Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature c5.s2: II. “Bodhisattva”

The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sanskrit Literature c5.s2

Language
English

II. “Bodhisattva”

c5.s2.1

The Sanskrit word *bodhisattva* has been explained in different ways. *Bodhi* means “Enlightenment”. But several interpretations of the word *sattva* have been offered by ancient and modern scholars.

c5.s2.2

(1) *Sattva* may mean “Wesen, Charakter”; “essence, nature, true essence” (Skt. Dicy. Pbg. & Skt. Dicy. M.W.). The Pāli word *satta* may also mean “substance” (Pāli Dicy. s.v.). The great modern lexicographers seem to interpret *sattva* in this sense. Thus, according to Böhtlingk and Roth, *bodhisattva* means: “(adj.) dessen Wesen Erkenntniss ist; (mas.) der im Besitz des Wesens der Bodhi Seiende.” Monier Williams translates : “one who has *bodhi* or perfect wisdom as his essence” (p. 688b). E. Burnouf seems to interpret the word in the same way as Böhtlingk and Roth : “celui qui possède l’essence de la *bodhi*.” 8 P. Oltramare follows Monier Williams and translates : “un être dont l’essence consiste dans l’éveil”. (“Bouddhique,” p. 250). C. F. Koeppen : “Derjenige, dessen Wesenheit die höchste Weisheit (*bodhi*) geworden” (“Buddha”, ii, 18).

c5.s2.3

C. Eliot : “One whose essence is knowledge” (Eliot, ii, 7).

c5.s2.4

H. Hackmann : “He whose essence is becoming Enlightenment” (“Buddhism,” p. 52). It may be added that the modern Hindi word “*sat*,” which is derived from Skt. “*sattva*”, means “essence, extract”.

c5.s2.5

(2) “*Sattva*” (masculine) may mean “any living or sentient being” (Skt. Dicy. M.W.), “ein lebendes Wesen” (Skt. Dicy. Pbg.). The Pāli word *satta* may mean “a living being, creature, a sentient and rational being, person” (Pāli Dicy. s.v.). Most modern scholars adopt this interpretation.

c5.s2.6

M. Winternitz : “Ein Erleuchtungswesen” (“Lit.” ii, 183).

c5.s2.7

L. de la Vallée Poussin : “On peut le traduire ‘creature’ ou ‘être vivant’” (“Opinions”, p. 169, line 8).

c5.s2.8

M. Walleser : “Weisheitswesen” (Pr. Pā. tr., p. 5).

c5.s2.9

H. Kern : “A sentient or reasonable being, possessing *bodhi*” (“Manual,” p. 65, line 11).

c5.s2.10

T. W. Rhys Davids and W. Stede : “a *bodhi*-being, i.e. a being destined to attain fullest Enlightenment” (Pāli Dicy. s.v.).

c5.s2.11

L. D. Barnett : “Creature of Enlightenment” (“Path”, p. 20).

c5.s2.12

S. Lefmann : “Bodhisattva bedeutet einen, dessen Wesen Erweckung oder Erleuchtung ist” (*Lal. V.* tr., p. 50).

c5.s2.13

M. Anesaki : “A being seeking for *bodhi*” (ERE., v, 450).

c5.s2.14

E. J. Thomas : “a being of (or destined for) Enlightenment” (“Buddha”, p. 2, note I).

c5.s2.15

P. Masson-Oursel : “un être d’illumination” (“Esquisse”, p. 127).

c5.s2.16

R. Pischel : “Ein Wesen, das bestimmt ist, einst ein Buddha zu werden” (“Buddha”, p. 50).

c5.s2.17

D. T. Suzuki : “Intelligence-Being” (“Outlines”, p. 277).

c5.s2.18

Csoma de Körös : “Purified, mighty soul” (Csoma, p. 6).

c5.s2.19

The author of the *Samādhi-rāja-sūtra* interprets *sattva* as “being, creature”, but thinks that the word *bodhisattva* means “one who admonishes or exhorts all beings” (*bodheti sattvān. . . Sam. Rā. fol. 25a, 4*). P. Ghosa seems to interpret *sattva* as “living being”, but analyses the whole word in a peculiar way: “*bodhiḥ sa cāsau mahā-krp-āçayena sattv-ālambanāt sattvaç ceti bodhisattvaḥ.*” This would mean that the person is both *bodhi* and *sattva*! ⁹

