The path of the Bodhisattva in Theravada Buddhism

[Paññāsikhara]

The north western Sthaviravadins also had a few distinctions between when the bodhisattva has the aspiration to when they personally know, and then externally declare that they are on the bodhisattva path.

Lamotte, 2001: 212
During the first asaṃkhyeya, the bodhisattva does not know if he will become a Buddha or not. - During the second asaṃkhyeya, he knows that he will be Buddha but does not dare to proclaim: "I shall be Buddha." - During the third asaṃkhyeya, he knows confidently that he will be Buddha and he dares to proclaim fearlessly (bhaya): "Later I shall be Buddha."438

438 Passage taken from the Vibhāṣā, T 1545, k. 176, p. 886c.

For the Mahayana position viz srotaapanna, etc. remember that there are various Mahayana "vada" on these matters. Some are Sthavira based (eg. Yogacara), but others are Mahasamghika based (eg. probably Madhyamaka).

Even if one looks at any given Mahayana sutra, there may be different strata whereby initially one position is given, only to have that shifted elsewhere as the sutra was added to, or bulked up on. This is the case in the Prajnaparamita at least, and I would also suspect elsewhere.

[Abyss]

I think that the path of a Bodhisattva, as imagined and stated by many, contradicts certain discourses of the Buddha. For example: To me it doesn't make sense to strive for countless aeons in order to attain Buddhahood and then, after Buddhahood is finally attained, to hesitate like this:

"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me."

Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to the Blessed One:

Enough now with teaching
what
only with difficulty
I reached.
This Dhamma is not easily realized
by those overcome
with aversion & passion.

What is abstruse, subtle,
deep,
hard to see,
going against the flow —
those delighting in passion,
cloaked in the mass of darkness,
won't see.

As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.

The sutta tells us further that a request of Brahma Sahampati was necessary to change the Buddha's mind. If you ask me: Those are not the thoughts of someone whose goal was from the start to teach the Dhamma to the world.

There is also the problem that the wisdom of such a Bodhisattva has to stay below the level of a stream-enterer for all those countless aeons, because otherwise he would enter nibbana after a maximum of seven lifes. So the Bodhisattva's understanding of the Four Noble Truths, dependent origination, impermanence, not-self, nibbana etc. has to remain shallow, i. e. he must not see them for himself.

The welfare of oneself should not be neglected for the welfare of others, however great; recognizing the welfare of oneself, one should be devoted to one's own welfare.

Someone who delays the developement of his own wisdom now for the welfare of others later - isn't the abovementioned verse addressed to him too?

[Heavenstorm]

Now the fourth qualification is making the aspiration for Buddhahood in the presence of a living Buddha. Does this mean that those who aspire for Buddhahood and are practicing the Bodhisattva path today are practicing in vain?

I can't really answer that question. But according to historical records, there were past examples of several kings in Theravada SrI Lanka who are making the Bodhisattva inspirations. If its impossible, then they shouldn't be doing it, so the requirement might not be that stringent after all.

However, due to the rarity of Bodhisattva practitioners and the lack of an active tradition in Theravada, there are still various unknowns in the equations.

Is the Bodhisattva path a viable option for buddhist's today?

I remember reading about stories of Arahants who were Bodhisattvas previously before giving up on the path. This really show how hard Bodhisattva path can be. And to answer your question, I think its viable as there are still people doing it.

Are these qualifications found in Mahayana literature? Could it be that in a former life i have already completed this qualification?

In Mahayana, if one have the aspiration to save other beings or (as its called) Bodhicitta and take the vows, it will be suffice. One could have taken them in the previous life but most of them wouldn't know. As a result, their determination might not be as strong and might enter the stream and become Arahants in seven lives like in Theravada.

I would like to undertake the Bodhisattva path but not through the Mahayana tradition

Actually, I have meet some people in the Mahayana that are aiming for a stream entry or non returner (anagamis) rather than a Buddha or Bodhisattva. Not everyone in Mahayana is practicing for all sentinel beings just like not all in Theravada aim for personal liberation. So, its pointless to stereotype. The most important thing is one's aspiration and determination, not traditions. (Which are secondary considerations)

The sutta tells us further that a request of Brahma Sahampati was necessary to change the Buddha's mind. If you ask me: Those are not the thoughts of someone whose goal was from the start to teach the Dhamma to the world.

