the arhat is already liberated
Mahayana says that is still not enough
at the end of the last episode we said
Mahayana Buddhism redefined the ultimate goal of practice
from liberating yourself to liberating all beings
from the arhat path to the bodhisattva path
I asked a question
is the end of practice
the stillness of one person
or the awakening of everyone
today
we take this question apart head on
hello
hi everyone
I am Leo Wang
to understand why this revolution in goals happened
we have to go back to what the word arhat originally meant
in early Buddhism
the arhat is the highest fruit of practice
the Pali word arahant
literally means one who is worthy of offerings
later it was extended to mean slayer of thieves
meaning one who has killed the thief of affliction
the arhat has cut off greed hatred and delusion completely
and is no longer pulled back into samsara by anything
he pulled suffering out by the root
this is the ultimate goal the Buddha pointed to
ending suffering
liberation from birth and death
in the time of the Buddha
this was not controversial at all
while the Buddha himself was alive
he never treated arhat and Buddha
as two things on different levels
in the earliest Pali scriptures
arhat is one of the most common titles of the Buddha
appearing alongside Tathagata and Fully Awakened One
the Four Noble Truths the Eightfold Path the thirty seven factors
the whole system of practice points at one clear thing ending suffering
cutting off rebirth
for centuries
countless practitioners bet their entire lives on this goal
Sariputta did it
Moggallana did it
Maha Kassapa did it
and so did countless nameless monks and nuns
this was not theory
it was proof paid for with an entire lifetime
but this is exactly where the problem starts
before the Buddha became a Buddha
what did he go through
he did not just realize arhatship and stop there
under the bodhi tree he spent an entire night
seeing the full panorama of dependent origination
after awakening he made one crucial choice he did not simply pass into nirvana
legend says Brahma came to request the teaching
the Buddha hesitated for a moment
then decided to stay and teach
and that teaching
lasted forty five years
until his body could no longer hold up
if the arhat is the finish line
then what were the forty five years after the Buddha awakened
the standard early Buddhist answer goes like this
the Buddha awakened himself and awakened others
the arhat awakened himself
the Buddha was the one who with no teacher to guide him
found his way through the entire path
the arhat walked it through under the guidance of the Buddha
the difference is who found the road first
not in where the two of them arrived
this explanation held up well enough for the first few centuries
but as the sectarian schools developed
a crack appeared and kept getting deeper
the things the Buddha could do
could an arhat do them
the Buddha could teach for forty five years
giving completely different teachings based on each person's capacity
one kind of metaphor for the young
another kind for the old
words a king could understand for a king
and a shepherd's language for a shepherd
the Buddha had what later treatises summed up as the ten powers
he knew the many dispositions of beings
he knew how cause and effect ran from end to end
he knew where every path of practice actually led
the early scriptures record all of this clearly
does an arhat have any of it
in most scriptural descriptions
no
the arhat has cut off affliction
but does not have the panoramic wisdom of the Buddha
or his limitless capacity to teach
so here is the question
if the Buddha and the arhat arrive at the same place
where do these differences come from
Mahayana Buddhism did not invent this doubt out of thin air
its seed had already begun sprouting inside the sectarian schools
we covered this in earlier episodes
roughly one to three hundred years after the Buddha died
a famous claim appeared within the Mahasamghika tradition
the arhat still has something left
in other words
the arhat has cut off affliction
but may still carry some subtle incompleteness
the Mahasamghika even put forward the so called Five Points of Mahadeva
claiming an arhat can still be tempted in dreams
can still have undefiled ignorance and can still have doubt
and may even need someone else to confirm his own attainment
this caused an uproar at the time
the Theravada firmly opposed it
but the argument itself shows something crucial
the absolute perfection of the arhat
was not something everyone believed without question
the seed of doubt
was already buried at the time of the first great schism
what Mahayana Buddhism did
seen historically
was water a seed that was already there
it said
the arhat really has cut off affliction
and really is done with rebirth
that much is fully granted
but
there is more than one kind of obstruction
Mahayana introduced a distinction that changed everything
the affliction obstruction and the cognitive obstruction
the affliction obstruction is greed hatred and delusion the forces that make you suffer in samsara
the arhat has cut all of these off
so what is the cognitive obstruction
it is not the thing that makes you suffer
it is a subtler veil over what you can know
here is an analogy
you wipe away all the dust in front of your eyes
no more pain no more itch
but your field of vision is still limited
the world you see is clear
but you are only seeing one corner of the whole picture
you no longer suffer
but you have not fully seen
this difference is subtle
stop and think for a moment
about whether your daily life has moments like this
the problem is solved
but something still feels missing
in the Mahayana framework
the reason the Buddha could do what an arhat could not
teaching for forty five years improvising for each person's capacity
walking every kind of detour with beings with endless patience
was not that he tried harder or had more grit
it was that he cleared both obstructions at once
he did not just put out his own fire
he saw the whole burning field
once this distinction was established
the map of practice was completely rewritten
the arhat is no longer the finish line
but an extremely important waypoint along the road
the finish line was pushed much further out becoming a Buddha
and the long journey from arhat to Buddha
needed a new road
that road is called the bodhisattva path
but Mahayana did not invent the idea of the bodhisattva
it was there in the earliest Buddhist tradition
the Pali word bodhisatta
means a being who seeks awakening
it is just that in early Buddhism
the word almost only meant Shakyamuni before he became a Buddha
across countless past lives he gave kept precepts endured and persevered
accumulating enough of the paramitas
before awakening as a Buddha in this final life
these past life stories were collected in the Jataka tales
