Is The Bodhisattva Ideal Realistic?

… [A] disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye."

Samudda Sutta: The Ocean
Samyutta Nikāyas 13.8 

One of the first things that attracted me to the Mahayana was the teaching of the bodhisattva as a conceptual agency that could propel one towards enlightenment. The idea sounds very cool and altruistic, and is taken for granted as a fact of Mahayana religious fact. It was something taught but never explained. As a Mahayana Soto Zen monk I have spent years teaching the idea myself and rarely did I ever investigate further than the teachings of the Mahayana masters.

The Soto Zen Master Kosho Uchiyama says that, a “bodhisattva is an ordinary person who takes up a course in his or her life that moves in the direction of buddha. You're a bodhisattva, I'm a bodhisattva; actually, anyone who directs their attention, their life, to practicing the way of life of a buddha (sic) is a bodhisattva. We read about Kannon Bosatsu (Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva) or Monju Bosatsu (Manjushri Bodhisattva), and these are great bodhisattvas, but we, too, have to have confidence or faith that we are also bodhisattvas.”

He goes on to finish the article with, “Regarding the question "What is a bodhisattva?" you could also define a bodhisattva as one who acts as a true adult. That is, most people in the world act like children. The word dainin means "true adult" or "bodhisattva." Today most people who are called adults are only pseudoadults. Physically they grow up and become adult but spiritually too many people never mature to adulthood. They don't behave as adults In their daily lives. A bodhisattva is one who sees the world through adult eyes and whose actions are the actions of a true adult. That is really what a bodhisattva is.”

This is a wonderful description, but is it true. Master Kosho was a well-meaning teacher but he seems to have some trouble with the facts. A Japanese language teacher professor with the Center for East Asian Studies of the University of Chicago tells me that the expression dainin is usually taken to mean “great endurance” or “great patience” but rarely could it be grammatically correct to use it as “true adult” especially since it is a popular boy’s name.

The term bodhisattva is flung around constantly in the Mahayana world. Some in the Theravadin community has also adapted it. Quite often it is defined as a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings. This is a very cool idea, but is it possibly untrue? That would mean the bodhisattva has not even entered the stream to enlightenment. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines bodhisattva as a being that compassionately refrains from entering nirvana in order to save others and is worshipped as a deity in Mahayana Buddhism. This is true. In spite of the teaching admonishing a Buddhist disciple from worshipping anyone or anything, many in the Mahayana do worship deities called bodhisattvas.

The word “bodhisattva” is a compound word formed from bodhi (spiritual awakening, enlightenment) and sattva (a being, essence, spirit). The word has been interpreted as “A being set upon enlightenment,” but actually means, “One whose essence is perfect knowledge,” or “A being whose essence is enlightenment.” The Sanskrit word bodhisattva, then, is applied to one whose essence is enlightenment, from bodhi enlightenment + sattva being or, quite literally, “enlightenment being.”

This idea works very well with the concept of Buddha Nature, sometimes known as Tathagatagarbha. Is this a happy coincidence? It probably is.

Like the word dainin examined above, bodhisattva is also probably a popular misinterpretation. In any Middle Indo-Aryan language, the word would be bodhisatta. This was interpolated into Sanskrit as bodhisattva, "enlightenment being," and we take this meaning for granted; but the Sanskrit form might be wrong. For Middle Indo-Aryan bodhisatta could also represent Sanskrit bodhisakta, meaning "one intent on enlightenment," "one devoted to enlightenment," and this makes better sense than "an enlightenment being."

If a bodhisattva is an enlightenment being then there is no need to follow the Buddha because enlightenment is already present. If a bodhisattva is one “intent on enlightenment” presumably for the benefit of all beings then what do we do with the Buddha? The Buddha referred to himself as a bodhisatta in the period prior to his enlightenment: in his immediately preceding life. This was when he existed in the Tusita heaven, and during the period of his final life, as Gotama of the Sakyan clan, before his enlightenment. When he tells us this he also says nothing that even mildly suggests that he had been consciously and deliberately following a course of behavior designed to bring about the attainment of Buddhahood. Even more telling about the bodhisatta is that soon after his enlightenment, when the Buddha was undecided as to whether or not to teach the Dhamma. He tells us that was he first inclined to "dwell at ease", that is, not to teach, which suggests that even after his enlightenment he might not have fulfilled the function of a sammā sambuddha, but could have just as easily become a paccekabuddha (appossukkatāya  cittam  namati Majjhima Nikāyas 26/ Iine 168).

Thus far we see that the role of the bodhisattva in the Mahayana has little relevance to the Buddha’s own life and example. We are addressing the difference between as the Buddha taught and what Buddhism has become. The Buddha did not address the bodhisattva ideal during his lifetime so wishfully thinking writers put the word into the Buddha’s mouth.

