In the world since roughly about the Second or First Century BCE, there are two main branches of Buddhism. One of these two branches, known as the Mahayana, is actually an offshoot of the other branch. In Sanskrit, the term Mahayana literally means "Greater Vehicle." Some Mahayana Buddhists still use the term "Hinayana," meaning "Lesser Vehicle" to refer to the other branch or at least to its teachings and practices. But even most of these Mahayana Buddhists consider the basic teachings of the older branch to be a fundamental part of the Mahayana teachings.
In his brilliant magazine article, "Finding the Perfect Balance - Arhat vs Bodhisattva," (Buddhadharma, vol. 6., no. 4 (Summer, 2008), pp. 20-27), Ajahn Amaro, who is a monk in the Thai Forest Tradition of Theravada Buddhism and the co-abbot of Abhayagiri Monastary in Redwood Valley, California, suggests how we can transcend the debate between Theravadans and Mahayanists over the true ideal of Buddhist practice. Here is the full text of the main body that article:
BETWEEN ARHAT AND BODHISATTVA
|
One of the more significant elephants in the living room of Buddhism in the West is the disparity between the stateded goals of the Northern and Southern schools. In the Northern tradition, the goal is often formulated as the cultivation of the bodhisattva path over many lifetimes for the benefit of all beings, culminating in buddhahood. Its scriptures and liturgies are thickly populated with the bodhisattva principle, and for those who practice in this tradition it is normal to take bodhisattva vows. In the Southern tradition, the spiritual ideal that is extolled instead is the realization of arahantship-the realization of nibbana and the ending of rebirth, in this very life. The bodhisattva principle is hardly ever spoken of, apart from its mention in the Jataka Tales, stories of the past lives of Gotama Buddha.
The main reason for delving into this disparity is that people do make comparisons of the arahant (Pali; Skt: arhat) and bodhisattva ideal and ask which path to follow. The aim here is not to argue a particular position and defend it, but to shed a little more light on the goals of Buddhist practice and to recount some of what the scriptures and traditions have said about this landscape over the centuries. VIEWS FROM THE NORTH,
|
"I respect your wisdom immensely but I feel uncomfortable studying and taking refuges and precepts with you;
I feel I'm being unfaithful to my teacher, Ajahn Maha-Boowa."
Ajahn Chah replied, "I don't see the problem. Ajahn Maha-Boowa and I are both disciples of the Buddha." |
It is possible to explore these various teachings and traditions in this spirit of nonpartisan openness and, hopefully, appreciate the landscape of the way of the Buddha with eyes that are "right in dhamma." Through this kind of investigation, perhaps we can find ways to resolve these ancient conflicts. THE MIDDLE WAYIf the difficulties that have arisen over the centuries can be attributed to contentious position-taking, one way to resolve them should be through the practice of non-contention. The Buddha once said that his entire teaching could be summarized as, "Nothing whatsoever should be clung to." Such a spirit of non-contention and non-clinging approaches the core principle of the middle way. The skillful refusal to pick one particular viewpoint and cling to it reflects right view; it also expresses the effort that is essential to arrive at resolution. The question then arises: how exactly do we find this mysterious middle—the place of non-abiding, the place of non-contention? "The middle way" can mean a lot of different things. It can even be used by politicians to describe their war plans. In this investigation, the term denotes the fundamental principle that the Buddha realized at his enlightenment. It refers to the insight of awakening that transcends the later categories of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. "The middle way" is an everyday expression. This renders the principle highly accessible; however, it also belies its profundity. In the Buddha's first discourse, he equated the middle way with the noble eightfold path, thus defining it as a quality that embodies the entire spiritual training.In this original sense, it was an all-encompassing teaching. Predictably, in later years and in certain regions, it came to be emblematic of one particular school—that based on the Madhayamaka philosophy of Acharya Nagarjuna. That school was distinguished from other groups such as the Chittamatrans, Vaibashikas, and Sautrantikas. Thus, although it began as a universal principle, the meaning of "middle way" shrank somewhat, within this sphere, to become another tribal insignia. Although the term is not being used here in this narrower sense, it is nevertheless interesting to explore what Nagarjuna's insight was fuelled by. For it is in this central principle of the middle way-and particularly in the analysis of the feelings of existence and of "self"—that we find the means to harmonize conflicting views.In a seminal exchange between the Buddha and Maha- Kaccana, the Buddha says: |
"All exists," Kaccayana, this is one extreme, "All does not exist," this is the other extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes the Tathagata teaches the dhamma by the middle way. |
—Samyutta Nikaya 12.1.5 |
There is a very close connection between this discourse, found in the Pali Canon, and the words of Nagarjuna in his Treatise on the Root of the Middle Way. This latter text is considered a cornerstone of the Mahayana movement, and it has informed the approach of the Northern school for the past 1,800 years. Ironically, it makes no mention of such characteristic Northern elements as bodhisattvas and bodhichitta. Indeed, scholars such as Kalupahana and Warder have pointed out that there's actually nothing particularly "Mahayana" in what it says. Nagarjuna mentions the dialogue between Buddha and Maha-Kaccana; further, he writes: |
