The path of the Bodhisattva in Theravada Buddhism

[zavk]

Dear Ven.

In relation to your last post, can you please elaborate on your understanding of the difference between 'not-self' and the 'signless'?

Thanks.

[ground]

I would like to undertake the Bodhisattva path but not through the Mahayana tradition and these qualifications make it look rather bleak. Are there any here who aspire to the Bodhisattva path through the Theravadin tradition?

Are you prepared for several asankheyyas of becoming? It took 4 to Gotama. 'Mahayanists' totally neglect this fact. I feel there is a lot of building up ego under this fashion.

Re: 'Mahayanists' totally neglect this fact. - this statement is incorrect.

There are some groups that have other interpretations, but the vast majority of practicing Mahayana Buddhists, ie. Chinese Buddhists, all very clearly and explicitly accept a Mahayana path of many asamkhya kalpas to complete.

It is correct that "many asamkhya kalpas to complete" is generally acknowledged in Mahayana although there are paths that are claimed to provide the skillful means to accomplish the way in 1- 16 lives (vajrayana).
But why is that that "many asamkhya kalpas" does not matter in the minds of bodhisattvas? It is because bodhisattvas "put on the armor of prajnaparamita". However to call it "armor" boils down to be a paradox because actually what is meant is naked exposure to pure being after having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana by means of "prajnaparamita".

Kind regards

[Paññāsikhara]

Dear Ven.

In relation to your last post, can you please elaborate on your understanding of the difference between 'not-self' and the 'signless'?

Thanks.

According to whom?

[bodom]

Thank you pt1 for your kindness and patience in responding to my posts. You have been most helpful.

[zavk]

Dear Ven.

In relation to your last post, can you please elaborate on your understanding of the difference between 'not-self' and the 'signless'?

Thanks.

According to whom?

Hi Ven.

I am especially curious about what you said here:

Originally, the "sign" is a subjective event, not the characteristic of the object.

I've encountered this argument before (possibly on E-Sangha) but never really took the time to investigate it further. So I'm hoping you could point me in the right direction. I'm interested in understanding how the 'sign' was initially interpreted, and which later school of thought came closest to that early interpretation.

Sorry if my question is vague--but I suppose this is precisely why I'm hoping you could help elucidate my understanding.

[pt1]

Hi Venerable,

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.

This sounds similar to how the commentaries describe cula-sotapanna – someone who has realised the first two tender insight knowledges – discerning nama-rupa (nama rupa pariccheda nana) and discerning conditionality (paccaya pariggaha nana).

Here are a few quotes I came accross online cited in relation to cula-sotapanna:

The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon:

Sotaapanna is a noble person (Ariya) who has eliminated di.t.thi and vicikicchà
'completely'. He will never be reborn in the apaaya abodes and he is destined to
enter Nibbaana in no more than seven rebirths in the kaama-planes. Now the yogi,
who has attained Naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na and Paccaya-pariggaha-~naa.na,
has 'temporarily' eliminated di.t.thi and vicikicchaa as described above. So he
resembles a sotaapanna but he is not a sotaapanna yet. He is called a
cuu.la-sotaapanna meaning a junior-sotaapanna. He will not be reborn in the
apaaya abodes in his subsequent life.

Visuddhimagga XIX, 26, 27:

26. For this is said: 'Understanding of discernment of
conditions thus "Ignorance is a condition, formations are
conditionally arisen, and both these states are conditionally arisen”,
is knowledge of the causal relationship of states’. [paragraph 26 then continues about abandoning doubt]
27. When a man practising insight has become possessed of this knowledge, he has found comfort in the Buddhas’ dispensation, he has found a foothold, he is certain of his destiny, he is called a 'Lesser Stream enterer'.

From one of Ledi Sayadaw’s manuals (the link I have for this quote is dead now, sorry about that):

"Cula-sotapanna or the Virtuous One
To understand Dependent Origination or to gain Knowledge in
comprehending the Law of Causality enables one to discard the three
aforesaid Wrong Views of No-cause, Unjustified Cause of Creation,
and misleading belief in past-kamma alone. In fact this Knowledge
equips one to be a virtuous one, ever freed from the ignoble
destinies of the Four Lower Worlds, a Cula-sotapanna, a future-
stream-winner' - so the Commentaries say. Hence a goal well worth
striving for. "

Best wishes

[pt1]

what is meant is naked exposure to pure being after having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana by means of "prajnaparamita".

Hi TMingyur,

With respect, this seems to be vajrayana terminology and I’m not sure how to interpret it correctly. Could you please clarify:

“naked exposure to pure being” – this would be vipassana I guess?