c5.s2.20

(3) “*Sattva*” may mean “spirit, mind, sense, consciousness”; “Geist” (Skt. Dicy. M.W. and Pbg.). The Pāli word *satta* may also mean “soul” (Pāli Dicy. s.v.). According to L. de la Vallée Poussin, the Indian lexicographers also explain *sattva* as a synonym for *citta* (thought) or *vyavasāya* (decision, determination). ¹⁰ Prajñākaramati, commenting on the B.C. *Ava*, says: “*tatra (bodhau) sattvam abhiprāyo’syeti bodhisattvaḥ.*” ¹¹ P. Ghosa cites an old commentator, who also interprets *sattva* as meaning *abhiprāya* (intention, purpose): “*bodhau sattvam abhiprāyo yeṣām te bodhisattvāḥ*” (*Pr. Pā. Çata.*, p. 2, note 2). Thus the word would mean: “one whose mind, intentions, thoughts or wishes are fixed on *bodhi*”. P. Oltramare rejects this interpretation as far-fetched and inaccurate; ¹² but L. de la Vallée Poussin seems to be inclined to accept it, while he at the same time admits that the original meaning of the word may have been derived from the idea of “essence, own nature”. ¹³

c5.s2.21

(4) *Sattva* may mean “embryo” (Skt. Dicy. M.W.). H. S. Gour translates: “In whom knowledge is latent and undeveloped” (“Buddhism,” p. XI).

c5.s2.22

(5) *Sattva* may have the same meaning as it has in the *Yoga-sūtras*, where it is opposed to *puruṣa* and means “mind, intelligence”. This interpretation is offered by E. Senart, who believes that Buddhism was profoundly influenced by the *Yoga* system. He says: “*Sattva ne désigne pas seulement le premier des trois gunas, soit seul, soit complété par buddhi ou citta; il désigne l’esprit, mais en tant que l’esprit résume et exprime la prakrti et les gunas qui la constituent . . . l’esprit actif, conscient, qui relèvent de la prakrti. Expliqué par cette acception de sattva et comme bahuvrīhi, bodhisattva désignerait le futur Buddha, provisoirement retenu dans les liens de l’existence, comme ‘possédant le sattva de la bodhi’, c’est-à-dire une illumination encore liée aux conditions inférieures des gunas, partant imparfaite.*” ¹⁴

c5.s2.23

It is true that *sattva* occurs frequently in the *Yoga-sūtras*, and G. Jha translates it as “thinking principle or mind”: (*Yo.*

c5.s2.24

Sū. II, 41, p. 109, “ *Sattva-cuddhi-saumanasy-aikāgry-endriya-jay-ātma-darçana-yogyatvāni ca* ”¹⁵. E. Senart points out that *sattva* is declared to be distinct from *puruṣa* in the *Yoga-Sūtras* (III, 55, “ *Sattva-puruṣayoḥ çuddhi-sāmye kaivalyam,* ” p. 174). He thus prefers the interpretation cited above, but I must confess that I do not really understand what he means by “ le *sattva* de la bodhi ”.

c5.s2.25

H. Kern is of opinion that the first word *bodhi* may be related to the *buddhi* of the *Yoga* system, especially as the word *buddhisattva* is found in the literature of *Yoga*. A *bodhisattva* would thus be a personification of potential intelligence¹⁶.

c5.s2.26

(6) *Sattva* may be a wrongly Sanskritized form of the Pāli word *satta*, which may correspond to Skt. *sakta*. Thus Pāli *bodhisatta*, from which the Sanskrit word is derived, would mean *bodhi-sakta*, “ one who is devoted or attached to *bodhi* ”¹⁷. *Sakta* (from the root *sañj*) means “ clung, stuck or attached to, joined or connected with, addicted or devoted to, fond of, intent on ” (Skt. Dicy. M.W.). According to the Pāli Dictionary, the Pāli word *satta* may correspond to several Sanskrit words : *sattva*, *sapta*, *sakta*, and *çapta*. It has been suggested that the Pāli word *sutta* is also related to Skt. *sūkta*, and not to Skt. *sūtra*, as the latter word is a very inappropriate designation for the lengthy and prolix Buddhist discourses. The Buddhists attached great importance to *subhāṣita* (good sayings), and the Pāli word *sutti* does correspond to Skt. *sūkti* (Pāli Dicy. s.v.). However that may be, it may be plausibly argued that Skt. *bodhi-sakta* is a possible equivalent of Pāli *bodhisatta*. The opinion of the Buddhist writers, who adopted the rendering *sattva*, need not be considered absolutely decisive in this question, as they have certainly given us other wrongly Sanskritized forms, e.g. *smṛty-upasthāna* (for Pāli *sati-paṭṭhāna*), *samyak-prahāna* (for Pāli *sammappadhāna*), etc. *Bodhisattva* may also belong to this class of wrongly Sanskritized terms. P. Oltramare rejects this interpretation, as the verb *sañj* is not used to denote attachment to moral and spiritual ideals, and the later writers could not make such “ a strange mistake ” in translating Pāli into Sanskrit¹⁸.

