Category Archives: Foundations

Foundations, d3b, d4b, Blog

Does the Buddha Only Teach Bodhisattvas?

This was written in advance of Sunday’s meeting of the Nichiren Buddhist Sangha of the San Francisco Bay Area, which is discussing Chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra this week. Originally, this post was intended for next year, when I will be posting quotes from Paul L. Swanson’s Foundations of T’ien-T’ai Philosophy. In the book Swanson includes a translation of a portion of the first chapter to Chih-i’s Fa hua hsüan i, the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, along with extensive explanatory footnotes.

Do a search on this site for “only bodhisattvas” and you will find several articles discussing Chapter 2, which says:

“The Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, teach only Bodhisattvas. All they do is for one purpose, that is, to show the insight of the Buddha to all living beings, to cause them to obtain the insight of the Buddha.

And again:

“Śāriputra! These [present] Buddhas teach only Bodhisattvas because they wish to show the insight of the Buddha to all living beings, to cause them to obtain the insight of the Buddha, and to cause them to enter the Way to the insight of the Buddha.

And again:

“Śāriputra! Some disciples of mine, who think that they are Arhats or Pratyekabuddhas, will not be my disciples or Arhats or Pratyekabuddhas if they do not hear or know that the Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, teach only Bodhisattvas.

And finally in the gāthās:

All of you, do not doubt me!
I am the King of the Dharma.
I say to you:
“I will expound the teaching of the One Vehicle
Only to Bodhisattvas.
There is no Śrāvaka among my disciples.”

To say that – at least as far as the Lotus Sutra goes – the Buddha teaches only Bodhisattvas seems beyond question. But it turns out that Paul Swanson in his “Foundations of T’ien-T’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism” quibbles on this point.

In the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra, Chih-i writes:

“He teaches only bodhisattvas, and has no śrāvaka as disciples.”

Foundations of T'ien T'ai Philosophy, p 210

Swanston adds a footnote here saying:

This abbreviated quote is a bit misleading. Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 46 [page 43 in the revised edition], translates the entire context as follows:

“I, being King of the Dharma
Universally address the great multitudes
Having recourse only to the Path of the One Vehicle
Teaching and converting bodhisattvas
and having no voice-hearing disciples.”

However, the word “only” in the original Lotus Sūtra modifies the “path of the One Vehicle,” and not “only bodhisattvas.” Thus this section more likely means that the Buddha has recourse to the doctrine of ekayāna [one vehicle] to teach bodhisattvas, not to teach śrāvaka, and that he has recourse to other methods of teaching in dealing with śrāvakas. It does not mean that the Buddha has no disciples which are śrāvakas. The context makes clear that the Buddha is preaching the subtle dharma to all beings, śrāvakas and bodhisattvas alike (as the next line says), and that śrāvakas are included in the group of the Buddha’s disciples. I fear that Chih-i was overzealous in his attempt to illustrate the “subtlety” of the Buddha’s attendants.

While I agree with Swanson that “the Buddha is preaching the subtle dharma to all beings, śrāvakas and bodhisattvas alike,” I think Swanson misses an important point: The śrāvakas are bodhisattvas. At least those śrāvakas who advance beyond the Tripiṭaka teaching are promised attainment of the enlightenment of the Buddha by treading the bodhisattva path. Śrāvakas are not found on the path sublime.

One could argue that Swanson does get some support in his interpretation from the BDK translation of Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation of the Lotus Sutra:

I, the King of the Dharma,
Now proclaim to the great assembly:
I lead and inspire the bodhisattvas
Only with the path of the single vehicle;
I am here without disciples.

But my other English translations are clear that śrāvakas are not among the Buddha’s disciples when he is teaching the One Vehicle.

SGI translation by Burton Watson says:

I, being king of the doctrines,
make this announcement to the entire great assembly.
I employ only the single vehicle way
to teach and convert the bodhisattvas,
I have no voice-hearer disciples.

Gene Reeves offers this:

Have no doubt,
Being king of the teachings,
I speak to the whole great assembly.
Using only the one-vehicle way.

I teach and transform bodhisattvas
And have no shravakas as disciples.

The 1975 Risshō Kōsei Kai translation says:

Be you free from doubts;
I am the king of the Law
And declare to all the assembly:
‘I, only by the One-vehicle Way,
Teach the bodhisattvas,
And have no śrāvaka disciples.’

The 2019 Risshō Kōsei Kai translation says:

All of you, cast out doubts,
For I am master of all teachings.
I announce to everyone in the great assembly that
‘All I do is teach and transform bodhisattvas
Using the One Vehicle Way.
So none of my disciples are shravakas.’

