The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda Buddhist Theory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Philosophy & Religion Faculty Publications Philosophy & Religion 7-1997 The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda Buddhist Theory and Practice: A Reevaluation of the Bodhisattva-Śrāvaka Opposition Jeffrey Samuels Western Kentucky University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/phil_rel_fac_pub Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Buddhist Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Repository Citation Samuels, Jeffrey. (1997). The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda Buddhist Theory and Practice: A Reevaluation of the Bodhisattva-Śrāvaka Opposition. Philosophy East and West, 47 (3), 399-415. Original Publication URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399912 Available at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/phil_rel_fac_pub/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy & Religion Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE BODHISATTVA IDEAL IN THERAVADA JeffreySamuels BUDDHIST THEORY AND PRACTICE: A REEVALUATION OF THE BODHISATTVA-SRAVAKA OPPOSITION In theacademic study of Buddhismthe terms "Mahayana" and "Hina- Graduatestudent in the yana" are oftenset in contradictionto each other,and thetwo vehicles DepartmentofReligious Studiesat the are describedas havingdifferent aspirations, teachings, and practices. University ofVirginia The distinctionsmade betweenthe Mahayana and the Hinayana,how- ever,force the schoolsinto neat, isolated, and independentcategories thatoften undermine the complexities that exist concerning their beliefs, ideologies,and practices. Whilesome of the categories used to differentiatetheMahayana and the Hinayanaare helpfulin the studyand interpretationof Buddhism, thesedistinctions must continually be reviewed.This article attempts to reviewone such distinction:the commonly held theoretical model that postulatesthat the goal ofMahayana practitioners is to becomebuddhas byfollowing the path of the bodhisattva (bodhisattva-yana), whereas the goal of HTnayanapractitioners is to become arahantsby followingthe pathof the Heareror the Buddha'sdisciples (riavaka-yina). In demon- stratingthe oversimplificationsinherent in thismodel, this article will investigatethe presence and scope ofthe bodhisattva ideal inTheravada Buddhisttheory and practice. By raisingissues surrounding the Mahdyana-Hinayanaopposition, however,I am not suggestingthat distinctions cannot be made be- tweenthe two vehicles, nor am I proposingto do away withthe terms "Mahayana"and "Hinayana."Rather, in exploringthe oversimplifica- tionsinherent in theMahayana-HTnayana dichotomy, it is myintention to replacethe theoretical model that identifies (1) MahayanaBuddhism withthe bodhisattva-yana and (2) HTnayanaBuddhism with the sravaka- yina witha modelthat is morerepresentative of the two vehicles.In doingso, theimplied purpose of this article, as is JohnHolt's study of the place and relevanceof Avalokiteivara in SriLanka, is to "raisequestions among studentsof Buddhismregarding the veryutility of the terms Mahayana ... and Theravada as designatingwholly distinctivereligio- historicalconstructs"' (emphasis added). Before to the turning presenceand scope ofthe bodhisattva ideal in PhilosophyEast & West TheravadaBuddhism (the only extant school of HTnayanaBuddhism), it Volume47, Number3 may be beneficialto investigatebriefly the sourcesthat identify the July1997 bodhisattva-yanawith Mahayana Buddhism and the ?ravaka-yanawith 399-415 Buddhism. Instead of at how this model is HTnayana looking appro- ? 1997 priated by scholars of Buddhism,I will turnto the writingsof three by Universityof Mahayana Buddhistsin which thisbifurcation is suggested. Hawai'i Press 399 This content downloaded from 161.6.141.175 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:04:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions One ofthe first Mahayana Buddhists who identifiesthe bodhisattva- yina withMahayana Buddhism and the sravaka-yinawith HTnayana Buddhismis Nagarjuna.In his PreciousGarland of Advice for the King (Rijaparikatha-ratnamilTh),Nagarjuna rhetorically asks "Since all the aspirations,deeds and dedicationsof Bodhisattvas were not explained in theHearers' vehicle, how then could one becomea Bodhisattvathrough itspath?"2 In anotherinstance, Nagdrjuna writes that "[In theVehicle of the Hearers]Buddha did notexplain the bases fora Bodhisattva'sen- lightenment."3While Nagarjunacompares the sravaka-yinawith the bodhisattva-yanain thesefirst two passages,he laterstates that "the subjectsbased on the deeds of Bodhisattvaswere not mentionedin the [HTnayanalsatras."4 Nagarjuna's third passage, then, suggests that subjectsconcerning bodhisattvas