"Existence" is the grasping at permanence; "non-existence" is the view of annihilation. Therefore, the wise do not dwell in existence or non-existence. |
—Mulamadyamakakarika 14.10 |
Both teachings point out how to recognize the feeling of self, how to see through it, and, ultimately, how to break free from the tyrant. They both indicate that clinging to the sense of self is what primarily obstructs knowing the middle way. These teachings point to the fact that, yes, there is the feeling of selfhood, but they also make it clear that the feeling of "I" arises due to causes. These causes are habits rooted in ignorance and fired by craving. There might be the feeling of "I," yet, like all feelings, it is transparent and empty of substance-merely a pattern of consciousness that arises and ceases. This teaching is usually taken to be a philosophical description; however, it is most significant as a meditation tool. It helps us to see that questions such as "Do I exist?" or "Do I not exist?" are irrelevant. Instead the perspective shifts to one of cultivating and maintaining a mindful awareness of the feeling of "I" arising and ceasing. This is the essence of vipassana, or insight meditation.The dissolution of the conceit "I am" was described by the Buddha as "nibbana here and now," and it cuts to the root of all contentions. THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS:
|
Relying on the Four Noble Truths, he brings forth
the Four Great Vows of a Bodhisattva. The Four Noble
Truths are:
Suffering, Living beings are numberless; Afflictions are endless; The Buddha Way is unsurpassed; Dharma-doors are numberless; |
—The Buddha Speaks the Brahma Net Sutra, by Master Hui Seng |
This expression of the four noble truths spells out their non-personal, expansive quality. In the same epoch, a parallel teaching arose that also spelled out the strictly relative nature of the four noble truths: the Heart Sutra. Probably the most well-known teaching in the Northern Canon, the Heart Sutra has been recited for centuries from India to Manchuria, from Kyoto to Latvia, and nowadays throughout the world. It is the natural counterpart to the bodhisattva vows, and indeed, they are often recited together. The Heart Sutra states: "There is no suffering, no origin, no cessation, and no way." The sutra thus takes the four noble truths and points out their empty aspect: ultimately, there is no dukkha. We think we're suffering, but in ultimate reality there isn't any dukkha.The Heart Sutra reminds us that the four noble truths are essentially transparent; they are relative, not absolute truths. Sometimes people faithfully proclaim, "Everything is suffering," as if dukkha were an ultimate truth, but that's not what the Buddha taught, as is evidenced in the scriptures of both the Southern and Northern schools. "Suffering" is a conditional, relative truth; it is "noble" because it leads to liberation. SELF-VIEW, THE RELIABLE TROUBLEMAKERIt is the sense of self that ultimately drives the tribalistic politics that exist today. Ironically, even though the reformers aimed at dispelling the self-centeredness they saw, the problem nevertheless persisted. Those divisive politics are like dubious family heirlooms—hard to discard, being so much a part of our collective histories. The conflict essentially arises as a result of conceiving the arahant and the bodhisattva in terms of self-view. When there is no clinging to any view, the picture radically changes. The Buddha said, "Held by two kinds of views, some hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see." The former means some people are life-affirmers, delighting in the things of the world. When teachings refer to letting go and cessation, their minds recoil and hold back. By "some overreach," he means nihilists who rejoice in the idea of non-being, asserting that when the body dies, this self is annihilated. They feel this will be true peace. "Those with vision" see what has come to be as having come to be. They cultivate dispassion toward that and are at ease with its cessation.As long as self-view has not been penetrated, the mind will miss the middle way. The "ending of rebirth" ideal will tend to get co-opted by the nihilist view, whereas the "endlessly returning for the sake of all beings" ideal will tend to become permeated with the eternalist view. When the sense of self is seen through, the middle way is realized. Whether we talk in terms of emptiness of the arahant of the Pali Canon, or in terms of the absolute zero of the Heart Sutra or the infinite view of the four vows, these are merely modes of speech. They all derive from the same source, the truth of the way things are. They are simply expedient formulations that guide the heart to attunement with the reality of its own nature. That attunement is the middle way.THE VIEW FROM THE CENTERThere are many teachings that illuminate this perspective; for example: |
As long as space remains, As long as sentient beings remain, Until then, may I too remain And dispel the miseries of the world. |
—Shantideva, Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life |