“having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana” – afaik, according to Theravada, nirvana as a dhamma is experienced for the first time with magga citta – path consciousness, which can be of four kinds and resulting in stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning or arahantship. Since I believe none of those four are acceptable for bodhisattvas, then what kind of magga citta do bodhisattvas experience in order to experience nirvana and conclude on that basis that samara and nirvana are equal? Or perhaps they can exprience nirvana without magga citta? Then with what kind of a citta?

“by means of prajnaparamita” – this would be the parami(ta) of wisdom (insight), right? I’d like to ask how far can their insight go according to vajrayana without resulting in stream-entry or higher? In theravada, as soon as insight reaches the level of anuloma nana, stream-entry is inevitable (please see here if you’re unfamiliar with insight-knowledge stages in theravada), hence, afaik, wisodm/insight of bodhisattas is said never to go beyond that point until their last life, and hence, they never experience nibbana prior to their last life.

Best wishes

[Paññāsikhara]

Originally, the "sign" is a subjective event, not the characteristic of the object.

I've encountered this argument before (possibly on E-Sangha) but never really took the time to investigate it further. So I'm hoping you could point me in the right direction. I'm interested in understanding how the 'sign' was initially interpreted, and which later school of thought came closest to that early interpretation.

Sorry if my question is vague--but I suppose this is precisely why I'm hoping you could help elucidate my understanding.

Oh, it's pretty simple if you just go to a translation of the Pali suttas, and look up "sign" (= nimitta) in the index. You'll soon see what is meant. On most occasions, it is talking about a mental event, which is often either something which generates defilements, or the mental event which is developed in order to overcome those defilements.

In the post-sutta stage, nimitta becomes used more like lakkhana (characteristic), which slowly tends to become the characteristics of the object itself. It's the well known shift from mental states to ontology.

[Paññāsikhara]

Hi Venerable,

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.

This sounds similar to how the commentaries describe cula-sotapanna – someone who has realised the first two tender insight knowledges – discerning nama-rupa (nama rupa pariccheda nana) and discerning conditionality (paccaya pariggaha nana).

Here are a few quotes I came accross online cited in relation to cula-sotapanna:

The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon:

Sotaapanna is a noble person (Ariya) who has eliminated di.t.thi and vicikicchà
'completely'. He will never be reborn in the apaaya abodes and he is destined to
enter Nibbaana in no more than seven rebirths in the kaama-planes. Now the yogi,
who has attained Naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na and Paccaya-pariggaha-~naa.na,
has 'temporarily' eliminated di.t.thi and vicikicchaa as described above. So he
resembles a sotaapanna but he is not a sotaapanna yet. He is called a
cuu.la-sotaapanna meaning a junior-sotaapanna. He will not be reborn in the
apaaya abodes in his subsequent life.

Visuddhimagga XIX, 26, 27:

26. For this is said: 'Understanding of discernment of
conditions thus "Ignorance is a condition, formations are
conditionally arisen, and both these states are conditionally arisen”,
is knowledge of the causal relationship of states’. [paragraph 26 then continues about abandoning doubt]
27. When a man practising insight has become possessed of this knowledge, he has found comfort in the Buddhas’ dispensation, he has found a foothold, he is certain of his destiny, he is called a 'Lesser Stream enterer'.

From one of Ledi Sayadaw’s manuals (the link I have for this quote is dead now, sorry about that):

"Cula-sotapanna or the Virtuous One
To understand Dependent Origination or to gain Knowledge in
comprehending the Law of Causality enables one to discard the three
aforesaid Wrong Views of No-cause, Unjustified Cause of Creation,
and misleading belief in past-kamma alone. In fact this Knowledge
equips one to be a virtuous one, ever freed from the ignoble
destinies of the Four Lower Worlds, a Cula-sotapanna, a future-
stream-winner' - so the Commentaries say. Hence a goal well worth
striving for. "

Best wishes

pt1 - thank you very much for this.

I don't think that they are necessarily identical, but as you say, there is certainly some sort of resemblance.

[Paññāsikhara]

what is meant is naked exposure to pure being after having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana by means of "prajnaparamita".

Hi TMingyur,

With respect, this seems to be vajrayana terminology and I’m not sure how to interpret it correctly. Could you please clarify:

“naked exposure to pure being” – this would be vipassana I guess?

“having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana” – afaik, according to Theravada, nirvana as a dhamma is experienced for the first time with magga citta – path consciousness, which can be of four kinds and resulting in stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning or arahantship. Since I believe none of those four are acceptable for bodhisattvas, then what kind of magga citta do bodhisattvas experience in order to experience nirvana and conclude on that basis that samara and nirvana are equal? Or perhaps they can exprience nirvana without magga citta? Then with what kind of a citta?