c5.s2.27

(7) “ *Sattva* ” may mean “ strength, energy, vigour, power, courage ” (Skt. Dicy. M.W. p. 1052). The word *bodhisattva* would then mean, “ one whose energy and power is directed towards *bodhi*.” *Sattva* in this sense occurs frequently in Kṣemendra’s *Avadāna-kalpa-latā*: “*sattv-abdhiḥ*” (II, p. 713, verse 42); “*sattv-ojjvalam bhagavataṣ caritam niṣamya*” (II, p. 85, verse 74); “*kumāraḥ sattva-sāgaraḥ*” (II, p. 723, verse 21); *sattva-nidhir* (II, p. 945, verse 21); “*bodhisattvaḥ sattva-vibhuṣitaḥ* (II, p. 113, verse 8). The word also seems to have the same signification in the B. Ct. (IX, 30—“*bodhisattvaḥ paripūrṇa-sattvaḥ*”). E. B. Cowell translates, “whose perfection was absolute”; but this rendering does not explain the precise meaning of *sattva*.

c5.s2.28

The Tibetan lexicographers translate *bodhisattva* as *byaṅ-chub sems-dpaḥ*.¹⁹ In this compound, *byaṅ-chub* means *bodhi*, *sems* means “mind” or “heart”, and *dpaḥ* signifies “hero, strong man” (= Skt. *śūra, vīra*). (Tib. Dicy. Jäschke, 374b and 325b; Tib. Dicy. Das, 883b, 787b and 1276b). This interpretation seems to combine two meanings of *sattva*, viz. “mind” and “courage” (Nos. 3 and 7 above). But it does not make the etymology of the compound word *bodhisattva* in any way clearer or more intelligible. It may be inferred that the Tibetan translators associated the ideas of “mind” and “courage” with the word *sattva*. According to E. J. Eitel, the Chinese interpret *bodhisattva* as “he whose essence has become *bodhi*” (p. 34a).

c5.s2.29

The principal Buddhist writers have not taken the trouble of discussing the exact meaning of *sattva*, though they mention many epithets in praise of a *bodhisattva*. Very little guidance is to be obtained from that quarter.

c5.s2.30

I may suggest that *sattva* cannot be accurately rendered by “essence”, or “mind”, or “intention”, or “courage”, or “embryo” or “the *sattva* of the Yoga-sūtras” (Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, above). If we interpret *sattva* as “essence”, the word seems to be too lofty a title for a mere aspirant for wisdom. It would be a more suitable appellation for a perfect Buddha, who has realized the supreme *bodhi*. *Sattva*, interpreted as “intention”, or “mind”, or “embryo”, does not yield a simple and natural sense: these renderings appear to be too scholastic and far-fetched. We need not wander into the distant fairyland of the Yoga system in order to explain an old Pāli word. H. Kern attempted to identify *bodhi* with the *buddhi* of the Sāṅkhya-Yoga; but *buddhi*, in Buddhist metaphysics, belongs to the lower phenomenal plane of existence, while *bodhi* is the supreme Wisdom. The B.C. *Ava*.

c5.s2.31

says: “*buddhiḥ saṃvṛtir ucyate*” (IX, 2—*buddhi* is called *saṃvṛti*, i.e. “obstruction, covering”). The word *buddhi-sattva* occurs in Vyāsa’s commentary on *Yo. Sū.* I, 47 (p. 51): “*aśuddhy-āvaraṇa-mal-āpetasya prakāś-ātmano buddhi-sattvasya.*” J. H. Woods translates the word as “the *sattva* of the thinking substance”, but this does not seem to refer to a person like a *bodhisattva*. It is not found in the text of the *sūtras*. The *Yoga-sūtras* were composed between A.D. 300 and 500, and Vyāsa’s commentary was written in the period A.D. 650–850.²⁰ The word *bodhisatta*, however, is as old as the Pāli *Nikāyas*, which date from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.²¹ (e.g. “*mayham-pi kho . . . anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattass’ eva*”, *Majjh.* I, 17, 6; “*Vipassissa bhikkhave . . . bodhisattassa sato.*” *Samyutta* II, 5, 8). It is not necessary to adopt the unsound method of appealing to comparatively modern treatises in order to explain a very ancient Pāli term.

