea of adaptability and inclusivity, responding to the claims of other Buddhist traditions that were rigid in nature.
Additionally, the Lotus Sutra emphasizes the importance of the perfections or paramitas, which are the six practices that a bodhisattva must develop in order to progress along the path. The sutra presents these perfections in a way that is easy to understand and apply in daily life, making them accessible to all practitioners. This emphasis on the perfections or paramitas responds to the claims of other Buddhist traditions that were complex and hard to practice.
In reference to the strengths of the Lotus Sutra teaching on Mahayana wisdom in response to other Buddhist claims, the scholar Paul Williams states:
"The Lotus Sutra's emphasis on the idea of "Ekayana" or "One Vehicle" and the teaching of "upaya" or "skillful means" responds to the claims of other Buddhist traditions that were exclusive or rigid in nature, while the emphasis on the perfections or paramitas makes the path accessible to all practitioners."
In summary, it can be said that the Lotus Sutra's teaching on Mahayana wisdom is strong in its response to other Buddhist claims. The sutra emphasizes the idea of "Ekayana" or "One Vehicle" and the teaching of "upaya" or "skillful means," which expands the traditional understanding of the Buddhist path and makes it accessible to all beings and responds to the claims of other Buddhist traditions that were exclusive or rigid in nature. Additionally, the emphasis on the perfections or paramitas makes the path accessible to all practitioners, responding to the claims of other Buddhist traditions that were complex and hard to practice.
Mahayana sources and practitioner scholars on Parinamana (merit transfer) suggest the idea is obviously closely associated with the importance of Punya (merit making). Religious studies scholars like A. L. Basham tend to consider it merely a Mahayana development which later influenced Theravada practice. So important is merit transfer that Basham in discussing the evolution of the concept of the bodhisattva, associates it and the doctrine of merit transfer as the key components in the rise of the 2nd to 3rd Century Mahayana in India in particular. However, it’s worth noting that as a practice other scholars argue it predates this developing Mahayana Indian tradition. Schopen points out it dates back at least as far as the third century BCE being then ‘both a Sravakayana as well as’ developing proto-Mahayana practice and thought. While both accept merit transference it, for the latter it is much more significant. For four-fold sangha Sravakayana merit making was at best the preliminary practice the laity used to the renouncing of the householder life a Monk. The latter leaving behind the practice or mere merit making which is of limited value for the greater pursuit of the Arahant path to Nibanna. For Mahayana merit transference became much more important because of its use in combination with an emphasis on Bodhisattva teaching.
The significance of idea of the transference of karmic merit in Mahayana tradition practice and thinking is connected closely with the obvious doctrinal issue for Theravada that arises in connection with merit transfer is its apparent contravention of karma theory. In particular the idea that the consequences of an action will be experienced by the person, or in the Buddhist case more particularly, the consciousness continuum (Citta-samatana), who committed the action. In attempting to explain this phenomenon, some scholars have suggested that the idea of transferring merit reflects a 2nd or 3rd century general 'loosening' of the karma doctrine that Mahayana both assimilated and contributed to. Basham, suggests that merit transfer was part of a "widespread reaction, evident also in Hinduism at the time, against belief in the rigid operation of karma," (1991: 37). Such a reaction is reflected in the development of the devotional (bhakti) traditions, whose popularity may have contributed to the acceptance of merit transfer (Basham 1991: 44).
The significance of the developing ideas of the transference of karmic merit in 2nd 3rd Century Mahayana practice and thinking is as the culmination of previous ideas which together helps us understand why the idea arose that one could ‘give away' or apply Punya for something other than one's own benefit. The doctrine of merit transfer can be argued as the logical outcome of the further Mahayana doctrines of emptiness (Sunyata) and mind-only (Cittamatra). As Harvey (2000, p.128) points out ‘karmic fruitfulness is dedicated to future Buddhahood of himself, and others … karmic fruitfulness is transferred to all sentient beings’. Williams (1989, p. 208) points out, in a context in which all is understood to be empty and/or mind dependent, there are no inherent owners of karmic benefit. The transference of karmic fruitfulness is possible because it is 'empty' and does not 'reaIly' or 'ultimately' belong to a particular being, which is a fiction in any case. Thus, in this sense, as Williams says, "the notion of transference of merit fits squarely within the ontology and spirituality of the Mahayana."
