Interview with Bhikkhu Bodhi-Part III

Question: Besides the Path of Liberation, Theravada Buddhism also teaches about the Path of Bodhisattva. According to your study, what are the differences between the ideas of the Path of Bodhisattva as taught in Mahayana Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism? What are their respective flavors? Which informs your choice of practice, and why?

BB: In the oldest texts of Early Buddhism, nothing is said about a distinct bodhisattva path. In those texts, the goal the Buddha holds up for his disciples is arahantship. The idea of a distinct bodhisattva path emerged gradually, still in the pre-Mahayana period, and apparently gained in popularity until a form of Buddhism took shape that revolved entirely around the bodhisattva ideal and the path a bodhisattva had to travel to attain buddhahood. This is the form of Buddhism we know as the Mahayana.

Since even the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism recognize that the Buddha attained buddhahood by following a course different in many respects from that culminating in arahantship, the ancient Theravada teachers also came to describe a distinct bodhisattva path, drawing on the Jatakas and the narrative literature of the tradition to flesh out the practices an aspirant had to fulfill to become a Buddha. The Theravada commentaries even borrow material from the Mahayana treatises, particularly the Bodhisattva Bhumi, which is part of the vast Yogacara Bhumi Shastra.

In their general outline, the pictures of the bodhisattva path in the classical Indian Mahayana and in the Theravada commentaries are not very different. For both, a bodhisattva embarks on the way to buddhahood by making a powerful aspiration (called bodhicitta in Mahayana and maha-abhinihara in the Pali sources), formulating vows, and practicing the paramitas. The latter largely overlap in the two traditions, though there are some differences. A major distinction between the two traditions is that the Mahayana focuses almost solely on the bodhisattva path and prescribes this for all dedicated followers of the Buddha’s way, whereas the Theravada holds that Buddhist followers can choose to follow whichever path they prefer: either the career of a disciple aiming at arahantship, or the career of a paccekabuddha (the “solitary buddha” who does not teach the Dharma), or the bodhisattva path aiming at buddhahood. The Pali commentaries speak of three kinds of bodhi—the end point of each of these careers—and thus also speak of three kinds of bodhisattvas: the disciple-bodhisattva, the pacceka-bodhisattva, and the supreme bodhisattva who aspires to all-knowledge. Thus whoever seriously aspires to bodhi, in any of these three modes, is considered a bodhisattva. In the Mahayana tradition, in contrast, the designation of bodhisattva is reserved for those who aim at supreme buddhahood.

Some schools of Mahayana hold that arahantship is just a “resthouse” along the way to buddhahood—the ultimate destiny for all followers of the Dharma—but this is surely not the position of the Theravada, which holds that nirvana is the final goal for all, and that the function of a Buddha is to discover and teach the way to nirvana. Thus for the Mahayana, a Buddha is both a teacher of the path and an exemplar of the final goal, whereas the Theravada takes a Buddha to be principally a teacher who points out the final goal. Consequently, in the Theravada tradition the arahant path is taken to be the main paradigm for practice, although many Theravadins, including monks, inspired by the figure of the Buddha, pledge to take the bodhisattva path.

Another difference concerns doctrinal underpinnings. The Theravada, in its conception of the bodhisattva path, still retains the doctrinal framework of Early Buddhism, with its stress on the four noble truths, the three marks of existence, and the thirty-seven aids to enlightenment. In contrast, the Mahayana has developed new philosophical frameworks, such as the Madhyamaka and Yogacara in Indian Buddhism, and Tiantai and Huayan in Chinese Buddhism. Again, new methods of meditation practice rooted in the Mahayana philosophies took shape, such as Dzogchen, Chan and Pure Land. It seems the reason these systems emerged was to buttress the bodhisattva path and give it a more congenial doctrinal basis than the more ancient teachings could do. The special challenge the Mahayana faced, I believe, was to make available a system of practice that could aid the arising of wisdom without promoting a hasty departure from samsara. Such philosophical teachings as emptiness and mind-only, in their different ways, serve that end. They provide the bodhisattva aspirant with a philosophy that conduces to insight into the ultimate nature of things, but that does not cut the fetters that bind one to the cycle of rebirths, in which a bodhisattva must continue in order to attain buddhahood.

Consequently, the Mahayana bodhisattva operates within a philosophical framework that undercuts the duality of the conditioned and unconditioned, of samsara and nirvana, enabling the bodhisattva to act within samsara while standing upon nirvana, or emptiness, as a platform of action. This gives the Mahayana literature a certain “playful” quality that derives from the abolition of established dualities. Within the Theravada system, in contrast, the duality of samsara and nirvana remains intact, so that a person who adopts the bodhisattva path is seen as truly postponing the ultimate good in order to benefit others.

In my own practice, I try to combine the best features of both ideals. At this point in my spiritual career, I have not fixed on one final goal to the exclusion of the other. I admire and emulate the practice of the paramitas, and try to serve the good of others by promoting social and economic justice, but I also try my best to follow the discipline of the Theravada monk and develop calm and insight in accordance with the methods and models laid down in the texts of Early Buddhism. Perhaps my final choice of a vehicle will have to wait until some future life!