How Do You Defend the Arahant Ideal?

[2600htz]

Hi:

Uhmm arguing against the Bodhisattva ideal mahayana concept just makes me cringe, because it has so many holes.

Also i think its a very bad thing to do, make people believe they should not attain nibbana. Probably just that idea creates a disposition that stops them from attaining lower stages like sotapanna.

Regards.

[davlovsky]

Theravada or Mahayana the path shouldn't be self obsessed. In America it's easy as a theravadan to get neurotic and self hyper focused "I need to realize nibbana I'm doing this practice for my enlightenment and nibbana is the only worthy goal as a precious human". Atleast where I live there's not much of a sensibility of a community. Even when I do metta I think "oh this will make me happy". There's this underlying sense of my own personal happiness is what's most important. That's why I like the ten Paramis and the bodhisattva attitude it makes practice less dry. Atleast for a somewhat isolated person raised in America. The bodhisattva attitude for me doesn't mean I think I'm going to save all beings from samsara, but there's is the difference of attitude that I cultivate the Paramis as wholesome attributes for the sake of helping others. It's subtle but it's a massive shift going from "brahma viharas make me happy that's why I do them" to I will be kind to people because I care about them.

I think that the way you approach it is good; when approached appropriately, the Bodhisattvic Ideal can open the heart in quite a profound way.

But others seem to use it in such a way to promote a slightly skewed version of the dhamma. Mahayana seems to be more suited for the Western temperament, disposition; westerners being more individualistic and possibly also having some genetically-inherited, messianic complex from thousands of years of Judeo-Christian brainwashing -the whole White Man's Burden ala Kipling. Then many think that they can all become like Vimalikirti before really knowing or understanding much of what the Buddhadhamma is about; there's the potential for a lot of ego here I think.

That's why I think the Arahant Ideal resonates more with the dhamma; it just seems that both renunciation and environment (i.e. monkhood) is necessary in order to achieve these subtler states of absorption leading up to Nibbana. I couldn't imagine being able to achieve these things while living the life of a householder, or, wanting to live the life of a householder after having achieved these states.

[davlovsky]

Theravada or Mahayana the path shouldn't be self obsessed. In America it's easy as a theravadan to get neurotic and self hyper focused "I need to realize nibbana I'm doing this practice for my enlightenment and nibbana is the only worthy goal as a precious human". Atleast where I live there's not much of a sensibility of a community. Even when I do metta I think "oh this will make me happy". There's this underlying sense of my own personal happiness is what's most important. That's why I like the ten Paramis and the bodhisattva attitude it makes practice less dry. Atleast for a somewhat isolated person raised in America. The bodhisattva attitude for me doesn't mean I think I'm going to save all beings from samsara, but there's is the difference of attitude that I cultivate the Paramis as wholesome attributes for the sake of helping others. It's subtle but it's a massive shift going from "brahma viharas make me happy that's why I do them" to I will be kind to people because I care about them.

I think that the way you approach it is good; when approached appropriately, the Bodhisattvic Ideal can open the heart in quite a profound way.

But others seem to use it in such a way to promote a slightly skewed version of the dhamma. Mahayana seems to be more suited for the Western temperament, disposition; westerners being more individualistic and possibly also having some genetically-inherited, messianic complex from thousands of years of Judeo-Christian brainwashing -the whole White Man's Burden ala Kipling. Then many think that they can all become like Vimalikirti before really knowing or understanding much of what the Buddhadhamma is about; there's the potential for a lot of ego here I think.

That's why I think the Arahant Ideal resonates more with the dhamma; it just seems that both renunciation and environment (i.e. monkhood) is necessary in order to achieve these subtler states of absorption leading up to Nibbana. I couldn't imagine being able to achieve these things while living the life of a householder, or, wanting to live the life of a householder after having achieved these states.

[Red Belly]

Hi:

Uhmm arguing against the Bodhisattva ideal mahayana concept just makes me cringe, because it has so many holes.

Also i think its a very bad thing to do, make people believe they should not attain nibbana. Probably just that idea creates a disposition that stops them from attaining lower stages like sotapanna.

Regards.

Hi 2600htz,

To be fair, I don't think anyone here is arguing against the Bodhisatta ideal per se, but only against the Mahayana conception of it, which falls into error. And I've certainly never seen or heard a Theravadin teacher discourage people from attaining nibanna!

RB

[Maarten]

If you accept that you yourself are wandering through samsara with no prospects of ending suffering, wouldn't the most compassionate ideal be to try and save yourself? Once you have saved yourself you are in the best possible position to help others do the same. Only an arahat has perfect compassion and wisdom, not a Bodhisattva. How are you even going to help someone attain enlightenment when you yourself are completely unenlightened, you would not have a clue about how to help them, it would be the blind leading the blind...

[Ontheway]

If you accept that you yourself are wandering through samsara with no prospects of ending suffering, wouldn't the most compassionate ideal be to try and save yourself? Once you have saved yourself you are in the best possible position to help others do the same. Only an arahat has perfect compassion and wisdom, not a Bodhisattva. How are you even going to help someone attain enlightenment when you yourself are completely unenlightened, you would not have a clue about how to help them, it would be the blind leading the blind...