c5.s2.32

One is tempted to believe that Pāli *satta* may really be rendered by Skt. *sakta*, as this interpretation seems to define the chief quality of an aspirant for *bodhi*. But the safest way is always to go back to the Pāli without attaching much importance to the later lexicographers and philosophers. Now *bodhisatta* in the Pāli texts seems to mean “a *bodhi*-being”. But *satta* here does not denote a mere ordinary creature. It is almost certainly related to the Vedic word *satvan*, which means “Krieger”, “a strong or valiant man, hero, warrior.” In this way, we can also understand the final *dpaḥ* in the Tibetan equivalent. *Satta* in Pāli *bodhisatta* should be interpreted as “heroic being, spiritual warrior”. The word suggests the two ideas of existence and struggle, and not merely the notion of simple existence.

c5.s2.33

The word *bodhisattva* is often coupled with *mahā-sattva* (great Being).

c5.s2.34

III. THE BODHISATTVA AS DISTINCT FROM AND OPPOSED TO THE ARHATS (ŚRĀVAKAS) AND THE PRATYEKA-BUDDHAS

c5.s2.35

The exponents and champions of the *bodhisattva* ideal carry on a vigorous controversy with the adherents of the two other ideals of the *śrāvaka* and the *pratyeka-buddha*. A *bodhisattva* is regarded as superior to a *śrāvaka* and a *pratyeka-buddha*, and the new ideal is set up as the *summum bonum* of the religious life. It appears that the reformers or innovators objected to the old gospel on two chief grounds :—

c5.s2.36

(1) A *bodhisattva* aims at the acquisition of *bodhi* and *buddha-jñāna* (Buddha-knowledge), while a *śrāvaka* and a *pratyeka-buddha* are content with the *nirvāna* that is attained by the destruction of the *āsravas*. The two latter stages are also marked by the development of certain kinds of *bodhi*, but they are inferior to the supreme Enlightenment of a Buddha. Thus three types of *bodhi* are recognised : *śrāvaka-bodhi*, *pratyeka-bodhi* and *anuttarā samyak-sambodhi* (the supreme and perfect *bodhi*). The last is declared to be the highest. This classification must have been devised at a comparatively early period, as it is found in the *Ava. Ṣa.* and the *Divy.* It is mentioned in almost all the later treatises. “*Śrāvaka-bodhim pratyeka-bodhim* . . . *mahā-bodhim* (*M.S. Al.* 169, 15). “He wishes to ‘reveal or predict’ the three kinds of *bodhi*” (*Av. Ṣa.* I, 5, 17 ff.). “Some produced in themselves the thought of, or the aspiration for, the *bodhi* of the *śrāvakas*, etc.” (*Divy.* 209, 50). “They fulfil the Way of the *śrāvakas* . . . the Way of the *pratyeka-buddhas* . . . and then for the purification of the stage of *bodhisattvas*” (*Da. Bhū.* 25.23–26.3–26.7). “He acts as a father towards all *śrāvakas*, *pratyeka-buddhas*, and those who have started on the Way of the *bodhisattvas*” (*Sad. Pu.* 416, 14). “By giving such a gift, the position of an *arhat* is obtained; by giving such a gift, *pratyeka-bodhi* is obtained; by giving such a gift, the supreme and perfect *bodhi* is obtained” (*Pr. Pā. Ṣata.* 91, 19–21). *Arhatva*, *pratyeka-bodhi* and Omniscience are also mentioned as successive stages in the *Pr. Pā. Ṣata.* (p. 1373, lines 1–6). *Śrāvaka-bhūmi* and *pratyeka-bhūmi* are contrasted with Omniscience (*sarv-ākāra-jñāna*. *Pr. Pā. Ṣata.*, p. 964, 19–20).

c5.s2.37

In the earlier books like the *Sad. Pu.*, we find that the word “*arhat*” is more common than *śrāvaka*, but the latter gradually gained ground at the expense of the former. *Śrāvaka* is employed exclusively in connection with *bodhi*. We read of *śrāvaka-bodhi*, not of *arhad-bodhi*. The *Sad. Pu.* often describes Buddha’s followers as *arhats*, while it also speaks of *śrāvakas* in the same sense. In the later literature, we read only of *śrāvaka-bodhi* and *śrāvaka-yāna*, and the term *arhat* seems to have disappeared altogether. Thus the eminent disciples of Buddha are called *śrāvakas* in the *M.Vy.* (xlvii, p. 79). Perhaps the word *śrāvaka* had a derogatory connotation, like hīna-yāna, as the author of the Da. Bhū. speaks disparagingly of the śrāvakas and explains that they are so called on account of their practice of simply hearing the preachers and following their word (Da. Bhū. 25, 23). But the author of the Sad. Pu. thinks that a śrāvaka is “a preacher” (one who makes others hear). Śrāvaka-bodhi is employed as a synonym of nirvāṇa as the ideal of the arhats.