In conclusion the significance for developing 2nd 3rd century Mahayana thinking and practice of the transference of karmic merit Basham would argue is its place as a key component in the innovation of Mahayana ideas. Out of antecedents in 2nd 3rd century BCE proto-Theravada writings merit transference is a novel development. Where mere Theravada laity Puna practice was supposed to lead to individualistic liberation from the cycle of rebirth in Mahayana it becomes a collectivist Bodhisattva cause for rebirth that is merit 'transformed' or 'redirected' through compassion. The perfection of wisdom literature especially the Lotus Sutra suggest this change in the goal to a method of 'directing' merit by which bodhisattvas can decide to be reborn in the world to work for the benefit of beings. The parables of the text especially the Burning house suggesting the ‘graceful’ compassion that leads others out of the burning house of samsara being key. The Bodhisattva of the perfection of wisdom literature becoming a source of merit who essentially reflects the intention behind fruitful actions which applies them for or literally 'bends' them towards, towards sentient beings, or towards full awakening.
In Theravada practice and thinking karmic merit transference is not without precedent but it has perhaps less significance in early Nikaya Buddhist thinking than was developed in 2nd 3rd Century Mahayana. Merit making (Punna) was understood in early Nikaya Buddhism as a key laity activity expressed through the alms giving in the context of the fourfold sangha. Merit transference was thought at most perhaps to be related to the ‘field of blessing’ that is the teaching and alms gving opportunity of the fourfold sangha. Yet there is especially in Theravada funeral a corporate sense that offerings giving on behalf of the dead can help them. This aside however, once someone has embarked seeking to become a stream-enterer on the Arahat path sila (ethics) merit making becomes less important than Samatha (Meditation) and Prajna (Wisdom). The ‘Transic Insight’ necessary for Nibanna is gained primarily through combined Samadhi and Vipassana and through textual study as listening to the elders but not via karmic merit transfer.
Further Karmic merit transference has significance in Theravada as it yet has a problem for those who attain Arahant status. Normally Arahats in the Theravada tradition are understood to overcome or by-pass karma and its consequences but the teaching of Anatta or no self suggests a way merit transfer could equaIly, if not in a slightly different form, be generated from Theravada views: that is, a Theravadin could equally weIl say that since persons (pudgala) and selves (atman), like aIl composite phenomena (samskrta-dharma) are conditioned and impermanent, they are not the inherent owners of anything, and thus the positive karmic consequences of actions can be 'shared' because, like all conditioned arisings they do not 'belong' to anyone. On this analysis, one might understand the 'transfer of merit' as simply a rather nice metaphor to indicate what happens to the effects of good actions (punya)-so called 'good karma' when the illusion of self is overcome. Since both one's actions and their effects are no longer understood to be owned, they are 'shared,' and in this sense an awakened being can give away his or her 'merit.' Harvey (2000: 43) notes the Arahant is 'beyond Punna and Papa to have abandoned them… he or she constructs no karmically fruitful or unfruitful action.” (Keown 1992) is careful to point out that the does not mean that the arahat is beyond morality or virtue. Rahula (1974: 8) explains rather that the idea is that the Arahat's actions are spontaneously good or wholesome (kusala), because all roots of what is unwholesome (akusala), the defilements (P.kilesa; Sk. klesa) have been eliminated.
Finally Karmic merit transference has significance in Theravada as an understanding of it is found in the Abhidharma literature. Punya is understood to be necessary, but not sufficient for realizing nirvana. While Karmically fruitful acts are essential because they lead to fortunate rebirths, nirvana is beyond all rebirth, punaya must have limited value, and must therefore be transcended. The Abhidharma literature distinguishes two kinds of wholesome or healthy karma (kusala-karma). One form of kusala-karma will lead to other kinds of wholesome karma (e. g. generosity, which can lead to a cycle of exchanging gifts with other beings) thus in a way Parinamana- merit transference. The second kind does not lead to any kind of consequence or ripening (vipaka).
In conclusion Theravada, Harvey points out is thus dedicated to not just achieving karmic fruitfulness but "goes beyond" simply acquiring the kinds of wholesome qualities (kusala-dhama) available through the practice of the Eightfold Path, even if in the end the possible implications of this for others and the transfer of merit are not pursued by them (Harvey 2000: 131). The Sangha as a ‘field of blessing’ is an established idea, that goes beyond mere preaching. Merit is transferred in Theravada funeral ceremonies. Gombrich (1971, p. 208) notes in Buddhist funeral rituals in Theravada Merit can be transferred by making offerings to the monk. @The word peta, literally, 'gone forth', is used by Theravāda to refer to one's dead relatives in the context of merit transfer’. Further the transference of merit and the idea of the Anatta have undeveloped implications and significance that mean it but this is rarely otherwise developed as an idea in Theravada but at the least it means Theravada is not completely anti-thetical to the possibility of merit transference.