Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s2: II. Are Bodhisattvas average beings?

Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c34.s2

Language
English

II. Are Bodhisattvas average beings?

v2.c34.s2.1

If, according to the Mahāsaṅghikas, Buddhas are *lokottara*, and if the Buddhas, we *puthujjanas* know of, are only created forms of the real Buddha, the Bodhisattvas also cannot be average human beings—they must also be supramundane. In Vasumitra's treatise the following account of the Bodhisattvas is given: The Bodhisattvas do not pass through the embryonic stages. They assume the form of white elephants when they enter their mothers' wombs and come out of the same by the right side. The above opinion is the natural outcome of the legendary belief that came to be woven around the person of the great man about a century after his actual existence. In the *Lalitavistara*,² the Bodhisattva is placed not only in a crystal casket put within the womb but while in that state he is said to be preaching his dharma to the heavenly beings that flocked around him. The stories of the white elephant seen by Māyā in a dream at the time of her conception and the birth of the Bodhisattva by bursting through the right side of the mother's womb are too well-known to need any comment. The incorporation of these legends in the doctrines of the Mahāsaṅghikas shows that the Bodhisattva conception of the Mahāyānists was yet in the course of development.

v2.c34.s2.2

² *Lalitavistara*, ch. VI, p 73 (of A.S B. edition)

v2.c34.s2.3

The only doctrine that can be described as Mahāyānic is that Bodhisattvas take birth out of their own free will in any form of existence for imparting Buddhist dharmas to the sentient beings of that particular form of existence¹ an idea well illustrated in the Jātakas, and developed in the later Mahāyāna works like the Śikṣāsamuccaya and the Bodhicaryāvatāra. This topic has been taken up for discussion in the Kathāvatthu (XXIII. 3): Bodhisatto issariyakāmakārikahetu vinipātaṃ gacchati ti—but the arguments put forward completely ignore the standpoint of the Mahāsaṅghikas and attempt to show the untenability of the opponent's proposition by treating the Bodhisattva as nothing but an average human adept toiling along the path towards the attainment of bodhi.

v2.c34.s2.4

¹ Masuda, p. 21.

v2.c34.s2.5

In the niyāmokkantikathā² (Kvu., IV. 8, XII. 5, 6 XIII. 4) the same attitude is taken by the Theravādins. By niyāma, the Theravādins understand sammattaniyāma and micchattaniyāma, the former being the practice of brahmacariya (purity in conduct) and ariyamagga (path of sanctification) including, for the Bodhisattvas, the fulfilment of pāramis, leading to nibbāna (i.e. samyaktva or sammatta), and the latter the commission of heinous crimes (anantariyakamma) leading to hell (i.e., mithyātva or micchatta), all other practices being looked upon as aniyata (un-predestined).³ In the sense as expressed above any Śrāvaka can be a sammattaniyāma and he need not be a bodhisattva. The Theravādins do not recognise the bodhisattvas as superior in attainments to the Śrāvakas, and in the matter of brahmacariya and practice of ariyamagga they do not want to make any distinction between a Śrāvaka and a Bodhisattva.

v2.c34.s2.6

² Stepping into the path destined to reach Nibbāna.

v2.c34.s2.7

³ Kvu., pp. 78, 143: Ime dve niyāme thapetvā añño niyāmo nāma natthi.

v2.c34.s2.8

In the Laṅkāvatāra and Asaṅga's Sūtrālaṅkāra and such other Mahāyāna works however it is repeatedly stated that a person by the development of *bodhicitta* becomes a *niyata* Bodhisattva, i.e., through the fulfilment of *pāramīs* and practice of the various forms of asceticism he is to become ultimately a Buddha. Siddhārtha Gautama, in one of his previous births as Jotipāla-māṇava, did, as a matter of fact, develop *bodhicitta* at the time of Kassapa Buddha and then through several births, he fulfilled the *pāramīs* and took recourse to all possible *sādhanās*, whether Buddhistic or non-Buddhistic and ultimately attained perfection. He even became disciples of Āḷāra Kālāma and Rudraka Rāmaputta whose doctrines are treated as heresies in the *Brahmajāla* and other *suttas*. In the Mahāyāna texts emphasis is laid more on *bodhicitta* than on *brahmacariya* and *ariyamagga*. In the *Kathāvatthu* discussion, the Mahāyānic sense of *niyata* is ignored and the Theravāda sense of *sammattaniyāma* is kept in view. In the *Kathāvatthu* (XIII. 4) it is argued that to speak of a *niyata śrāvaka* or *bodhisattva* to have become a *sammatta*¹ is illogical. The difference of opinion really rests on the interpretation given to the word *niyata* in Mahāyāna texts as against that given by the *Kathāvatthu* writer and commentator. Inspite of the above interpretation of *niyāma* and attitude of the Theravādins they contend that Gautama Buddha in his bodhisattva existence did not become a disciple (*śrāvaka*) of Kassapa Buddha. In support of their contention they cited the passage: *na me ācariyo atthi, sadiso me na vijjati* etc. The Andhakas, strangely enough, took the opposite view and asserted that he did become a *śrāvaka* of Kassapa Buddha and cited the passage from the *Majjhima Nikāya* (ii, p. 54): *Kassapo, ahaṃ Ānanda bhagavati brahmacariyaṃ acariṃ sambodhāyā ti* etc.²

v2.c34.s2.9

¹ *Na niyatassa niyāmokkamanam tasmā asādhakan ti* Kvu. A., p. 143.

v2.c34.s2.10

² *Kvu.*, p. 288.

v2.c34.s2.11

According to the Theravādins, the Bodhisattvas as a class of beings as envisaged in the *Sūtrālaṅkāra* and *Laṅkāvatāra* do not exist. The individual, who happens to become the Buddha, is called a bodhisattva in his previous existence just to distinguish him as a being superior to an average one; by calling him a bodhisattva the Theravādins do not attribute to him any special virtues unattainable by a śrāvaka. The Mahāsaṅghikas or the Andhakas do not subscribe to the above view. According to them an individual from the moment he develops *bodhicitta* becomes a bodhisatta and is destined (*niyata*) to become a Buddha and follows a career which is quite different from that of a śrāvaka. The career of the former is marked more by love and compassion for the suffering beings than by path-culture while that of the latter has more of path-culture and *sādhanā* than exercise of *mettā* and *karuṇā*.

Linked texts (6)