c5.s2.38

Corresponding to these three kinds of bodhi, there are three yānas or “Ways”, which lead an aspirant to the goal. The third yāna was at first called the bodhisattva-yāna, but it was subsequently re-named mahā-yāna. The other two yānas were spoken of as the hīna-yāna.²² In the later treatises, the term bodhisattva-yāna is very rare, as mahā-yāna has taken its place. This is sometimes called the Tathāgata-yāna.

c5.s2.39

²² In the later treatises, the term bodhisattva-yāna is very rare, as mahā-yāna has taken its place.

c5.s2.40

“Triṇi yānani śrāvaka-yānam pratyeka-buddha-yānam mahā-yānam ca” (Dh. S. II). “Yāna-kramaḥ....mahāyānam pratyeka-buddha-yānam śrāvaka-yānam hīna-yānam” (M. Vy. LIX, p. 95). “Lord, in this manner, this Mahāyāna belongs to the great Beings, the bodhisattvas” (Pr. Pā. Ҫata., p. 1530, 6). “Mahā-yān-ādhimuktānām arthe....śrāvaka-pratyeka-buddha-yān-ādhimuktānām” (M.S. Al., p. 183, 24-25). “Śrāvaka-yānam...pratyeka-buddha-yānam...mahā-yānam” (M.S. Al., p. 168, line 14). “Arhad-dharmā..pratyeka-buddha-dharmā...bodhisattva-dharmā” (Pr. Pā. Ҫata., p. 552).

c5.s2.41

Now a bodhisattva strives to become a Buddha by attaining perfect bodhi, while an arhat is content with mere nirvāṇa, the cessation of the āsravas. The pratyeka-buddhas are not mentioned very frequently in the principal treatises, probably because they are so rare. The discussion centres on the comparative merits of the two chief Ways, the Way of the śrāvakas and the Way of the bodhisattvas. The Sanskrit writers frequently compare and contrast the two ideals of nirvāṇa and anuttarā-samyak-sambodhi (supreme and perfect Enlightenment). “To the śrāvakas, he preached the doctrine which is associated with the four Noble Truths and leads to the (formula) of Dependent Origination. It aims at transcending birth, old age, disease, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress of mind and weariness; and it ends in nirvāṇa. But, to the great Beings, the bodhisattvas, he preached the doctrine, which is associated with the six Perfections and which ends in the Knowledge of the Omniscient One after the attainment of the supreme and perfect bodhi” (Sad. Pu. 17, 13 ff.—376, 5 ff.). “Each of these, the Sūtra (Discourses), the Vinaya (the Rules of Discipline), and the Abhidharma (Theory of the Doctrine ; Philosophy and Psychology) have briefly a fourfold meaning. By knowing them, the bodhisattva acquires Omniscience. But the śrāvaka attains to the destruction of the āsravas by knowing the sense of even one verse” (M.S. Al. 54, 11 ff.). In the Sad. Pu., the disciples say to Gautama Buddha :—

c5.s2.42

“ Lord, we were afflicted by three painful states. By which three? The painful sensation caused by bodily pain; the pain, which has its origin in the saṃskāras (volitions), and the pain caused by change. Being in this transient world, we were intent upon the lesser things. Hence we have been taught by the Lord to reflect on the numerous lower dharmas (rules or doctrines), which are like a receptacle of filth.23 Having applied ourselves to them, we have striven and struggled, O Lord, but we have begged and sought for only nirvāṇa, as if it were our wage.24 We have been content, O Lord, with that nirvāṇa, which was obtained. We thought that we, having striven and struggled in diligently following those rules, have obtained much from the Tathāgata.25 The Lord knows that we are intent on the lesser things, and therefore he neglects us and does not associate with us. He does not say to us : ‘ This treasure of Knowledge, which is the Tathāgata’s, verily this, even this same, shall be yours.’ The Lord, by his wisdom in the choice of means (for our salvation), appoints us heirs to that treasure of Knowledge, which is the Tathāgata’s. But we ourselves have no desire for it. We know that even this is much for us, that we get nirvāṇa from the Lord as our wages (i.e. as a labourer gets his remuneration)”....... “If the Lord perceives the strength of our faith and utters the word bodhisattva with reference to us, then the Lord makes us do two things : we are said to be persons of little faith in the presence of the bodhisattvas, and these latter are roused to (the pursuit) of the noble Enlightenment of the Buddha. The Lord, now knowing the strength of our faith, declared this to us. In this manner, O Lord, we say : ‘ We have suddenly obtained this pearl of Omniscience as if we were the sons of the Tathāgata, though it was not desired or solicited by us, neither was it sought and striven after, nor was it thought of or asked for by us’” (Sad. Pu., pp. 108–10). Even the highest form of nirvāṇa is clearly distinguished from bodhi in such a passage as the following :—

c5.s2.43

“ The great Being, the *bodhisattva*, while girding on his armour, does not discriminate among the creatures, (saying): ‘So many creatures shall I help to obtain complete *nirvāṇa*, in which no material substratum remains; 26 and so many creatures shall I not help in this way. So many creatures shall I establish in *bodhi*; and so many (others) shall I not so establish. But the *bodhisattva*, the great Being, verily dons his armour for the sake of all creatures” (*Pr. Pā. Ṣata.*, p. 1299, lines 13–17).