are foundonly in Mahayanatexts and are absentfrom all Hinayanatexts. AnotherMahayana Buddhist to upholda Mah5ydna-Hinaydnadis- tinctionbased on a bodhisattva-srivakaopposition is Asaiga. As Richard S. Cohen illustrates,5sAsahiga posits, in his Mahjyinasotralamkinra,that theGreat Vehicle and theHearers' Vehicle are mutuallyopposed.6 Their contradictorynature includes intention, teaching, employment (i.e., means),support (which is based entirelyon meritand knowledge),and the timethat it takesto reach the goal.7 AfterAsahiga discusses the opposingnature of thesetwo vehicles,he thenidentifies the sravaka- yina as thelesser vehicle (Hinayana), and remarksthat the lesser vehicle (ydnamhTnam) is notable to be thegreat vehicle (Mahayana).8 CandrakTrtiis yet another Mahayana thinker who viewsthe Maha- yana and the HTnayanaas beingmutually opposed. Like Asariga, Can- drakirtiuses the bodhisattva-gravakadistinction to separateMahayana and HinayanaBuddhism as well as to promotethe Mahayana tradition over and againstHTnayana Buddhism. In his Madhyamakivatira,for instance,he remarksthat the lesservehicle (HTnayana)is the path reservedsolely for disciples and solitarybuddhas, and thatthe greater vehicle (Mahayana)is the path reservedsolely for bodhisattvas. Not only does CandrakTrtiassociate the bodhisattva-yinawith Mahayana Buddhism,he also clingsto thebelief that the Hinayanaschools know nothingof the "stagesof the careerof the futureBuddha, the perfect virtues(paramiti), the resolutionsor vows to save all creatures,the applicationof merit to theacquisition of the quality of Buddha, [and] the greatcompassion."' In otherwords, for CandrakTrti (as forNagarjuna), theHinayana tradition does notpresent a bodhisattvadoctrine. The pointsraised by these Mahayana Buddhists are problematicfor threereasons. First,the dichotomypresented by both Asanga and Can- drakirtisets up an oppositionbetween an ideology and an institutional affiliation.Rather than comparingan ideologywith an ideology (bodhi- PhilosophyEast &.West sattvaand drivaka)or a Buddhistschool withanother Buddhist school, 400 This content downloaded from 161.6.141.175 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:04:33 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions thisopposition contrasts one ideology(arahantship through following the sravaka-ydna)with an institutionalaffiliation (Mahayana Buddhism). In orderfor a moreaccurate distinction to be constructed,then, we must eithercompare the bodhisattva-yana with the sravaka-yina, or compare a MahayanaBuddhist school with a HTnayanaBuddhist school. Anotherproblem with the ideas put forthby Nagarjuna,Asanhga, and CandrakTrticoncerns their statements that Mahayana and HTnayana Buddhismare mutuallycontradictory and exclusive.These assertions underminethe fact that the terms "HTnayana" and "Mahayana"refer to numerousschools and thatthe categoryof "Hinayana"includes even a numberof "proto-Mahayana"schools (e.g., the Mahasafrghikas).10 By usingthe terms "Mahayana" and "HTnayana"monolithically, these thinkersignore the plurality of doctrines, goals, and pathsthat are pres- entin the schools. The thirdproblem inherent in the statementsof thesewriters, and whichwill be thefocus of thisarticle, is thatthey assume that all fol- lowersof the Hinayanaare sravakasstriving to becomearahants while all followersof theMahayana are bodhisattvason thepath to buddha- hood.As we shallsee throughthe example of the only extant HTnayana school,the Theravadin tradition, this is clearlynot the case. Beforereevaluating the bodhisattva-sravaka opposition as it is pre- sentedby Nagarjuna,Asafiga, and CandrakTrti,it is firstnecessary to ascertainthe presence and scope ofthe bodhisattva ideal in Theravada Buddhism.This will be accomplishedby lookingat thepresence of the ideal in theTheravada Buddhist Pali canon (theory)as well as by inves- tigatinghow thesame ideal permeatesthe lives of Theravada Buddhists (practice). The presenceof the bodhisattva ideal inthe Theravada Buddhist Pali canon is primarilyrestricted to GotamaBuddha. The use of the term "bodhisattva"occurs in a numberof the sottas (Skt: satra) in the Majjhi- ma, Anguttara,and SamyuttaNikJyas where the Buddhais purported to havesaid: "Monks, before my Awakening, and whileI was yetmerely the Bodhisatta[Skt: bodhisattva], not fully-awakened...."" In addition to referringto the present life of Gotama,the term "bodhisattva" is also used in relationto thepenultimate life of Gotamain Tusita (Pali: Tusita) heaven,as well as hisconception and birth.12 In latercanonical texts, the bodhisattvaideal is furtherdeveloped and associatedwith numerous concepts. These developments(which includethe concept of a bodhisattvavow) may be saidto introduce"into TheravadaBuddhism what in Mahayanastudies has been called 'the Bodhisattvaideal.'