Buddha was only trying to show the preciousness of His Teachings, to give Dharma away cheaply will reveal disrespect for it. And the Brahma was actually a non returner.

[bodom]

Thank you pt1 and Abyss for raising good questions which i have also wondered about but have no answers for and thank you to heavenstorm for your insightful comments. I am now wondering how far i can take my satipatthana practice? Can and should i practice satipatthana at all? How do i cultivate the parami of wisdom without attaining sotapanna? Maybe this goes to show how really difficult it is just to attain the level of sotapanna?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Bodom,

I am now wondering how far i can take my satipatthana practice? Can and should i practice satipatthana at all? How do i cultivate the parami of wisdom without attaining sotapanna?

Please don't see this as a personal attack because I assure you it's not, but based on what you've read in the suttas, how do you think the Buddha would have responded to these questions?

Metta,
Retro.

[bodom]

Greetings Bodom,

I am now wondering how far i can take my satipatthana practice? Can and should i practice satipatthana at all? How do i cultivate the parami of wisdom without attaining sotapanna?

Please don't see this as a personal attack because I assure you it's not, but based on what you've read in the suttas, how do you think the Buddha would have responded to these questions?

Metta,
Retro.

Dont worry Retro I dont see it that way at all. Honestly im not sure. He taught to suit the different capacities of his students and with such a broad spectrum of advice for householders and monks. He taught some to strive for heavenly rebirths and others Nibbana. Its hard to say, i guess its an individual thing.

[pt1]

The north western Sthaviravadins also had a few distinctions between when the bodhisattva has the aspiration to when they personally know, and then externally declare that they are on the bodhisattva path.

Lamotte, 2001: 212
During the first asaṃkhyeya, the bodhisattva does not know if he will become a Buddha or not. - During the second asaṃkhyeya, he knows that he will be Buddha but does not dare to proclaim: "I shall be Buddha." - During the third asaṃkhyeya, he knows confidently that he will be Buddha and he dares to proclaim fearlessly (bhaya): "Later I shall be Buddha."438

438 Passage taken from the Vibhāṣā, T 1545, k. 176, p. 886c.

Hi Ven.Pannasikhara,

Thanks for the quote. Could you also please say a bit more about the aspiration you mention, but in terms of dhammas? E.g.

In many "mahayana" traditions, the arising of the aspiration to attain full awakening is sufficient to make one a bodhisattva.

In abhidhama, as far as I understand it, aspirations and vows would be related to the kusala cetasikas of chanda and adimokkha. Adimokkha would also be related to one of the paramis - adhitthana (though it is not one of the paramitas?). However, I remember in one of the threads on e-sangha someone mentioned (Namdrol I think) that aspiration is in fact a path consciousness - though he might have said "path factor", but at the time I understood him to mean that aspiration is equivalent to a magga citta in Mahayana traditions. Did I understand that correctly? Thanks.

Best wishes

[Heavenstorm]

I am now wondering how far i can take my satipatthana practice? Can and should i practice satipatthana at all? How do i cultivate the parami of wisdom without attaining sotapanna?

Hi there, as far as I know, Buddhist masters and teachers in Theravada and Mahayana comment on the necessity of the cultivation of the four immeasurables for aspiring beings on the Bodhisattva path. Therefore, you can taking mediation on metta as a starting point and its also one of the ten Paramitas in Theravada btw.

[bodom]

I am now wondering how far i can take my satipatthana practice? Can and should i practice satipatthana at all? How do i cultivate the parami of wisdom without attaining sotapanna?

Hi there, as far as I know, Buddhist masters and teachers in Theravada and Mahayana comment on the necessity of the cultivation of the four immeasurables for aspiring beings on the Bodhisattva path. Therefore, you can taking mediation on metta as a starting point and its also one of the ten Paramitas in Theravada btw.

I have in the past received satipatthana meditation instruction from various teachers but am not currently studying under anyone at the moment. I feel it would be best if i could discuss this decision with a qualified teacher. I feel as though i should continue with my satipatthana practice while also cultivating the paramis. Maybe this whole idea will stay as just that until i can talk with a teacher. There are many issues left unresolved.