c5.s2.44

In an interesting passage, the author or authors of the *Pr. Pā. Ṣata.* enumerate several doctrines and practices, which lead to the *śrāvaka-bhūmi* (the Stage of a *śrāvaka*). They add that he, who tries to persuade a man to remain content with that lower state, is “a bad friend” (*pāpa-mitra*) and really does the work of the “Evil One” (*māra-karmāṇi*). The goal should be the attainment of the *anuttarā-samyak-sambodhi* (*Pr. Pā. Ṣata.*, pp. 1190–1). The *bodhisattva*, again, may lead other beings to *nirvāṇa*, but he himself must strive for the perfect *bodhi* (*Pr. Pā. Ṣata.*, p. 1264, lines 18–20). Gautama Buddha himself is represented in the *Sad. Pu.* as first teaching only the way to *nirvāṇa*, which enables a person to transcend birth, old age, disease, death and sorrow; but he further incites the *bodhisattvas* to the pursuit of the “supreme and perfect *bodhi*” (*Sad. Pu.* 71, 1–9). In fact, the entire sixth chapter of the *Sad. Pu.* elaborates the novel and startling idea that the most eminent of Gautama Buddha’s disciples, who are described as liberated *arhats* in the old scriptures, should continue their spiritual development till they attain to the rank of Buddhahood. The condition of *nirvāṇa*, which they had acquired, belonged to a lower stage. None of the great *arhats* of the earliest period of Buddhist history are spared. Kāśyapa, Mahākātyāyana and Maudgalyāyana are mentioned, and their future Buddhahood is predicted (*Sad. Pu.*, pp. 144, 150, 153). In the 8th and 9th chapters, the same prediction is made with regard to Kauṇḍinya, Ānanda, Rāhula and 2,500 *arhats* (pp. 207.7–209–216.3–219.12–221.4 ff.). The inadequacy of the old ideal of *nirvāṇa* is vividly set forth in the words, which are put into the mouths of the 500 *arhats*. They say to Gautama Buddha :—

c5.s2.45

“We confess our transgressions, Lord. We have always and at all times thought thus (literally ‘conceived the idea’): ‘This is our final *nirvāṇa*; we are finally released.’ We have been foolish and unwise; we have not known the right way. And why? Because we have been content (literally ‘gone to contentment’)

c5.s2.46

with this sort of inferior (or insignificant) knowledge, whereas we should have acquired perfect Enlightenment through the Knowledge of the Tathāgata" (Sad. Pu. 210, 1-4).

c5.s2.47

At this point a parable is introduced. A man visits a friend's house and falls asleep or lies drunk there. That friend puts a priceless gem in his garment and ties a knot. The man does not know about it. He wanders to a far country and falls on evil days. He obtains food and raiment with the greatest difficulty. Then he happens to meet that old friend, who tells him of the precious gift that has always been with him, though unbeknown to him. The 500 arhats then proceed:--

c5.s2.48

"Even thus, O Lord, you produced in us the thoughts of Omniscience, while you formerly lived the life (or followed the spiritual career) of a bodhisattva. But we do not know or understand them. We imagined that we had been liberated through (reaching) the stage of the arhat. We can hardly be said to live, inasmuch as we are satisfied with such trifling (or insignificant, inferior) knowledge. But our aspiration for the Knowledge of the Omniscient One has never wholly perished. And the Tathāgata, O Lord, teaches us: 'O Monks, do not think that this is nirvāṇa. In your consciousness, there are roots of Merit,²⁷ which I have formerly ripened (or matured). This is now my wisdom in the choice of means (for conversion). I utter my words in preaching the religion and thereby you think that this now is nirvāṇa.' Having been taught thus, we have to-day received the prediction about our supreme and perfect Enlightenment" (Sad. Pu. 211, 8 ff.).