A simile occurred to me.

When you fly on an airplane, the flight attendant instructs you to “put your oxygen mask on first,” before helping others. Why is this an important rule for ensuring survival? Because if you run out of oxygen yourself, you can't help anyone else with their oxygen mask.

https://www.donnaschilder.com/articles/ ... -on-first/

[simsapa]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the Bodhisatta ideal

Then what do you think the valid Theravada version is?

[Red Belly]

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the Bodhisatta ideal

Then what do you think the valid Theravada version is?

That a Bodhisatta is a being one step away from becoming a Buddha.

[Nicolas]

[...]

[...]

Also:

That one who is himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is impossible; that one who is not himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is possible. That one who is himself untamed, undisciplined, with defilements unextinguished, should tame another, discipline him, and help extinguish his defilements is impossible; that one who is himself tamed, disciplined, with defilements extinguished, should tame another, discipline him, and help extinguish his defilements is possible.

[auto]

‘ânanda, as you decide to give up the state of a sràvaka to
practise with the Bodhisattva Vehicle in order to possess the
Buddha’s All-Wisdom, you should see clearly if the causeground
(used as) a point of departure and its fruit-ground
(i.e. realization) are compatible or not.
..
ânanda said: ‘World Honoured One, as the Buddha has said,
the causal ground used as the point of departure in quest of
Reality should be compatible with the fruit-ground. World
Honoured One, though realization of the fruit-ground is called
by seven different names: Bodhi, Nirvàõa, the Absolute,
Buddha-nature, Immaculate Knowledge (Amalavij¤àna),
Immaterial Tathàgata Store, the Great Mirror Wisdom, it is
pure, clean and perfect, and its substance does not change, like
the royal diamond which is permanent and indestructible.

..

..The true and constant must respond to phenomena;
Responding to phenomena, you must be unconfused..

..

Does the Tathàgata’s previous
teaching on (the nature of) seeing which is profound, pure, perfect
and permanent, contradict your “true wordsŸ and become
sophistry (as well)? Will you please be compassionate enough
to clear away my delusion and perplexity?’

Buddha said,

The Buddha said: ‘You have widened your knowledge
by hearing but have failed to get out of the stream of transmigration
completely. Though you know the cause of your
upset, yet when you find yourself in the presence of that
cause, you fail to recognize it.

there is likelihood that the people you have met or get he rumors won't point you out or perhaps not even have a slightest clue why these texts are written. And notice that you have to be attained nibbana(constant) or know what it is before you can thread the path of a bodhisattva. Naysayers falsely are making it look like it is a sidetrack.

[befriend]

theravadan books are free, Mahayana books cost money. Theravadan is altruistic in this contribution. Also if a Mahayana practitioner attains stream winner according to suttas they will only be reborn 7 more times in a happy realm and will inevitably become an Arahant not samasambuddha. So that part doesn't make sense to me unless taking a bodhisattva vow counteracts their exiting from samsara. Not sure I don't know much about Mahayana.

[Maarten]

A simile occurred to me.

When you fly on an airplane, the flight attendant instructs you to “put your oxygen mask on first,” before helping others. Why is this an important rule for ensuring survival? Because if you run out of oxygen yourself, you can't help anyone else with their oxygen mask.

That one who is himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is impossible; that one who is not himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is possible. That one who is himself untamed, undisciplined, with defilements unextinguished, should tame another, discipline him, and help extinguish his defilements is impossible; that one who is himself tamed, disciplined, with defilements extinguished, should tame another, discipline him, and help extinguish his defilements is possible.

That is one wise flight attendant!

[Joe.c]

If one read a Sutta (Buddha Discourses), you will understand Buddha Gotama was an Ariya on his past life. (See MN 81 Ghatikara Sutta). On his last existence, He saw birth, old age, and death as dukkha. But he didnt know how to solve the problem. Then the seek, he called himself Bodhisatta (a being seeking awakening).

But Mahayana mistook the concept, all of them want to become Buddha, before even become an Ariya/Sekha. That is just not possible. Like other say, it is not possible to help others that suffer, if you are still suffering.

Like a blind man want to help another blind man, both of them go to the pits (underworld) eventually.

So to help someone you need to see/experience and understand the problem. Then you can SOLVE the problem, which Buddha Gotama did.

How can one see, First step is Right View from Noble 8fold path.

Btw Buddha is also an Arahant (perfected one), but he is the first one for this period. So no different between a buddha or Arahant, because freedom experience are the same who follow the path. Buddha mentioned it in Sutta as well.

Also, Everyone chant Buddha Characters:
Itipi so Bhagava Araham

Arahant= perfected, fetters breaker.

[Red Belly]

Well said, Joe. There have been some great posts here which will really help me articulate, both for myself and others if asked, what we believe regarding this. Thank you all very much!

[simsapa]

That a Bodhisatta is a being one step away from becoming a Buddha.

Sounds good to me.