[Anders]

In many "mahayana" traditions, the arising of the aspiration to attain full awakening is sufficient to make one a bodhisattva.
However, others indicate that certain attainments are necessary, and some of them bear close resemblance to srotaapannatva in terms of the absence of identity views (satkaya-drsti), etc.

I fear it might be more confusing than clarifying to leave such a statement unelaborated, venerable. Would you care to expand on what you mean by 'bear close resemblance to srotaapannavatna'. It sounds like you're saying there are, according to this representation, no aryan bodhisattvas as they do not experience any realisation.

[bodom]

I wonder if anyone knows of any Theravadan teachers today who practice or teach the bodhisattva path? I came across the following in an article and found this to be very intriguing though it is unsubstantiated :

Though a minority, there are many Theravadin practitioners in Burma today following the bodhisattva path. There are stories in Burma that the meditation master Mingun Sayadaw early in the last century instructed one student, Mahasi Sayadaw, to become an arahant and another student, Taungpulu Sayadaw, to follow the bodhisattva path.

http://www.audiodharma.org/documents/pa ... round.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Im hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

[bodom]

In many "mahayana" traditions, the arising of the aspiration to attain full awakening is sufficient to make one a bodhisattva.
However, others indicate that certain attainments are necessary, and some of them bear close resemblance to srotaapannatva in terms of the absence of identity views (satkaya-drsti), etc.

I fear it might be more confusing than clarifying to leave such a statement unelaborated, venerable. Would you care to expand on what you mean by 'bear close resemblance to srotaapannavatna'. It sounds like you're saying there are, according to this representation, no aryan bodhisattvas as they do not experience any realisation.

How could there be ariya bodhisattva's? In my limited understanding would not reaching the level of ariya put and end to the bodhisattva career?

[pt1]

How could there be ariya bodhisattva's? In my limited understanding would not reaching the level of ariya put and end to the bodhisattva career?

Hi bodom,

Afaik, in Theravada, bodhisattas indeed could not be called ariyas because sankhar'uppekkha nana (the highest insight knowledge available to them) is not enough to initiate the magga citta (path consciousness when one becomes sotapanna or higher). That said, sankhar'upekkha nana is already a really, really, high level of insight/wisdom.

However, in Mahayana, as I remember from a few discussions on e-sangha, this issue is not that clear-cut. In Prajnaparamita sutras, I remember a few passages Ven.Pannasikhara quoted which do say that a bodhisattava should cultivate wisdom, but only up to a point so as not to become sotapanna. Though, I don't remember that point being clearly defined. In later Mahayana traditions though, I think, greater and greater levels of sanctity are ascribed to bodhisattvas like bhumi classification for example, where I think bodhisattva of the 10 bhumi level is almost equivalent to a sammasambuddha, though again I didn't yet see clear indication whether this refers to a specific level of insight developed, or perhaps this refers to the level of other paramitas, etc. And of course, there is that issue of whether aspiration is treated as a magga citta in what case there's a certain level of sanctity available to bodhisattvas that's not available to others who do not make such aspiration. But this is just my speculating, hopefully someone more knowledgable can answer about Mahayana viewpoints on this.

I wonder if anyone knows of any Theravadan teachers today who practice or teach the bodhisattva path?

I remember a member here - Santeri - mentioned that he was interested in the bodhisatta path, you might contact him for more info. I think two ajahns he mentioned in this connection are Ajahn Plien and Ajahn Jumnien.

I am now wondering how far i can take my satipatthana practice? Can and should i practice satipatthana at all? How do i cultivate the parami of wisdom without attaining sotapanna? Maybe this goes to show how really difficult it is just to attain the level of sotapanna?

Yes, I also found this question interesting. I think if there's interest in developing satipatthana, then that's the right thing to do. Just speculating here - ideally a teacher that could look into my mind and perhaps even my past lives would be the ideal person to tell me whether I should practice this or that depending on what aspirations were made in the past lives (savaka, pacceka or sammasambuddha). If such teacher is not available, then the ideal thing would be to develop real strong samatha in the fourth jhana, and with that develop dibbacakkhu, so that I could look into past lives and see what aspirations were made (if at all). But if that's not available either, then the only thing that remains available is to see what are my inclinations right now. If it's the inclination towards satipatthana, then I guess that's the right thing to do right now.