c5.s2.49

The author of the Sad. Pu. expresses the definite opinion that all arhats, who have destroyed the āsravas, must go further and seek the supreme sambodhi (Sad. Pu. 43.11 ff.—137.5 ff.—142.3 ff.). The Bo. Bhū. explicitly declares that a bodhisattva should not take delight in the idea of nirvāṇa; he should be averse to nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa-vimukhena vihartavyam. Bo. Bhū. fol. 69a, 1, 2).

c5.s2.50

The ideal of arhatship is thus declared to be very inferior to that of Buddhahood, which is the goal of a bodhisattva. It may be added that the Sanskrit Buddhist writers have also described an arhat with reference to the formula of the ten Fetters (samyojanāni), which is elaborated in the Pāli writings. The four states of śrota-āpanna (one who has entered the stream), sakṛd-āgāmin (the once-returner), anāgāmin (one who does not return to earth)

c5.s2.51

and the arhat are recognized by some Mahāyānist authors as the preliminary stages of a *bodhisattva's* career. They are mentioned in the *Laṅkāvatāra*, the *Avadāna-kalpalatā*, the *Daça-bhūmika-sūtra*, the *Prajñā-pāramitā* and the *Kāraṇḍa-vyūha*.28 The *Pr. Pā. Çata.* indeed incorporates the entire scheme in its own metaphysics, but adds that all the Fetters can be destroyed only by *prajñā-pāramitā* (the Perfection of Wisdom). It thus seems to teach that even the old ideal of the *arhat* is unattainable without the practices enjoined by the new school. It mentions all the Fetters in this order: *sat-kāya-dṛṣṭi* (belief in substantial Individuality), *vicikitsā* (doubt), *çila-vrata-parāmarça* (the perverted belief in good works and ceremonies), *kāma-rāga* (love of sense-pleasure), *vyāpāda* (malice, ill-will), *rūpa-rāga* (love of existence in the material worlds), *ārūpya-rāga* (love of existence in the non-material worlds), *avidyā* (ignorance), *māna* (pride) and *auddhatya*29 (self-righteousness, exaltation, excitement). It defines an *arhat* as one who has destroyed all these Fetters. At the same time, it declares that the acquisition of the *prajñā-pāramitā* or *bodhi* is necessary for the eradication of these Fetters (page 478, line 12). Thus even *arhatship* is regarded as almost impossible of attainment without the *bodhi* of a *bodhisattva*.

c5.s2.52

In this connection, it is interesting to compare the stereotyped formulæ, which are found in the *Ava. Ça.*, the *Divy.* and other Sanskrit treatises. An *arhat* and a *bodhisattva* are described in two different sets of words, which indicate that the new ideal was radically divergent from the old. In the *Ava. Ça.*, the following passage recurs frequently:—

c5.s2.53

“He exerted himself and strove and struggled, and thus he realized that this circle (or wheel) of Life (or the Universe), with its five constituents, is in constant flux. He rejected all the conditions of existence which are caused by the *saṃskāras* (material compounds), as their nature is such that they decay and fall away, they change and are destroyed. He abandoned all the *kleças* 30 (sins, passions) and realized the state of an *arhat*. When he became an *arhat*, he lost all attachment to the three worlds; 31 gold and a clod of earth were the same to him; the sky and the palm of his hand were the same to his mind; he was like fragrant sandalwood; 32 he had torn the egg-shell (of ignorance) by his Knowledge (i.e. as a bird is hatched); he obtained Knowledge, the *abhijñās* (Super-knowledges) and the *pratisamvids* (analytical Powers); he became averse to gain, avarice and honour in the

c5.s2.54

world (or to existence, gain, etc.); he became worthy of being respected, honoured and saluted by the devas, including Indra and his younger brother,³³ *Viṣṇu* or *Kṛṣṇa*” (*Ava. Ṣa.* II, 348, 1–6 and passim).

c5.s2.55

In the *Divy-āvadāna*, we find the old Pāli formula of *arhatship*: “My rebirth is destroyed; the excellent (spiritual) life has been lived; what had to be done (‘duty’) has been done; I shall not know a birth (or existence) after this life” (*Divy.* 37, 14–16).

c5.s2.56

The epithets which are applied to the *arhats* in the *Sad. Pu.* and the *Pr. Pā. Ṣata.* are also very characteristic. The *arhats* are declared to be free from the *āsravas* and the *kleśas* (passions); they are self-restrained; they are perfectly free in their hearts and minds (or in their thought and wisdom); they are of good birth and comparable to great elephants in nobility, strength and endurance; they have done their duty, accomplished all that was to be done, laid down their burden, and achieved their aim (or their highest Good); they have destroyed the fetters of existence; their minds are perfectly liberated through right knowledge; they have attained to the highest perfection in all forms of mind-control and are conversant with the *abhijñās* (Super-knowledges. *Sad. Pu.*, 6–9).

