E-Learning Programs

The 3rd paragraph mentioned reads as follows...

"For the Sarvāstivāda, the path of spiritual progress is a very long journey. It takes three asaṃkhyeya-kalpa-s for a practitioner to reach the state of perfect Buddhahood practicing accumulatively the six perfections ... and tens of thousands of difficult practices on the way. This long period of practice pertains, in fact, only to the stage of preparatory effort (prayoga). The whole process is one of gradual progress, and the Sarvāstivāda doctrine is definitely not one of sudden enlightenment."

Let me remind for other audiences, that the confusion comes about because we normally don't expect non-Mahayana schools, such as Sarvastivada, to teach about "buddhahood" or the path toward becoming a Buddha; arahanthood is mentioned instead. As the issue appears to be complex and far reaching, the more you examine it, the more you find its relevance to many other doctrinal issues.

It is relevant, for instance, to the issue of how the Sarvastivada may relate to Sthaviravada, how Theravada is related to Sthaviravada, and how we should take the appellation "Sthaviravada" itself. It also has to do with the issue of whether the terms "Buddha", "Buddhahood", and "Arahant"--and other related terms like "tathagata"--had been identical throughout the history and across the schools. Consequently, it may relate to the issue of how to make sense of the diversity and doctrinal unity in Buddhism. When we read a text--including an academic one--we should perhaps remind ourselves always that there is a particular perspective, context, and interpretation involved, and we that need to keep in trach of corresponding language framework and terminology.

For example, if "buddhahood" was mentioned by a Mahayanist monk, it could have been in the context of buddhadhatu from Tientai/Tendai perspecitve (一切衆生悉有仏性,草木国土悉皆成仏) or other tathagatagarba points of view. Even within Mayayana Parinirvana Sutra alone, it has been observed that, "[w]ithin this framework ... the text speaks of Buddha nature in so many different ways that Chinese scholars created a variety of lists of types of Buddha nature that they discerned in the course of their studies of the text."
(p. 14, Buddha Nature by Sallie B. King). If the term is used in the context of Lotus Sutra, it may need to be taken into account that that all three vehicles, including the Arahant path, would eventually coincide in the course towards the final buddhahood.

But we are talking about Sarvastivada, a pre-Mahayana school of the Sthaviravada tradition. Before going into the Sarvastivada doctrine, let's check what some of the Theravada sources might say about the issue.

Theravada POV:
-----------------------
From the Theravadin context, the appelations "Arahant" and "Buddha" are customarily distinguished from each other, and the latter is further distinguished from Sammasambuddha and Paccekabuddha. Nonetheless, in the early use the designations do not always appear to be absolute and fixed. Furthermore the Theravada does not seem to altogether deny or neglect the possibility of attaining buddhahood through "Bodhisatta path".

"[T]he Theravadins do not definitely deny that Buddhahood is unattainable, for there is the instance of Sumedha Brahmana becoming Sakyamuni and that of a certain being, who will in future become Maitreya Buddha, but such instances are so few and far between that it would not be reaonable to hold up the ideal for the generality of the human beings to follow....
(p. 457 Buddhist Sect and Sectarianism by Bibhuti Baruah)

"In general, 'tathagata' is used specifically of the Buddha, the one who discovers and proclaims the path to nibbana (A.II.8–9, S.III.65-6), with the 'tathagata, Arahat, perfectly and completely enlighteneed one" being contrasted with a "disciple of the tathagata' (D.II.142). Nevertheless, 'tathagata' is sometimes used of any Arahat. S.V.327, for example, discusses the 'dwelling of a learner' and that of a tathagata, and explains the second by describing the qualities of an Arahat. At M.I.139–140 and 486-7, moreover, there is a switching between talk of a 'tathagata' and of 'a monk whose mind is freed thus', as if they were simple equivalents....In the Suttas, the word was used by both Buddhists and non-Buddhists as a term for someone who had attained the highest goal of the religious life"
(p. 227 The Selfless Mind by Peter Harvey)

"[T]he Buddha first of all declares himself to be an arahant. The defining mark of an arahant is the attainment of nirvāṇa in this present life. The word "arahant" was not coined by the Buddha but was current even before he appeared on the Indian religious scene....Thus the Buddha is distinguished from the arahant disciples, not by some categorical difference in their respective attainments, but by his role....He has skills in teaching that even the most capable of his disciples cannot match, but with regard to their world-transcending attainments, both the Buddha and the arahants are `buddho', 'enlightened'"
(Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas by Bhikkhu Bodhi)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

