The Mahayana Bodhisattva Path

This typically begins with a vow to enter on the path upon becoming a novice monk or nun and some special spiritual exercises (in addition to the usual ones) aimed at producing a compassionate and enlightened heart and mind (bodhicitta) are entered into.

The idea is to go beyond the outer behaviour required by the vinaya and focus on developing more perfect inner behaviours which derive from more enlightened inner attitudes. This path began to be encouraged with the second turning and was, of course, strengthened with the humanism/everythingism of the third turning.

Meditation on the equality of everything was one method employed in this cultivation of compassion. This was, of course, aided by the idea that everything had a Buddha Nature and at the same time that ‘everything’ was ‘no thing’.

Meditating upon selfishness (perhaps the opposite of the intense compassion sought) and its results was (and is) also used or (perhaps ironically) on the teachings of the self-happiness that altruism brings (now borne out by Western science).

Equanimity can also be meditated upon (labels like ‘the other’, ‘friend’ and ‘stranger’ might be turned over in the mind, their usefulness questioned and the labels mentally discarded). ‘Self’ interest might thus be questioned and discarded as a useful attitude in the very real problematic nature of ‘self’ itself thus established. It may be noted in the meditation that at some time in a past life every single being may have been both the mother and the child (and perhaps also both friend and enemy) of every other single being (in extreme cases both sentient and non-sentient beings are included in this in some mystical sense). This was all expected to break down excessively self-cherishing attitudes as compared with attitudes to others.

You can guess that a lot of this was also done by pre-Mahayana monks and nuns seeking to be Arhats but this was clearly now more of a necessity as even more extreme unselfishness had to be cultivated in order to now go beyond mere (inherently relatively selfish) Arhat-thinking.

Only after this programme had proved successful would the ten bhumis I mentioned in an earlier post actually be entered into. Even to be considered to have attained the first of these is considered a great achievement within Buddhism. The formal attainment of each level gives a rank within the religious community and teaching rights with regard to ranks attained. The attainment of rank six is indicated by the honorific Aryabodhisattva (advanced Bodhisattva).

More on the Three ‘Turnings’

Examining the idea of three ‘turnings’ again, we may strengthen our understanding of the history of Buddhism, so let’s give it a go.

The first turning was the basic teaching of the four noble truths and whatever else was taught in the discourses (Suttas/Sutras) in the Pali Nikayas/Sanskrit agamas, initial guidelines for religious orders (in the vinayas in both languages) and the idea of non-self (the idea of the skandhas was especially developed in the abhidharma and its commentaries also initially in both Pali and Sanskrit). This can be seen as Siddhartha’s ‘turning’ towards teaching a kind of ‘Middle Way’, the melding of the best of the Bramana and the Sramana ideas of India’s major religious tendencies.

The second turning was first called and is still regarded as Vaipulya (an extension) and not a repudiation of the first (as with the third). It was not uncritical of the abhidharmas, however. It represented, in fact, a ‘turning’ away from an excessive reliance upon an intellectual understanding of them. True understanding was beyond intellectual understanding and to underscore the great incomprehensibility of it all, ‘turning’ towards the intensely strange idea of no thing-ness became central to the ‘turning’ away from the intellect. This was arguably to ultimately aid in truly understanding the abhidharmas, however, not to supplant them.

The ‘turning’ was also, concurrently, and perhaps consolingly, to the relatively pro-social and thus most likely relatively comforting Bodhisattva ideal. It also ‘turned’ towards an explanation of cosmology admittedly in negative terms, explaining, as an extension of the idea of non-self, not what the universe (including nirvana) was, but what it was not. In this sense it may also be seen as true to the reluctance of Siddhartha to fully explain what the universe actually was and at the same time as a kind of answer to the questions; in effect, then, another ‘middle way’ and another partial answer.