c5.s2.57

If we compare these epithets with those which are applied to the *bodhisattvas* in the same books, we shall understand the second point of difference between the ideals of the *bodhisattva* and the *arhat*.

c5.s2.58

The *arhats* are represented as very austere, saintly, self-restrained, meditative ascetics, but also as rather frigid and self-centred. The *bodhisattvas* are described as more compassionate and active. They will “roll the wheel of the Doctrine that will never turn back.” They serve and worship hundreds of Buddhas. Their bodies and minds are suffused and penetrated with friendliness for all creatures (*maitrī*). They are fit for imparting the Buddha’s Knowledge to others. They have attained the full perfection of Wisdom. They help many living beings to secure liberation and happiness (*santārakaiḥ. Sad. Pu.* 2, 11 ff.).

c5.s2.59

It is to be noted that the words “friendliness” (*maitrī*) and “saviour, liberator” (*santāraka*) do not occur in the passage that describes the *arhats*.

c5.s2.60

(2) The Mahāyānists accuse the *arhat* of selfishness and egotism, because he strives and struggles only for his liberation from sorrow instead of working for the liberation and happiness of all beings. A *bodhisattva*, who follows the ideal of the Mahāyāna, aims at the highest Good for himself and also for others. An *arhat* is rightly or wrongly represented by the Mahāyānist authors as a self-complacent, self-regarding and unsocial recluse, who is intent only on solving his own personal problem and does not think of others. A *bodhisattva*, on the contrary, thinks both of himself and others. The *Sad. Pu.* condemns the *arhats* and the *pratyeka-buddhas*, because they exert themselves only for their complete *nirvāṇa* (*ātma-parinirvāṇa-hetoḥ*), but the *bodhisattvas* aspire to the attainment of *bodhi* for the welfare and happiness of many beings, both men and *devas*.³⁴ They wish to help all creatures to obtain Liberation (*sarva-sattva-parinirvāṇa-hetoḥ*), because they love and pity the whole world. Their wisdom serves to liberate all beings; ³⁵ but such is not the case with the wisdom of the *śrāvakas* and the *pratyeka-buddhas*, who never say to themselves : “ Having acquired supreme and perfect Enlightenment, we shall help all beings to attain the complete and final *nirvāṇa*, devoid of any material substratum.” ³⁶ The thoughts of these two classes of saints are narrow and mean, as they promote only their own personal interests; but the thoughts of the *bodhisattvas* are noble and generous, as they deal with the interests of others.³⁷ Great Merit is obtained by the *bodhisattvas*, who devote themselves to the good of others (*par-ārtha*); but the *śrāvakas* think only of their own good (*sv-ārtha*).³⁸ A *bodhisattva* may be compared to a charitable man who gives food to other people; but a *śrāvaka* is like a person who consumes it himself.³⁹ The Mahāyānists thus attribute altruistic motives to the *bodhisattvas*, who are therefore declared to be infinitely superior to the *śrāvakas* in many passages of Buddhist Sanskrit literature.⁴⁰

c5.s2.61

Here we find two remarkable ideas: (*a*) A *bodhisattva* helps all beings not only to attain the spiritual goal of *nirvāṇa*, but also to obtain the more material advantages of happiness and welfare in the world (*sukha*). The austere unworldliness of the old ideal is abandoned in favour of a more humane aim.

c5.s2.62

(*b*) A *bodhisattva* wishes to help all beings to attain *nirvāṇa*. He must therefore refuse to enter *nirvāṇa* himself, as he cannot apparently render any services to the living beings of the worlds after his own *nirvāṇa*. He thus finds himself in the rather illogical position of pointing the way to *nirvāṇa* for other beings, while he himself stays in this world of suffering in order to do good to all creatures. This is his great sacrifice for others. He has taken the great Vow: “I shall not enter into final nirvāṇa before all beings have been liberated.” 41 He has girt on his spiritual armour and wishes to continue his work as a bodhisattva in all worlds and universes. 42 He does not realise the highest Liberation for himself, he cannot abandon other beings to their fate. 43 He has said: “I must lead all beings to Liberation. I will stay here till the end, even for the sake of one living soul.” 44

c5.s2.63

The Mahāyāna thus preached the ideal of compassionate Buddhahood for all as opposed to cold arhatship. The Sad. Pu. clearly teaches this new gospel: “All shall become Buddhas.” 45 Çāntideva declares that even worms and insects have finally risen to the supreme position of a Buddha. 46

c5.s2.64

A bodhisattva will thus attain bodhi and become a Buddha. These two conceptions of bodhi and Buddhahood are integral elements of the bodhisattva doctrine.

Cites (17)