The Devaluation of the Arahant

To review, early Buddhists apparently viewed the awakening of the Arahant and the [Samma Sam]Buddha as qualitatively equal. They both had attained the same Nibbana, the same unbinding. This appears to be the same as the prevalent view of modern western converts to Theravada, though that of the classical Theravada that developed along side early Mahayana is similar to that of Mahayana. I think is to safe to say the early Buddhists recognized two distinct paths to attain Arahantship. These were Solitude (pacceka) and Instruction (savaka). Those who pursued these paths could become Buddhas, but they could never be Samma Sambuddhas.

During Shakyamuni Buddha’s own lifetime there was only one notion of what constituted awakening. The Buddha was seen as far greater than his followers, primarily because he had discovered the path to awakening for himself and thus made things far easier for those who would follow in his footsteps. But the nature of awakening itself—understood, in a general sense, as “seeing reality as it is”—was believed to be in every case identical. Indeed, Shakyamuni himself was, like his awakened followers, referred to as an arhat (literally “one who is worthy of respect”). ~~ Jan Nattier

The defining mark of an arahant is the attainment of nirvāṇa in this present life. ~~ Bikkhu Bodhi

Meanwhile, the early Mahayanists saw the Nirvana / Unbinding of the Arhat as qualitatively inferior to that of the Samyak Sambuddhas. This may have also been the view of the Sarvastivada School; out of which, from what I gather, early Mahayana arose.

“within a few generations we find indications of a substantial difference in valuation between the Buddha (whose awakening is now referred to as “Supreme Perfect Awakening”) and the arhat (whose awakening is generally still referred to as “nirvana”). The Buddha’s awakening is now described as qualitatively greater, involving a degree of knowledge and insight not shared by an arhat. Of the two levels of realization, the arhat’s status is distinctly second class.” ~~ Nattier

This is a view that was shared by the late Shin Yatomi:

“After Shakyamuni’s death, the early Buddhists strove to achieve the state of arhat or “worthy one” by following his teachings. Arhat was originally synonymous with Buddha or “awakened one.” Later, however, it became distinguished from Buddha. While the practitioners of the ascetic traditions sought the state of arhat as their highest attainment, the state of Buddhahood was reserved exclusively for Shakyamuni.”

The early Mahayanists had also deduced a third path, a Bodhisattva path, for Samyak Sambuddhas. Thus, the coming Samyak Sambuddha Maitreya was also a Bodhisattva. These early Mahayanists sought to become Bodhisattvas, in the sense of future Anutarra Samyak Sambuddhas.

It is unclear to me if the early Buddhists recognized a third path, a Bodhisatta path, for Samma Sambuddhas. The Suttas only use the term Bodhisatta in reference to Gotama and previous Samma Sammabuddhas before they attained Awakening. If the early Buddhists had inferred a Bodhisatta Vehicle; they likely would not have seen it as a viable alternative. They could already attain the same Arahantship via Instruction, as Savaka.

In the next entry, I’ll briefly look at some references to the Samma Sambuddha and the Bodhisatta found in the Pali Canon.