Let’s assume that Kanno was absolutely right when he said, “there was a fluctuation of the traditional culture and a desire for a new cultural ideal, brought about by the cultural exchange between India and the Greco-Roman world. Under such a trend of the times, some Buddhists argued vehemently that a part of traditional Nikāyas Buddhism could not answer the religious needs of a new age any more, and they therefore created a new type of Buddhist thought responding to them by newly interpreting the Buddha’s life and thought based on their own religious experiences. Then, based on such new Buddhist thought, they compiled new sutras…” (The Core of Buddha’s Teaching Shin View and the Distinctive Features of the Lotus Sūtra by Hiroshi Kanno p. 3)

As Westerners we are always touting the new age. The New Testament refers to itself as the New Age. H.P. Blavatsky wrote extensively about the New Age. There is an entire segment of the marketplace devoted to the selling of New Age products and ideas. People who lived 2,000 years ago do not seem so alien as they ushered in their own version of the new age and introduced new teachings. It seems the Buddha’s new age and his teaching was not good enough for them.

From these new teachings we can glean a view bits of insight. First, the teaching of the Buddha did not address “religious needs”. There was probably a good reason for this; the Dhamma is not about religion. While generally called a religion, Buddhism is basically a method of cultivating the mind. It is true that, with its monastic tradition and its emphasis on ethical factors, it possesses many of the superficial features that Westerners associate with religion. Buddhism is not theistic, since it affirms that the universe is governed by impersonal laws and not by any creator-god; it has no use for prayer, for the Buddha was a teacher and not a god; and it regards devotion not as a religious compulsion but only an expression of appreciation to its founder and as a means of self-development.

From this of viewpoint it is not a religion at all.

Second, we can infer from what Kanno says, the Nikāyas were too dry and not “spiritual” enough for some. In reinterpreting the teaching of the Buddha the “new” Buddhism neglected and actually undermined the teaching of the Buddha. Thos practicing the Dhamma know faith only in the sense of certainty that the Dhamma is true and will lead to an end of dukkha. A Buddhist is not expected to have “faith” or belief in anything just because the Buddha said it, or because it is written in the ancient books, or because it has been handed down by tradition, or because others believe it. This is almost the opposite approach taken in the new literature where because a Buddha, any Buddha – because now there were literally unlimited numbers of them – said something it was to be taken as “gospel”. The higher bodhisattvas were looked at as enlightened demigods, and indeed, many started their careers as Vedic and local gods, and their teachings had the stamp of truth on them.

Third, that the advocates of the new teachings craved validation. They apparently wanted the Buddha to say something different, more in line with their own beliefs. So they wrote documents called sutras that would make a Buddha teach whatever they believed. This validated their views and they had the documentation to prove it. Instead of becoming like the Buddha they created a Buddha that became like them. In point of fact, they created a whole universe of Buddhas complete with worlds and lands and pretty houses to live in. Never mind that the Buddha taught that no one would ever see him again and after his death. Now you could go and visit him and chat, well, in theory maybe.

Fourth, we can infer that the “new age” found the Dhamma just too difficult. To enter the stream of enlightenment the disciple must abandon three base fetters (saṁyojana). That takes some effort and work. They are

1.    Sakkāya-diṭṭhi: the delusion in ‘self’; the mistaken belief in a ‘self,’ leading to selfishness, conflict and suffering.2.    Vicikicchā: doubts and uncertainties concerning, for example, the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, and the training. These doubts prevent the mind from rousing energy and advancing on the path.3.    Sīlabbata-parāmāsa: the misapplication of moral precepts, rules, observances, and traditions; these rules are not used as they are intended, as tools for developing such qualities as tranquility and concentration. Instead, they are tainted by craving and fixed views, by seeking personal reward, enhancing self-stature, or blindly following others.

The attribute of a stream-enterer is the abandonment of the first three fetters: personality-view, doubt, and attachment to rules and vows. Freedom from these fetters focuses on the absence of certain qualities. If one is not willing to give up these fetters then the resistance to abandonment gives rise to attaching to something else. In this case a major overhaul of the Buddha’s teaching making it into something else.

Hence the bodhisattva versus bodhisakta (bodhisatta) ideal arose. The assumption was that it was too difficult to be an arahant. The Buddha was the first arahant and he taught the arahant way. He did not teach the bodhisattva path. Once entrenched the bodhisattva ideal became one where not just anyone could become awakened as the Buddha taught, but that everyone is inevitably going to become awakened. But, there is a catch, the altruistic ideal inherent in the bodhisattva ideal creates a path that avoids enlightenment altogether. Eventually the notion of Buddha Nature would resolve that issue by maintaining that everyone is already enlightened.

Nibbana, the unbinding or liberation, became reinterpreted as well. Instead of being the release from dukkha, it was made to mean “happiness” pure and simple. The ultimate bliss of nirvana is postponed until all the beings in the universe become enlightened. While the simple act of stream entry, also known as the arahant path, guarantees no more than seven rebirths and non-retrogression, the bodhisattva, for all intents and purposes not just postpones nirvana but arahantship and Buddhahood itself.