"The oldest suttas... already mention three types of individuals who attain to the consummate state," but "[w]ith the passage of time... these three types came to be viewed as three alternative ideals toward which a disciple could aspire.... All were identical in their realization of nibbaana, but each was seen to stand for a distinct aspect of the enlightened personality and to presuppose a distinct yaana, a "vehicle."
"For the Theravaada,... the emphasis was always placed on... the attainment of arahatship....Other early schools, such as the Sarvaastivaada and the Mahaasa"nghika, while upholding the primacy of the disciple's course and the arahat ideal, also gave consideration to the other ideals as possible goals for individuals inclined to pursue them. Thus they came to admit a doctrine of three yaanas or vehicles."
(A Treatise on the Paramis by Acariya Dhammapala, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html

"There are many Buddhists, both bhikkhus and laymen, in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia which are regarded as Theravada countries, who take the vow or resolution to become Buddhas to save others. They are indeed Bodhisattvas at different levels of development. Thus one may see that in Theravada countries all are not Sravakas. There are Bodhisattvas as well."
"[T]hree states of the Sravaka, the Pratyekabuddha and the Buddha are mentioned in the Nidhikanda Sutta of the Khuddakapatha, the first book of the Khuddaka-nikaya, one of the five Collections of the Theravada Tripitaka. It says that by practising virtues such as charity, morality, self-restraint, etc., one may attain, among other things, 'the Perfection of the Disciple' (Savaka-Parami), 'Enlightenment of the Pratyekabuddha' (Paccekabodhi) and 'the Buddha-domain' (Buddhabhumi)....In the Theravada tradition these are known as Bodhis, but not Yanas."
"We come across at the end of some palm leaf manuscripts of Buddhist texts in Sri Lanka the names of even a few copyists who have recorded their wish to become Buddhas, and they too are to be considered as Bodhisattvas. At the end of a religious ceremony or an act of piety, the bhikkhu who gives benedictions, usually admonishes the congregation to make a resolution to attain Nirvana by realising one of the three Bodhis - Sravakabodhi, Pratyekabodhi or Samyaksambodhi - as they wish according to their capacity."
(Bodhisattva Ideal in Buddhism by Ven. Dr. W. Rahula)
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha126.htm

Here is an essay from just one Theravadin point of view (Ajarn Chah):
"Someone once asked about the relative merits of arahants and bodhisattvas. He answered, ‘Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all. If you are an arahant you will suffer, if you are a bodhisattva you will suffer, if you are anything at you will suffer.’"
(p. 43 Recollections of Ajahn Chah)

Here is another (Ajahn Amaro)
"[T]he classically stated goals of the Northern and Southern schools ... can be expressed in various ways. For the Northern Tradition the goal is most often formulated as the cultivation of the bodhisattva path for the benefit of all beings, developed over many lifetimes and culminating in Buddhahood. For the Southern Tradition the goal is the realization of arahantship, ideally in this very life."
The path to the buddhahood is "to vow to stay in the world as a bodhisattva, developing the pāramitās until full Buddhahood is reached." But the Buddha "never says: ‘It is good to strive for Buddhahood’, or ‘I set this intention and pursued it, but it’s not an appropriate undertaking for everyone.’ Nothing. Not a syllable."
(A Dhamma article by Ajahn Amaro)
http://www.amaravati.org/the-view-from-the-centre/

Now let's check the Sarvastivada perspective.

Sarvastivada POV:
---------------------------

According to Vasubhandu, himself a former Sarvastivadin:
23c-d. "One can attain two nirvedhabhagiyas of the Sravaka family, and become a Buddha."
"It is possible for a person who belongs to the Sravaka family to attain in this family the Heat and the Summits, and to become a Buddha."
(Abhidharmakosabasyam Vol. 3 by Vasubhandu, translated by Pousin, to English by Pruden)

It is observed that "[d]octrinal elements that have apparent affinities with those that are now regarded as Mahayana abound in the Mahavibhasa. In particular, descriptions of the levels of the path found in various places in the Vibhasa adumbrate subsequent Mahayana developments." Nonetheless, it still appears to be the case that, for Sarvastivadins, "adherents of these three vehicles are carefully distinguished from the Buddhas, however, because the Buddhas are enlightened first, and have all-encompassing enlightenment"
(p. 117)
"information on the proto-Mahayana movement found in the Mahavibhasa, which illustrates ... the means by which the Hinayana would eventually evolve into the Mahayana. This information provides much support for the thesis that it was Sarvastivadin ontology and soteriology, rather than the Mahasanghika bodhisattva doctrine as found in the Mahavastu, which served as the basis for the development of Mahayana.
(p. 111 Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Volume VII)

