This isn’t a comment about Cecil’s recent column on the Buddha and Hotei, but I’ll go ahead and link to it anyway.
I understand that in Mahayana Buddhism (the dominant branch of Buddhism in most countries), the ethical ideal is the Bodhisattva, one who vows to achieve enlightenment but to continue in the cycle of life and rebirth teaching the Dharma until all beings are enlightened.
Is Gautama, the historical Buddha, considered to be a Bodhisattva? If not, is he considered an Arhat (one of the Theravadan Buddhist saints who achieve enlightenment and enter Nirvana, looked somewhat down on by Mahayana Buddhists)? Or because he achieved enlightenment by himself, without receiving the Dharma from any teacher, is he given a pass, so to speak? (You could hardly expect an unenlightened person to come up with the idea of the Bodhisattva vows on their own, could you? And once he became enlightened, it was too late.)
Based on this Wikipedia article, it seems to be universal Buddhist dogma that Gautama did in fact enter ultimate Nirvana upon his physical death, meaning, I suppose, that he could not possibly be reborn again (although other embodiments of the transcendent universal Buddha-nature will appear).
And what about Amitabha Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism? He is considered a Buddha, not a Bodhisattva, but he is supposed to still be hanging around in his Western Paradise guiding people into enlightenment, right? As a Buddha, shouldn’t he, also, have disappeared from the karmic universe?
I think there’s more variation among the varieties of Buddhism than among the various Christian groups. They’re not all consistent with each other, of course, so I’m not sure you can meaningfully ask some of the questions you do – it’s not clear to me that "Pure Land’ Buddhism even HAS boddhisatvas.
Have a look at Alice Getty’s The Gods of Northern Buddhism. It’s a virtual Petersen’s Guide to the Buddhas, with info on how they all fit into the structure of beliefs. Dover books publishes it.
Buddha represents perfection. In theory, buddhahood can be achieved by anyone, but in practice it is a rather unachievable ideal for almost everyone. That is why you need to set a realistic model that can be attained. This is what arhats and bodhisattvas area. Buddhas are beyond that.
You don’t suddenly disappear when you reach parinirvana. Remember, Buddha nature is immutable, infinite and eternal. When Gautama died, the last physical clingings to his notion of self were disolved and all that was left was the Buddha, which had always been and always will be.
Pure Land Buddhism most certainly believes in Bodhisatttvas. Here’s a painting (national treasure) kept at Chion-in, headquarters of the Pure Land sect. It depicts Amitabha and 25 bodhisattvas visiting practitioners.
Thanks, Jovan. I understand that.Perhaps part of mt difficulty is that the words have slightly different meaning in the different traditions. Most of the following is gleaned from various Wikipedia articles.
In Theravada, an Arhat is one who achieves enlightenment through the teaching of an already enlightened being. A Buddha is one who achieves enlightenment on one’s own. A Bodhisattva is one who is not yet enlightened but will be (such as Gautama in his previous lives).
In Mahayana, a Buddha is any enlightened being. An Arhat is one who achieves enlightenment for one’s own sake, an then enters Nirvana (Parinirvana?). A Bodhisattva is one who achieves enlightenment, but delays Nirvana (or at least Parinirvana) until all beings have become enlightened.
In the Mahayana understanding, it doesn’t seem that Arhat- or Bodhisattva-hood is lesser goal than Buddhahood: an Arhat is a Buddha (an enlightened being) and a Bodhisattva has temporarily renounced Buddhahood. So where do the actual (by title) Buddhas fit in? They obviously haven’t renounced Buddhahood, but they aren’t ranked below the Bodhisattvas as Arhats are.
I’m sure I’m missing something or getting something horribly wrong, but I’m not sure what it is. (Such is the nature of Samsara.)
