New Page 1

Buddhist Philosophy

Relationship Hinayana/Mahayana

Taking into account the different diversification criteria, we can conclude that the Smaller Vehicle (Hinayana) and the Larger Vehicle (Mahayana) have (1) a lot of themes in common and (2) that they overlap each other on a number of topics. It should be noticed here however that to look upon these two streams as 'whole units', viz. completed and closed-off systems, is a fiction.

A lot of the so-called 'typical' Mahayana doctrinal points appear in the Pali-Canon, which is seen without a doubt as the Hinayana document par excellence. A great number of these doctrinal points are found in the oldest layers of the Pali-Canon and cannot be taken to be later interpolations.
Another remarkable fact is that within Indian Buddhism there rarely is any mention (not until very late) of separate Mahayana communities. Apparently the monks of the divers streams lived among one another, following more or less the same Vinaya rules. Witness to this are the writings of the pilgrim monk Hsüan-chuang ( 600-664) who gives a detailed description of the situation of Buddhism in India. There is therefore no reason to speak of a 'schism' in the Christian sense of the word. It is impossible, given the present archeological research, where India is concerned to draw a sharp demarcation line between the two streams. It is only in China that the institutional separation of Hinayana/Mahayana becomes truly noticeable.

Also remarkable is that, on the doctrinal level, we notice an evolution (or better yet, an extension) of the original anatta-teaching. With the transmission of the term from Hinayana to Mahayana, we notice that the emphasis on its non-ontological character is preserved, whereas the dualism between self/non-self is transcended in the sense of the logical tetralemma (viz. the fourth lemma 'neither-nor').

At first, the term 'Mahayana' did not have the implication of being sectarian or schismatic, but it referred to a 'different approach' of the salvific problem.

The adjective maha(n)t, in compounds 'maha', does not just mean 'great', but also 'broad' or 'large'. It is exactly this meaning that lies at the basis for the term 'Mahayana': the 'broad or large vehicle'.

In this sense 'Mahayana' points primarily to a soteriology that is 'broader' [than for monks alone]; namely, that there is also a possibility for salvation outside of the strict observance of the Vinaya rules or the monastic discipline. The 'Way' (or path, Skt. Marga, Ch. Tao) is 'Broad' ! It is in this sense that the term appears, probably for the first time, in Asvaghosha's "Mahayana-sraddhotpada-sastra" 1(The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana).

In a somewhat later evolution, the Mahayana evolves towards a stronger contrast in regards to the 'Smaller Vehicle', which emphasizes the effort towards individual salvation "Diligently strive towards your own salvation". In contradistinction to this the Mahayana posits "the salvation of all beings, regardless their numbers". This will go as far as the Mahayana accusing the 'Smaller Vehicle' of mere self-concern and a lack of compassion.2

This polemic will appear most clearly in the controversy Arhant/Bodhisattva as the proposed ideal set to be followed by the 'adept'.

Arahant (P.) - Arhant (Skr.)

It is stated that the adept meditator has to transgress four stages on his way to enlightenment:

sotapanna: the 'stream-enterer'
sakadagami: the 'once-returner'
anagami: the 'none-returner'
arahant: the 'praiseworthy' or the 'holy one'

The arahant, the final stage of this evolution, is the one who is no longer subject to the cycle of birth-and-death. By overcoming the fundamental ignorance he has become desireless and has been freed of every ego-illusion. Because he gives no more rise to desire, no more karma-formations (volitions, acts of will) arise and he is no longer reborn.

He has reached this state through his own efforts by practicing the Dharma, the Vinaya and the "Four Levels of Meditation" (P. jhana; Skt. dhyana). When he experiences suffering as a result of past karma, there is no more mental reaction against this suffering in him. He lives in a state of 'emotional non-reaction'3, equanimity an invulnerability, a state to which every being should strive.

This ideal state is difficult to describe, and even more difficult to realize. The subject in any case brought along a lot of discussion within the different Hinayana-schools (e.g. concerning the question whether the Arahant can 'regress' to a lower state or not).

In the Mahayana-schools the Arahant-ideal was mostly the subject of sharp attacks. He was blamed for working exclusively towards his own salvation. It is true that he functions as an example and that in this way he arouses the desire in others to walk the same way, but besides this he is inactive. He sits alone in a 'small vehicle' and lacks the element of Compassion.

Difference between Arahant/Buddha

The arahant needs the Teachings (Dharma) set forth by the Buddha, whereas the Buddha discovered the Dharma.
The arahant puts the Teachings into practice, whereas the Buddha established the practice.
The arahant has put an end to the causes of suffering, but is not necessarily capable of transmitting this experience to others; whereas the Buddha necessarily shares his experience with others.
The arahant has a passive knowledge (jñana) of the Teaching, but lacks Wisdom (prajña); whereas the Buddha has (is) active Wisdom.
The arahant misses compassion (karuna); whereas the Buddha has (is) Great Compassion (maha-karuna).

Pratyekabuddha (P. paccekabuddha)

At a certain moment, another distinction between a Buddha or 'Sammasambuddha' versus a 'pratyekabuddha' is introduced. A pratyekabuddha or a 'solitary Buddha' discovers the Teaching by himself, and fathoms its Wisdom, but he dies without having proclaimed it (viz. the Compassion-element) to others. A lot of interpretations concerning the pratyekabuddha are possible ! (e.g. the possibility of enlightened beings outside the realm of Buddhism).

Bodhisattva (P. bodhisatta)

Enlightenment-being - Being towards Enlightenment - Being focused on Enlightenment.
This term is difficult to translate, even more difficult to describe.