Best wishes

[Paññāsikhara]

In many "mahayana" traditions, the arising of the aspiration to attain full awakening is sufficient to make one a bodhisattva.
However, others indicate that certain attainments are necessary, and some of them bear close resemblance to srotaapannatva in terms of the absence of identity views (satkaya-drsti), etc.

I fear it might be more confusing than clarifying to leave such a statement unelaborated, venerable. Would you care to expand on what you mean by 'bear close resemblance to srotaapannavatna'. It sounds like you're saying there are, according to this representation, no aryan bodhisattvas as they do not experience any realisation.

Okay, as we know, abandonment of identity-view (sakkayaditthi, satkayadrsti) is a, if not the, key factor in attainment of stream-entry.

The early Prajnaparamita states that it is when the bodhisattva is able to tolerate the point that there is no sattva to a bodhi-sattva to cultivate the path to liberation, that they are actually a bodhisattva, and that this tolerance towards the absence of a sattva is the teaching itself. This idea of absence of a sattva is obviously a very close to the notion of absence of a sakkaya.
The text refers to this usually as a tolerance (ksanti), which in many mainstream schools is the step immediately before knowledge (jnana). For each of the aryan paths, eg. stream-entry ... arhatship, one goes through a process which includes tolerance and then knowledge.
However, the same text also states that if a bodhisattva has already attained stream-entry (in about the 3rd century, this becomes "assurance of certitude") then they form a barrier with samsara, so are unable to continue on a bodhisattva path.
The idea of "assurance of certitude" is also given as a step just before stream-entry in sutta, and mainstream Buddhist thought.

So, I say that there is some similarity, but it is not the same. A problem is, is that although both tolerance and assurance are before stream-entry itself, we don't clearly no what the distinction, if any, is between the two. Or, if the bodhisattva's tolerance is different from that of a sravaka, say. Later Mahayana schools will give their explanations, but we can't guarantee that these are the original idea.

Whatever the case, how about aryan or non-aryan bodhisattvas? Well, depending on how we define "aryan", actually. Often it is broader, including "those on the path to <attainment>", in which case, anyone practicing for any bodhisattva practice is aryan. Likewise for sravakas with this definition, anybody cultivating towards stream-entry - even if they haven't attained it yet - is aryan. But the other, narrower, definition, those who have already attained stream-entry, well then these are not (that kind of sravaka) aryan. However, they may be aryan in a bodhisattva sense, eg. in this system, one could have cultivated the bodhisattva path for 3 asamkhya kalpas, not have realized the equivalent of stream-entry, and be in one's last birth until samyak sambodhi. Are we going to say that they are not aryan?

For the Sarvastivadins, too, the bodhisattvas are "common persons" (prthgjana), and so too for the Haimavatas. Pretty similar to the Theravadins. The Mahasamghika schools tended (but not necessarily all of them) to take the bodhisattva as already incredibly advanced, and aryan. After all, the whole life of the bodhisattva, his birth, marriage, renunciation, etc. are all just a show. To me, the Prajnaparamita is initially more like those Sthavira schools, but that probably changes over time.

Later traditions, which liked like divide the path up into lots of levels, have their own systems. eg. some put it at "first level", some at "eighth level", or whatever. But I don't think that these levels / grounds were inherent in the earliest stages of the Mahayana system.

<< I'm really glad I'm using Google Chrome, browser just crashed (accidentally flipped language input mode which seems to freak it out a bit), but when you restart it, all the text is exactly as left, so the post isn't lost at all! Phew! Take that, Microsoft Explorer! >>

[Paññāsikhara]

There is an important phrase in the early Prajnaparamita:

Train in emptiness, but not realize emptiness.

I'm still trying to work out exactly what the difference is, though, without necessarily buying into later commentarial explanations which are sometimes from different backgrounds trying to read other ideas into the text.
Be careful, though, because "emptiness" here doesn't just mean "not self", but refers to something more like early sutta ideas of the "signless" (again, don't fall for the Abhidhammic and commentarial explanation of "signless" as "nibbana which has no signs of xxx, yyy and zzz". That's already an ontological position, half the time. Originally, the "sign" is a subjective event, not the characteristic of the object.)