Well, for a start, I think that the whole notion of attainments as being these magga-cittas is really only that of the Theravada. So, even to say that in this strict sense they are not acceptable for the bodhisattvas is using a system which only applies to the Theravada - one can't really say acceptable or unacceptable from the POV of other schools.

“by means of prajnaparamita” – this would be the parami(ta) of wisdom (insight), right? I’d like to ask how far can their insight go according to vajrayana without resulting in stream-entry or higher? In theravada, as soon as insight reaches the level of anuloma nana, stream-entry is inevitable (please see here if you’re unfamiliar with insight-knowledge stages in theravada), hence, afaik, wisodm/insight of bodhisattas is said never to go beyond that point until their last life, and hence, they never experience nibbana prior to their last life.

Best wishes

Again, one may have to go back to some more fundamental differences between Theravadin (non-sutta) explanations of these sorts of things, and the systems that the Vajrayana used (which tends to come from other schools).

Hence differences as to whether or not bodhisattvas are prthagjana or arya, etc.

[ground]

Hi pt1

what is meant is naked exposure to pure being after having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana by means of "prajnaparamita".

Hi TMingyur,

With respect, this seems to be vajrayana terminology and I’m not sure how to interpret it correctly. Could you please clarify:

“naked exposure to pure being” – this would be vipassana I guess?

You are right. Sorry, I drifted into a wording that actually is not appropriate, i.e. wrong imaginative wording (speech) not being grounded on reason. Such kind of speech may cause projections and speculations thus I committed a fault. Sorry for that. Speaking from the right conventional perspective of the two truths only "putting on the armor of prajnaparamita" is the correct wording and I should have left it at that.

“having seen the equalness of samsara and nirvana” – afaik, according to Theravada, nirvana as a dhamma is experienced for the first time with magga citta – path consciousness, which can be of four kinds and resulting in stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning or arahantship. Since I believe none of those four are acceptable for bodhisattvas, then what kind of magga citta do bodhisattvas experience in order to experience nirvana and conclude on that basis that samara and nirvana are equal? Or perhaps they can exprience nirvana without magga citta? Then with what kind of a citta?

You are right all four kinds of magga cittas are inacceptable for bodhisattvas according to Mahayana. Actually the boddhisattva will practice prajnaparamita in alternation with (i.e. accompanying) the practice of the other paramitas and those will get more and more integrated in the course of travelling the paths and bhumis. Never will the boddhisattva "enter" nirvana (or one of the magga cittas) in the sense of abiding "there" and the antidot against "abiding" is said to be authentic "bodhicitta".

Kind regards

[pt1]

Thanks for clarifications Ven.Pannasikhara and TMingyur.

If you have time, I'm trying to understand why is bodhicitta given such a prominent role in Mahayana and I'm wondering how is bodhicitta different from the paramis (if it is at all)? I mean, to me bodhicitta seems like an amalgamation of three theravadin paramis of adhitthana (determination, resolution), wisdom and metta.

Reading about paramitas on wikipedia, though only six are listed for Mahayana, it is also stated that Dasabhumika sutra adds four paramitas more of which pranidhana (vow, resolution, aspiration, determination) is one, and it seems to correspond to theravadin adhitthana parami. Further, reading about bodhicitta on wikipedia, the first definition is that it is the wish to attain complete enlightenment (buddhahood), so I'm wondering how is this wish aspect of bodhicitta different from adhitthana?

The second definition of bodhicitta is that it is the union of compassion and wisdom, so I'm wondering how it is different from the two theravadin paramis of wisdom and metta? I understand that it could be said that metta isn't exactly karuna, but, if considered that non-aversion as one of the kusala roots is in essence the base of metta, and that karuna as a kusala cetasika can only accompany a kusala citta with non-aversion as one of the roots, and that one can extended mahametta and mahakruna with attaniment of (if I'm not mistaken) fourth jhana, it seems then that these two paramis of wisdom and metta in developed form are equivalent to bodhicitta.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting what bodhicitta is. Thanks.

Best wishes

[ground]

Hi pt1

If you have time, I'm trying to understand why is bodhicitta given such a prominent role in Mahayana and I'm wondering how is bodhicitta different from the paramis (if it is at all)? I mean, to me bodhicitta seems like an amalgamation of three theravadin paramis of adhitthana (determination, resolution), wisdom and metta.

Reading about paramitas on wikipedia, though only six are listed for Mahayana, it is also stated that Dasabhumika sutra adds four paramitas more of which pranidhana (vow, resolution, aspiration, determination) is one, and it seems to correspond to theravadin adhitthana parami. Further, reading about bodhicitta on wikipedia, the first definition is that it is the wish to attain complete enlightenment (buddhahood), so I'm wondering how is this wish aspect of bodhicitta different from adhitthana?