Was the third turning, then, the full answer? What ‘turn’ happened? The ‘turn’ was indeed towards bringing an understanding of what is in contrast to what ‘it’ isn’t within the reach of the adept and even potentially the layperson. It was a ‘turning’ back to society, then (and back to reality, perhaps, albeit a rather magical one). No thing-ness could possess qualities, it taught, such as the radiance (prabhasvara – a special technical word in Buddhism that I’ll come back to) and beauty attainable by the Bodhisattva (among other qualities). It also ‘turned’ towards teaching the potential of all of us (even the meanest devil) to achieve this radiance by virtue of our innate Buddha Natures. It was thus not only humanist but in fact everythingist. The ten bhumis were taught for the Bodhisattva path (as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Arhat, either as a hermit or in a religious community, only had to get to number six and may or may not be re-born) and one could also, as a regular or even a religiously honoured layperson, simply choose to gain merit, by leading a good life, for a later, better re-birth).

So there were four main Buddhist Siddhantas (orthodoxies) of the three turnings in India: those of the first turning, Sarvastivada, represented by the Abhidharmakosa of Vasubandhu, and Sautrantika, outright rejecters of the abhidharma; that of the second turning, represented by the Madhyamika school, stressing emptiness and scripturally represented by the Mulamadhyamakakarika; and that of the third turning, represented by the Yogacara school and scripturally represented by the treatises of Maitreya-Asanga. They all argued over which turning represented the highest teaching of Siddhartha while the Theravadans were down in Sri Lanka doing their own Sarvastivadan thing and regarding all of the Indian versions including Sarvastivada as bastardised Siddhantas.

Morality (Sila)

Religions usually seem to be divided across battlelines between what I'll call legalist and gnostic camps (think Wahhabism v Sufism or Fundamentalist v liberal Christianity or Gnosticism). The less-well-educated are expected and/or encouraged by 'religious authorities' to follow the laws without question but certain other groups will see the law as designed only for that group with alleged limited capacity for real understanding.

In Buddhism, this idea of two forms of the religion is quite formally discussed. Siddhartha taught a number of moral lessons and everybody is really expected to begin the path by attempting to know and follow the precepts derived from them.

In addition, monks and nuns are expected to follow their vinaya as part of the additional work required for gnosis. But basic Buddhist morality comes first. Morality and, as part of that, disciplining one’s desires are believed to aid in the settling of the mind required for effective meditation for gnosis. This settling of the mind is compared to the settlement of muddy water that enables one to see through it to a reality beyond it. The best of morality comes only to a Buddha, though, the ultimate knower, as it comes from true insight rather than slavish adherence to precepts however well-grounded the precepts might be seen to be from the beginning. The religious are also partly intended as the guardians of these initial moral precepts for the rest of the sangha.

The rules for the religious are thus more Spartan from the first as they are meant to promote awareness as well as correct behaviour from the get-go. Short term or long term monastic vows taken by people who then return to the laity are common in various parts of the modern Buddhist world, though. They may even be taken for a single special day.

An interesting feature of the system today is that there is now virtually a complete absence of orthodox full nuns in all but the Taiwanese tradition (there are a few full nuns in Burma and possibly in Sri Lanka). There have been seven major accepted traditions of nuns. Part of the reason women can not now be orthodox full nuns is that if an order is not continuous from the time of Siddhartha it is not considered orthodox so if for any historical reason the final convent in any tradition is lost and the final full nun dies without ordaining any successors (in the presence of four other full nuns of the tradition) there can be no legitimate successors. So here is an example of strict legalism preventing women today who follow the Thai Theravada tradition from becoming full nuns in their tradition. A very knowledgeable monk in the Thai Theravada tradition (when in Bundanoon) issued an opinion, though, that Thai Theravada nuns may be invested by full nuns of the Taiwanese tradition. On the basis of this advice, an investiture occurred recently which is expected to be challenged in Thailand. It remains unlawful in Thailand to describe oneself as a nun. The Thai tradition ended in around the 11^th Century probably in line with a local patriarchal governmental prohibition of the time. Lines of monks have also been in danger of dying out over the centuries especially in times of oppression in some areas.