five hundred and forty seven stories in all
every one of them tells the same thing
before the Buddha became a Buddha
he had already walked a very very long road
did you notice
in early Buddhism
bodhisattva was an exclusive word
reserved for the past lives of the Buddha and the future Buddha Maitreya
the goal for an ordinary practitioner was arhatship
you were not qualified to walk the bodhisattva path
because that road belonged to Buddhas
what did Mahayana do
it opened that route to everyone
it said
becoming a Buddha is not the private patent of Shakyamuni
every being can arouse bodhicitta walk the bodhisattva path and finally become a Buddha
the difference between you and the Buddha is not a difference in kind
it is a difference in time
he finished the road you are walking first
that is all
this was a fundamental opening of access
from only one person can become a Buddha to everyone has that possibility
and the sharpest argument of Mahayana is not a moral one
it is a philosophical one
if you truly understand non self
there is no essential boundary between any phenomena
my suffering and your suffering
are vibrations on one net at the level of dependent origination
so how could you possibly say
I am liberated
and it has nothing to do with you
the Mahayana logic is
someone who has truly and completely realized dependent origination
cannot possibly care only about himself
not because he should be compassionate
but because he has already seen
that self and all beings were never two separate things
compassion is not a moral add on
it is what wisdom naturally becomes when carried all the way
as Mahayana sees it
the choice of the arhat to pass into nirvana alone
hints that his realization of non self is one layer short
because deep down he still keeps an invisible line
this is my liberation
that is other people's business
feel into this carefully
is that line in your heart too
it is the last trace the cognitive obstruction leaves
of course
this is the Mahayana argument
not every tradition accepts it
Theravada Buddhism has never agreed that the arhat falls short
in their system
the arhat is fully awakened
the Buddha and the arhat differ in who came first
not in how deep they went
over two thousand years later
this disagreement is still unsettled
I am not going to take a side
what I want is for you to see the structure of the disagreement
because it is not just an academic argument
it is a basic question about what awakening actually means
if awakening is only the ending of your own suffering
then the arhat is the finish line
if awakening means seeing every face of reality completely
including how inseparable you are from all life
then ending only your own suffering really is not enough
because your understanding has not gone all the way
but upgrading the goal brought new risks too
the arhat path has a clear and concrete map
the Four Noble Truths the Eightfold Path precepts and meditation
attainable in one life or a few
and the bodhisattva path
vow to liberate every being
practice the six paramitas for three incalculable eons
in some scriptural descriptions
this journey is nearly eternal
when the finish line is pushed infinitely far away
a practitioner easily falls into a new kind of bind
I made a grand vow
and then what
in the middle of ordinary daily life
how does that vow actually land
does the bodhisattva path become a check that never clears
this is not later speculation
it is a real tension Mahayana faced from the very start
many later Mahayana texts
like the Way of the Bodhisattva by Shantideva
and the Yogacarabhumi recorded by Asanga
are all answering the same question
how do you actually walk the bodhisattva path step by step
as for the concrete framework of practice
the scripture series will unpack it later on
there is also a sociological dimension we cannot ignore
the arhat path was mainly walked by monastics
you had to give up worldly life
and throw yourself fully into meditation and discipline
for the vast majority of lay people
that bar was far too high
you have a family
a job
elders and children
how could you possibly live like a monk
the bodhisattva path opened a door
it said practice is not only meditation and cutting off desire
it is also giving patience effort and wisdom
things a layperson can do too
you can walk the path of awakening without ordaining
seen this way
Mahayana was not only a philosophical breakthrough
it also lowered the barrier to entry for practice
as Buddhism moved from an elite monastic tradition
into wider interaction with lay communities
adjusting the goal of practice was almost historically inevitable
scholars disagree about this
some think a lay movement gave birth to Mahayana
others argue
that the first to push it were forest monks practicing austerities
who felt the mainstream monasteries had gotten too comfortable
and had drifted away from the spirit of the Buddha
who first lit the spark of Mahayana
is still unsettled
but one thing is clear this turn brewed for centuries
growing slowly in the gaps between the sectarian schools
it did not happen overnight
finally
let us look at it through the calibration anchor of this whole series
does the turn from arhat to bodhisattva
move closer to what the Buddha saw under the bodhi tree
or further away from it
my view is
both at once
the part that got closer
if the core insight of the Buddha was dependent origination and non self
then Mahayana pushed non self to its logical limit
if there is really no self
how could you care only about your own liberation
that reasoning really does go further
the part that got further away
when the goal shifts from the clear task of ending suffering
to the grand vow of liberating all beings
it is easy to lose your bearings inside a beautiful vision
and forget the plainest instruction of the Buddha
see the suffering at your feet
the suffering of this moment
everything else can wait
history has already proven this risk
some later Mahayana traditions did drift into ever more ornate narratives
away from the Buddha walking barefoot on the Ganges plain
ending suffering face to face that plain starting point
further and further away
both sides exist at the same time
admitting both of them
is more honest than picking a side
someone in the comments asked a really good question
does bodhicitta contradict non self
you make a grand vow to liberate every being
is that not the biggest self grasping of all
that question goes straight to the heart of Mahayana
and the sutra that answers it that philosophical breakthrough
set off the loudest thunderclap of the entire Mahayana revolution
it is called the Prajnaparamita sutras
it pushes the word emptiness to a limit that unsettles everyone
do you think awakening should stop at the arhat
or keep going toward the bodhisattva
tell me what you think in the comments
I am Leo Wang
see you next time