1. Evolution of the term

The term bodhisatta is already found in the Pali-Canon, be it with a limited meaning: Bodhisatta is Siddharta Gautama before he realized Enlightenment. Therefore we see two phases in his biography: bodhisatta before, and Buddha after his Enlightenment.

Therefore: Bodhisattva is the stage that precedes Enlightenment; however, the way of the arahant excludes Perfect Enlightenment (sammasambodhi). The arahant realizes Complete and Final Nirvana5 at the moment of his death, not being reborn again he does not pass through the stages of the bodhisattva. The way of the bodhisattva leads towards Enlightenment; not just his own enlightenment, but the Enlightenment of all beings indiscriminately.

In the Mahasanghika-school a more liberal interpretation of the bodhisattva-idea will come to light and gradually the ideal of the bodhisattva will become the Mahayana counterpart of the arahant ideal in the Hinayana. The bodhisattva is a 'being' that refuses to remain (some would say 'enter') in Nirvana because of its vow to help others; the bodhisattva chooses to remain in the world of suffering and rejects Complete and Final Nirvana (in the sense as stated before).
This will become the 'leitmotiv' for Mahayana Thought: the bodhisattva chooses Enlightenment for himself and all other beings over his own, individual Enlightenment (cfr. the anatta-doctrine). Besides this, every being (and therefore every human being) has within itself a conscious or unconscious drive towards Enlightenment: the Mind of Enlightenment (bodhicitta), through which it has the potential to realize the bodhisattva within itself.

2. Different 'kinds' of bodhisattva's

It doesn't hold to classify bodhisattva's into different 'kinds' or 'categories'. If we do so, than it is exclusively with the intention to smoothen the approach of the problem. Because, every distinction lies exactly within the approach. So it goes that the Buddha-characteristics of Wisdom and Compassion in se are not different, and yet we experience them as two separate characteristics. It is important to keep in mind that the bodhisattva does not have a separate existence; he is mainly an ideal-projection of - and in - our mind.

Bodhisattva-Mahasattva

The "Great Being Bodhisattva's" traditionally number about 10. They are in fact manifestations of a Buddha 'quality'. The two most important 'qualities' we ascribe to a Buddha are 'Wisdom' (prajña) and 'Compassion' (karuna). Thus we see two kinds of manifestations :

'Wisdom Bodhisattva's' such as Mañjusri (cognitive wisdom) or Mahasthamaprapta (intuitive or emotional wisdom). The Wisdom Bodhisattva's have multiplied almost infinite in number, especially in Tibetan Buddhism.

'Compassion Bodhisattva's' such as Avalokitesvara (the most popular, spread over the divers Buddhist cultures, very important in popular devotion); Samantabhadra (active compassion); Maitreya (the Peaceful, Buddha of the future).

'Human' Bodhisattvas

Since all beings have bodhicitta within them, human beings are also potential bodhisattva's. Here we distance ourselves from the metaphysical structure of the term and emphasize more the emotional element: every human being can be bodhisattva in the perception of every other human being. In this way a human relationship can through the capacity of wisdom and compassion rise above ordinary human standards.

Some typological examples:
* The sages and teachers that brought new insights to the Teaching and thus brought human beings closer to Enlightenment, are often called bodhisattva. E.g. we speak of the philosopher Nagarjuna as Nagarjuna Bodhisattva. * A strong, spiritually colored relationship through which a normal human relationship is elevated towards a higher level. E.g. Shinran Shonin (1173-1262) saw in his wife Eshin-ni the embodiment of Kannon Bosatsu (Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva). On the other hand, Eshin-ni, after Shinran's death mentioned in a letter to her daughter Kakushin-ni, that - although she had never told him - she always was convinced of the fact that Shinran was an embodiment of that same Kannon Bosatsu. * Meritorious people who have made a continuous effort for the spiritual, mental and physical welfare of other people are at times - by way of silent consensus - titled as bodhisattva's. E.g. In Hiroshima's Peace Park there is a sober almost inconspicuous monument in memory of a doctor who died of the effect of radiation, after treating other victims of the atomic bomb for 3 or 4 days. The inscription calls him 'bosatsu' (bodhisattva).

This 'seeing' of a bodhisattva in another human being is a religious act.

The 'Cosmos' as bodhisattva

When all beings can become bodhisattva, the term bodhisattva will gain an strong expansion. So the feeling of interaction will arise through which all beings out of their true nature are inclined to bring all beings to Enlightenment. Through contact with all beings, any being can experience the Teaching of the Buddha.

From the limited understanding of 'bodhisattva as manifestation of Buddhahood' we will arrive to the embracing of the totality of human occurrences and from there to the embracing of the totality of existence in all its manifest forms. All beings and things participate in each others bodhisattvahood. Certainly in Chinese Buddhism this thought has found a vivid expression, maybe through interaction with Taoism.

3. Difference Buddhahood/bodhisattva

Buddhahood surpasses the existential and is related to 'true nature': availability, totality, sunyata.
The bodhisattva stands in relative existence and is subject to anatta. He has no objective 'being'. He is the existential reflection of Enlightenment; he outlines and objectivates Enlightenment in this relative, relational existence. Besides this he offers man a kind of spiritual ideal, in which man can project him/herself as a being on the way to Enlightenment.

His function, both in Buddhist popular devotion as in the doctrinal development and experience, is therefore not to be underestimated. But also in the personal, intimate approach of the Dharma, the bodhisattva - on whatever level he is situated - is an important element.