It is observed that "[d]octrinal elements that have apparent affinities with those that are now regarded as Mahayana abound in the Mahavibhasa. In particular, descriptions of the levels of the path found in various places in the Vibhasa adumbrate subsequent Mahayana developments." Nonetheless, it still appears to be the case that, for Sarvastivadins, "adherents of these three vehicles are carefully distinguished from the Buddhas, however, because the Buddhas are enlightened first, and have all-encompassing enlightenment"
(p. 117)
"information on the proto-Mahayana movement found in the Mahavibhasa, which illustrates ... the means by which the Hinayana would eventually evolve into the Mahayana. This information provides much support for the thesis that it was Sarvastivadin ontology and soteriology, rather than the Mahasanghika bodhisattva doctrine as found in the Mahavastu, which served as the basis for the development of Mahayana.
(p. 111 Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Volume VII)

"The thought of the Three Vehicles can be traced in the literaturebefore the Lotus Sutra, already in the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra.
(p. 189 Indian Buddhism by Hajime Nakamura)

According to a Theravadin scholar (Bhikkhu Bodhi), Sarvastivada also held the ideal of buddhahood:
"Other early schools, such as the Sarvaastivaada and the Mahaasanghika, while upholding the primacy of the disciple's course and the arahat ideal, also gave consideration to the other ideals as possible goals for individuals inclined to pursue them. Thus they came to admit a doctrine of three yaanas or vehicles to deliverance, all valid but steeply graded in difficulty and accessibility." Furthermore, there is a "mention of the "vehicle to great enlightenment (mahaabodhiyaana)" which "does not indicate the historical Mahaayaana, but signifies rather the greatness of the bodhisattva career."
(A Treatise on the Paramis by Acariya Dhammapala, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html

Here is one Tibetan scholar on Sarvastivada doctrine:
"Most of the Mahayana schools, by contrast, say that there is only one final vehicle, that of the Bodhisattva, Although a person may practice as a Hearer or Solitary Realizer and become an Arhat, sucvh a person will be exhorted by the Buddhas to develop bodhicitta and practice as a Bodhisattva until attaining Buddhahood. There are three prace vehicles but only one of them is regarded as a final vehicle."
(p. 76)
"The schools mostly agree that an Arhat is a person whose liberation is incontrovertible. However, the Vaibhasikas distinguish six different types of Arhats, five of whom can 'fall back.' That is, although they have experienced the elimination of the cooarse fflictions that can cause suffering, they maay not have eliminated the subtle affflictions and, therefore, can still commit unethical acts, commit suicide, etc., and thereby lose the status of Arhat."
(p. 75)
"According to Madhyamika, in contrast, our mind's emptiness of inherent existence is a 'natural lineage' that is the 'Buddha nature' of each of us. The fact that the mind has no fixed nature means that change is always possible. Hence, there is no one who will fail, eventually, to attain Buddhahood."
(p. 77 Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gonchok's Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayba's ... by Daniel Cozort)

It is said that, "one reads in the Divyavadana that after the delivery of a discourse, some aspired to Sravakabodhi, some to Pratyekabodhi, and some to samyaksambodhi... [which] leads us to infer that by the time of the Divyavadana the Sarvastivadins admitted the practicability of holding up Buddhahood as an ideal. So, clearly, the Sarvastivadins encouraged the aspiration to Buddhahood and hence to the life of a Bodhisattva, and the goal of Buddhahood was not purely Mahasanghika or Mahayanic." Therefore, all these indicate that "[t]he Mahasanghikas may have been forerunners of Mahayana but it is clear that the Sarvstivadins contributed much to the growth of Mahayana in one way or the other."
(p. 457 Buddhist Sect and Sectarianism)

-----------
The inquiry prompts us to compare the stages of Perfections (paramita) from different traditions.