Since my knowledge and experience are both very limited I can only try to repeat what I have been taught and take the responsibility for any error.
There are several aspects of bodhicitta that are given different qualifying names: conventional and ultimate bodhicitta, aspirational and engaging bodhicitta.
"conventional" refers to conventional reality expressed in words and thought.
"ultimate" refers to the direct realization of emptiness.
"aspirational" refers to the mere wish.
"engaging" refers to taking the vow and learning, practicing the paramitas.
So actually the "conventional" comprises the "aspirational" and the "engaging" whereas the "ultimate" refers to the wisdom that is the culmination of the practice of the 6th paramita.

On Dharma Wheel Ven. Huifeng has provided a quote which covers both, the conventional and the ultimate aspect of bodhicitta:

An excellent example of what is meant by bodhicitta is to be found in the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra (aka: the Diamond Sutra). Conze's translation has:

The Lord said: Here, Subhuti, someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: 'As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term "beings" egg-born, born from a womb, moisture-born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, and with neither perception nor non-perception, as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived: all these I must lead to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana.' And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being'. 'And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul or of a person.'

It involves the compassion to lead beings to nirvana, and also the wisdom of emptiness that sees that ultimately there is no "living being".

Now the crucial point is the altruistic intention which is directed towards all other beings and that the wisdom aspect does not negate this "directedness". This "altruism being directed towards others" is the mark of the path and must not be abandoned at any time, because the moment it is abandoned in the context of [motivation for] practice one immediately lapses from the path of the bodhisattva. "Mindfulness" for a bodhisattva also means to permanently hold bodhicitta in his/her mind and to practice on the basis of bodhicitta and dedicate any result of practice to perfect buddhahood for the benefit of other beings which actually means to give all "merits" that may have been collected by means of practice to other beings (which is an aspect of the 1st paramita).

The second definition of bodhicitta is that it is the union of compassion and wisdom, so I'm wondering how it is different from the two theravadin paramis of wisdom and metta? I understand that it could be said that metta isn't exactly karuna, but, if considered that non-aversion as one of the kusala roots is in essence the base of metta, and that karuna as a kusala cetasika can only accompany a kusala citta with non-aversion as one of the roots, and that one can extended mahametta and mahakruna with attaniment of (if I'm not mistaken) fourth jhana, it seems then that these two paramis of wisdom and metta in developed form are equivalent to bodhicitta.

The basis of conventional bodhicitta actually are the four immeasurables:
- impartiality (sometimes called "equanimity") and the intention to "give" this impartiality to others because partiality is the root of samsara
- love which is the wish and the intention to give happiness to others and to provide/train all the causes for happiness
- compassion which is the wish and the intention to eliminate other's suffering and the causes
- prevent that others undergo lower "re-births" and establish them in liberation through skillful means

A type of "union of compassion and wisdom" may be the merging of prajnaparamita and altruistic bodhicitta (manifested in the "method aspect" of the paramitas) on the 8th bhumi and the following. The 8th bhumi is said to be point where the practitioner achieves either liberation/cessation of an arhat if bodhicitta has been abandoned in the course of the path and has not been re-established or she/he continues further to the 10th level if bodhicitta has been kept "intact". More experiential presentations of this "union" one may find in the vajrayana.

Kind regards

[fig tree]

Reading about paramitas on wikipedia, though only six are listed for Mahayana, it is also stated that Dasabhumika sutra adds four paramitas more of which pranidhana (vow, resolution, aspiration, determination) is one, and it seems to correspond to theravadin adhitthana parami.

Dhammapala discusses how you get different numbers: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el409.html. Look for "how many are there". As I recall, the four ones added to get ten again are thought of as a way of breaking down one of the six.

Fig Tree

[Paññāsikhara]

Reading about paramitas on wikipedia, though only six are listed for Mahayana, it is also stated that Dasabhumika sutra adds four paramitas more of which pranidhana (vow, resolution, aspiration, determination) is one, and it seems to correspond to theravadin adhitthana parami.

Dhammapala discusses how you get different numbers: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el409.html. Look for "how many are there". As I recall, the four ones added to get ten again are thought of as a way of breaking down one of the six.

Fig Tree

The six were also used by non-Vaibhasika Sarvastivadins, probably around Gandhara (but not Kasmir).
The Kasmiri Vaibhasikas had four. They argue that the other two are already included.
(But this may also reflect notions of a non-arya bodhisattva who doesn't perfect dhyana - lest it result in awakening too soon.)

The Dasabhumika stuff is a fair bit later. But still no where near as late as Dhammapala's Theravada bodhisatta contributions.