All of this sets up the foundation for next month’s discussion of Chapter 3 and Śāriputra’s original vow to teach only the Three Vehicles once he becomes a Buddha in the distant future.

Foundations, Books

Foundations of T’ien-T’ai Philosophy

The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory In Chinese Buddhism

tien-tai-philosophyFrom the Forward by David W. Chappell
This volume represents the first comprehensive study in English of the teaching of the Threefold Truth, perhaps the single most important doctrine in T’ien-t’ai Buddhism. Its author, Paul Swanson, stands as the first of a new generation of Buddhist scholars attempting to provide a comprehensive analysis of T’ien-t’ai for the West and thus to open new vistas for understanding East Asian Buddhism as a whole.

As the first major school of Buddhism in East Asia, T’ien-t’ai marked a watershed in Chinese philosophy. Subsequent developments in Buddhist thought defined themselves in terms of the position they took in its regard, and this is what makes its understanding so critical for the study of Buddhist intellectual history.

To take but one example, it has always been something of a minor mystery why the Three-Teatise (Sanlun) theories of the Chinese Mādhyamika School vanished after having played a decisive role in fifth and sixth century China. The present study provides part of the answer in arguing that Mādhyamika did not in fact die in China but only ceased to exist as a distinct, sociologically discernible entity because it had become absorbed into the foundations for a new breed of indigenous Buddhist schools. First among these new schools, as the author shows, was Tien-t’ai.

The key figure in this first of the major Chinese Buddhist schools was Chih-i (538-597), who is rightly considered the greatest of all Chinese Buddhist philosophers and has been ranked with Thomas Aquinas and al-Ghazali as one of the great systematizers of religious thought and practice in world history. In contrast to Ch’an and Pure Land Buddhism, however, T’ien-t’ai Buddhism is so multidimensional and comprehensive that it is often not easy to understand. This fact, together with its failure to attract a strong following in the West, has led to its neglect by serious scholars.

Book Quotes

 
Book List

Foundations, Blog

Experiencing The Interpenetrating Ten Worlds

I am currently processing quotes I have saved from “Foundations of T’ien-T’ai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory In Chinese Buddhism” by Paul L. Swanson. I won’t be posting these until late January, 2021, after I finishing posting quotes from Peaceful Action, Open Heart: Lessons from the Lotus Sutra by Thich Nhat Hanh, which I’ll start tomorrow. Since one of the T’ien-T’ai Philosophy quotes pertains a recent blog post, I figured I should get it in now while it is still relevant.

So, back on Oct. 6 I discussed by idea of how to envision the “four realms of holy ones” – Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva and Buddha – that Nichiren said “are hidden from our eyes.”

Here’s my summary:

  • Śrāvakas: When we hear the Dharma and study Buddhisms we are in the realm of Śrāvakas.
  • Pratyekabuddhas: When we put into practice for ourselves what we have learned we enter the realm of Pratyekabuddhas.
  • Bodhisattvas: When we seek to help all others to gain what we have gained from learning about Buddhism and putting it into practice, then we enter the realm of Bodhisattvas.
  • Buddhas: This is the realm we enter when we chant Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō, merging what we have learned and what we practice while seeking to have all others join this path.

Since I was discouraged from putting too much emphasis on this idea, I found this quote from Swanson’s book very interesting:

Chih-i divided the realms of existence into ten interpenetrating realms or destinies: hell, preta, beast, asura, man, gods, śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva, and buddha. These are not ten separate distinct worlds, but rather experiences or states of existence in one reality.

It may be more accurate to refer to these ten “destinies” as ten states of experience: hellish, to be full of insatiable appetite, brutish, combative, human, divine, ‘śrāvaka-like, pratyekabuddha-like, bodhisattva-like, and buddha-like. When one suffers the inevitable results of his or her misdeeds, one experiences the realm of hell. When one blindly follows sensual desires in a futile attempt to satisfy fleshly appetites, one experiences the realm of the preta. When one blindly follows one’s passions, one experiences the realm of beasts. When one fights with one’s fellow human being, one experiences the combative realm of the asura. When one joyfully listens to the music of Bach, one can experience the delightful realm of the gods. When one hears the teaching of the Buddha, one experiences the realm of the śrāvaka. When one performs an altruistic deed, one experiences the realm of the bodhisattva. When one has an insight into the true nature of reality, one experiences the realm of the Buddha. Chih-i’s claim that these realms are “interpenetrating” or “mutually inclusive” means that each sentient being experiences them all in accordance with its actions.

Foundations of T'ien T'ai Philosophy, p 6