Another issue is also evidently present in this scenario. The Nikāyas and give a historical and realistic point of view on the Buddha and his teaching. The Mahāyāna sūtras, on the other hand, present both a cosmic and metaphysical position These terms do not necessarily mean the Nikāyas are superior to the Mahāyāna sūtras, but it is obvious that they are more likely to be reflect the Buddha's own verbal teaching much more accurately. The characteristics of the two schools are merely attempts to understand the Buddha and interpret his significance for the world. These two perspectives are meant to define what the Buddha accomplished through his enlightenment. In the historical and realistic perspective, the Buddha became an arahant, an arahant whose differences eventually elevated him to the distinctive level of the Bhagavā, a world teacher. In that the Buddha became the consummate arahant. These differences inevitably led to the cosmic and metaphysical viewpoint of the Buddha in an effort to understand and describe these differences to persons who could not conceive of the inevitable result of the Buddha’s own practice.

Rather than practice in and of itself, it was the ideal of the consummation of the long bodhisattva career, involving countless lifetimes over innumerable eons, sacrificing himself in myriad ways, over and over again, for the benefit of others. This is the cosmic aspect of that perspective. He was viewed as the one who arrived at ultimate truth, the Tathāgata who has come from Suchness (tathā + āgata) and gone to Suchness (tathā + gata), and yet the Buddha abides nowhere. This is the metaphysical aspect of that view. This cosmic and metaphysical standpoint became the dominant characteristic of the Mahāyāna.

The bodhisattva ideal is just that, an ideal. The bodhisattva is a model, albeit an impractical and unrealistic one from the standpoint of the Buddha’s teaching. Because it is an ideal it is couched in poetic terms and metaphysical ambiguity that have the sound of altruism and grandeur but not the ring of truth.

Stream enterer (sotāpanna in Pali, srotāpanna in Sanskrit) means “one who has entered (āpanna) the stream (sota). The stream is the Eightfold Path (Samyutta Nikaya 55.5). According to the Buddha it is the first of the four stages of enlightenment.

In the Nikāyas there is a great deal of emphasis on the positive, compassionate and altruistic qualities of the stream enterer. They are ultimately the very same qualities that a bodhisattva is said to posses. There are many of these active qualities, but essentially they can be incorporated into a group of five qualities: faith (saddhā), moral conduct (sīla), learning (suta), generosity (cāga), and wisdom (paññā).

The stream-enterer possess a firm trust in truth, goodness, and the law of cause and effect, that is, conditionality. They have confidence in the wisdom that makes it possible for human beings to overcome suffering by realizing the conditioned nature of reality. They have faith in the virtuous people who follow this path of wisdom and have a profound respect for the ‘triple gem’ (ratanattaya). Their faith is secure and unshakeable because it is rooted in understanding, right view. Their behavior through body and speech is appropriate given the circumstances they face. Their method of gaining a livelihood is honest and harmless. Their private and public conduct promotes virtue, simplicity, dispassion, peace and concentration. This means following the five precepts, that the Buddha considered perfect moral conduct.

The Buddha said, ‘those learned in spiritual knowledge’ (sutavant); they have studied the ‘noble teachings’ (ariya dhamma). This is true of one who has entered the stream. The stream enterer practices generosity in that they delight in giving and sharing and are not stingy. They possess the knowledge of a ‘learner’ (sekha) and see clearly into the four noble truths, dependent origination, and the three characteristics; they abandon all wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi); they have no doubt concerning the four noble truths; they know the world as it really is.

The stream enterer engages in social action. Stream enterers abide by the ‘virtues conducive to communal life’ (sārāṇīya dhamma), which engender social unity and concord. They do this perfectly because they maintain the last virtue of right view, which connects all the others. These virtues are as follows:

1.    Physical acts of loving-kindness (mettā kāya kamma), mutual assistance and respect.2.    Speech expressing loving-kindness (mettā vacī kamma), well-intentioned advice and instruction; well-mannered speech.3.    Thoughts of loving-kindness (mettā mano kamma), thinking well of others; wishing to assist others; cheerful deportment.4.    Distributing lawful gains with others (sādhāraṇa bhogitā).5.    To possess a similar virtuous conduct as one’s companions (sīlasāmaññatā), acting in an agreeable manner.6.    To share right, noble views with one’s companions (diṭṭhi sāmaññatā), which lead to the end of suffering.

Given this description from the Nikāyas it is apparent that there is no real difference in bodhisattva ideal if it could be manifested and the ideal of the arahant except in one very real and important respect. The goal of the bodhisattva is to benefit others by postponing and even avoid enlightenment. It is the goal of the one who enters the stream, called the arahant path, to come to enlightenment while benefiting others. This seems to be a much more realistic goal and keeping in touch with the teachings of the Buddha. Can such a one be described as an ordinary person as Uchiyama says? 

…the One Well-gone will be totally unbound! All too soon, the One with Eyes (alternate reading: the Eye) will disappear from the world!' Then there are devatas who perceive earth to be earth. Tearing at their hair, they are weeping. Uplifting their arms, they are weeping. As if their feet were cut out from under them, they fall down and roll back & forth, crying, 'All too soon, the Blessed One will be totally unbound! All too soon, the One Well-gone will be totally unbound! All too soon, the One with Eyes will disappear from the world!' But those devatas who are free from passion acquiesce, mindful & alert: 'Fabrications are inconstant. What else is there to expect?'"

 Maha-parinibbana Sutta:
The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding
Digha Nikāyas 16