"The ten far-reaching attitudes (pha-rol-tu phyin-pa, Skt. paramita, Pali: parami; perfections) are found in the Theravada, Mahayana, and Bon traditions.... The Theravada version of the Previous Life Accounts ...of Buddha when he practiced as a bodhisattva speaks of ten far-reaching attitudes. The Sarvastivada version has only six. Within Mahayana, both The Prajnaparamita Sutras ... and The Sutra of the White Lotus of the Hallowed Dharma ... discuss only six. The Sutra of the Ten Bodhisattva Levels of Mind ..., however, lists ten and correlates them with the ten levels of mind of an arya bodhisattva – a bodhisattva who has attained non-conceptual cognition of voidness."
(The Ten Perfections in Theravada, Mahayana and Bon by Alexander Berzin)
https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/abhidharma-tenet-systems/c...

"at the beginning of the eight bodhisattva ground, which occurs on the path of meditation, the individual achieves arhantship and thus liberation from samsara. This is described in Mahayana literature as still short of the achievement of buddhahood. The difference between the achievement of ahantship and the achievevement of buddhahood is the removal of the knowledge obstacles. This takes place on the eighth through tenth bodhisattva grounds"
(p. 95-96)
"knowledge obstaclesare removed ... by the immense merits a bodhisattva generates from their great comasion....
Thus it is compassion that distinguishes the Mahayana path leading to buddhahood from the non-Mahayana paths culminating in arhatship."
(p. 96 A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy)

Another comparison between the Theravada and Mahayana enumeration of Perfections:
"The list of paaramiis in the Paali tradition differs somewhat from the more familiar list given in Sanskrit works, which probably antedates the Mahaayaana and provided a ready set of categories for its use. Our author shows that the two lists can be correlated in section xii, and the coincidence of a number of items points to a central core already forming before the two traditions went their separate ways. The six paaramiis of the Sanskrit heritage are: giving, virtue, patience, energy, meditation, and wisdom. Later Mahaayaana texts add four more — resolution, skillful means, power, and knowledge — in order to co-ordinate on a one-to-one basis the list of perfections with the account of the ten stages of the bodhisattva's ascent to Buddhahood. The Paali works, including those composed before the rise of Mahaayaana, give a different though partly overlapping list of ten: giving, virtue, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, and equanimity. Unlike the Mahaayaana, the Theravaada never developed a theory of stages, though such may be implicit in the grading of the paaramiis into three degrees as basic, intermediate, and ultimate."
"[I]n established Theravaada tradition the paaramiis are not regarded as a discipline peculiar to candidates for Buddhahood alone but as practices which must be fulfilled by all aspirants to enlightenment and deliverance, whether as Buddhas, paccekabuddhas, or disciples. What distinguishes the supreme bodhisattva from aspirants in the other two vehicles is the degree to which the paaramiis must be cultivated and the length of time they must be pursued. But the qualities themselves are universal requisites for deliverance/"
"...in regard to parinibbaana, all the disciples and paccekabuddhas are completely equal to the Tathaagatas; they are identical, without any distinction."
(A Treatise on the Paramis by Acariya Dhammapala, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html

The inquiry perhaps also sheds light on the issue of the appelation "Hinayana" and its concept of Arahanthood which might have shifted in its meaning in the course of history, and the appelation thus might not have referred to all doctrines or aspects of pre-Mahayana schools.

"While others of the so-called 'Hinayana' schools allowed that the arahant was spiritually inferior to the Buddha... we find that the Theravada made no such concessions. By maintaining the integrity of the arahant concept, by maintaining his equality with the Buddha, the Theravada avoided many of the Mahayana criticisms of the arahant notion; so much so, infact that even the fourteenth century Tibetan author, Tsong kha pa, expressed some puzzlement as to how and for what reasons the arahant (or the so-called 'Hinayana' generally could be distinguished from the Buddha (or the Mahayana and Vajrayana). Tsong kha pa, following the claim of the Pancavimsatisahasrika Prajnaparamita which asserts the spiritual identity of the arahant and the Buddha, as both are said to equally 'course in the perfection of wisdon,' yet manages to maintain the coreherence of the notion of a 'yana' ... by maintaining that the sravakayana, the budddhyayana (or bodhisattvayana) and the tantrayana are significantly dindistinguishable interms of method only, but not in terms of wisdom, which is to sasy that while they are spiritually equal, they are not equally pedagogically skilful."
(p. 97 Buddhist Images of Human Perfection by Nathan Katz)

Of course, this reply is coming from my perspective based on the referred sources, so please feel free to examine and explore on your own.