To the average Theravadan, this verse by Shantideva might seem antithetical to the path. It appears to run completely counter to that principle to get out of the burning house as soon as one can. However, the practice of the middle way involves taking up compassion teachings along with their partner, the emptiness teachings. These two elements are like the wings of a bird-they can't function properly without each other. If we reflect closely on this verse, another layer of meaning opens up: as long as space and identity are held to have substantial reality, the mind has not realized enlightenment. True insight involves recognizing that space, time, and being are imputed qualities that have no absolute existence. Thus the Southern idea of "me going" and "others left behind" must be missing the mark. Similarly,the Northern view of "this individual being will persist through infinite time for the sake of other beings" has also fallen into wrong view. The practice of the middle way dissolves the illusion that "I" can "go" and "others" can "stay," or vice versa. It radically reconfigures the concepts of time, space, and being.So the aspiration can validly be as it is in the verse; but if space no longer remains, if no beings remain, if their nature is recognized as conditioned and therefore empty, what does that say about the "I" who would be "staying"? The irony is that upon knowing that time, space, and beings have no substantial reality, the "I" is "gone" too—gone to suchness, come to suchness: Tathagata. Sri Ramana Maharshi once remarked, "A good man says, 'Let me be the last man to get liberation, so that I may help all others to be liberated before I am.' Wonderful! Imagine a dreamer saying, 'May all these dream people wake up before I do.' The dreamer is no more absurd than this amiable philosopher." His analysis astutely sums up the issue: only when the heart is free of all self-view can it attune itself to reality; a precise balance is needed.In The Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra, we find passages that voice a similar understanding: |
Subhuti, what do you think? You should not maintain that the Tathagata has this thought: "I shall take living beings across." Subhuti, do not have that thought. And why? There are actually no living beings taken across by the Tathagata. If there were living beings taken across by the Tathagata, then the Tathagata would have the existence of a self, of others, of living beings, and of a life. Subhuti, the existence of a self spoken of by the Tathagata is no existence of a self, but common people take it as the existence of a self. |
We save all beings by realizing there are no beings. The perfection of wisdom is to see this fact: ultimately, the truth is not self and not other; there is no arahant, no bodhisattva, no birth, no death. Though the heart might incline to compassion, it's only when we cultivate this wisdom element as well that there is going to be true spiritual fulfillment. Experience shows that in order to realize a fulfillment that maximally benefits all, we need to know our traits and learn how to balance them out. If we're a wisdom type—intent on realizing nibbana to get out as quickly as possible-then it's necessary to develop compassion. We need to lean toward people and things. Or, if we're an altruistic type, feeling, "I've got to stay around until everyone else has been saved," then we need to incline toward the emptiness of things.In the equipoise of the middle way, the infinite and the void are sustained. They complement each other; they balance each other out. "DOES SHE REALLY EXIST?"The scene: a Buddhist conference in Berlin. Among the many panels and presentations, some teachers have come to give workshops as well. One such elder is an eminent TIbetan lama; he has been giving instruction on The Praise to the Twenty- One Taras. It is now time for questions and answers. A young man with furrowed brow requests to speak. He asks in broken English, "Rinpoche, for many years now I have been your student. I am committed to the practice but I have the doubt. I am very willing to do the pujas, the visualizations, the prostrations, but it is very hard to have the whole heart in it, because I have this doubt: Tara, is she really there? Sometime you talk like she is a real person, but sometimes you say she is the wisdom of Buddha Amoghasiddhi, or just a skillful means.If I could know for sure, I would redouble my efforts. So, Rinpoche, Tara, does she really exist or does she not?!" For a few moments the lama ponders, then raises his eyes to meet those of his inquirer. A smile spreads across his face. He responds, "She knows that she is not real." NOT A THOUGHT BUT BALANCEFrom this place of realization, we can see that there is a reader here and a page out there, but we can also recognize that this is all just patterns of consciousness. It has no substantial reality. The more we learn to hold this play of forms gently—not clinging to any view—the more there is an attunement. We begin to get the feel. We are not dismissing the faith we have in our favored path, but we are not condemning those who have made other choices. We reflect on the benefits that have come from the practices and principles we know, but we question them and are ready to see them differently, if wisdom indicates a shift of attitude.We commit ourselves to our chosen spiritual practices with 100 percent sincerity, but at the same time know that all of these conventional forms-Northern and Southernare utterly without substance. As Ajahn Chah would sometimes say to the whole assembly at his monastery, "There are no monks or nuns here, there are no lay women, no men; these are mere suppositions, conventional forms—that's all. Wahng! It's empty!" The middle way is appreciated as a finely felt sense. It has nothing to do with being mild or halfway along the arc of a pendulum. Rather, it's the still point that is the center of movement, the axis that the pendulum pivots from. In our heart of hearts we know what it is to be perfectly balanced. There is a deep, intuitive familiarity with this, and this is what we need to sustain and trust. This is the way that the root of concord can be found and embodied.All this said, the rational mind can still struggle for more precision, "Yes, but what exactly is it?!" When a piece of music moves us we say, "It's perfect!" But even in the saying, we've almost lost the feeling. Louis Armstrong, when asked, "What's jazz?" responded, "Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know."The middle way is that wordless quality of balance, of pure and vibrant harmony. |