The Differences between Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas

Inference does not necessarily mean realization. For example, when pratyekabuddhas trace the twelve links of dependent origination or the ten links back to the Ālayavijñāna, they still have not found or realized the eighth consciousness; they are not those who have realized the Ālayavijñāna. Those who realize the Ālayavijñāna are Mahāyāna bodhisattvas; this is Mahāyāna path-of-seeing, which necessarily requires Mahāyāna wholesome roots, merit, conditions, and the arising of bodhicitta—none of these can be lacking. If it is said that non-Buddhists and Hīnayāna practitioners also have the bodhisattva's resolve, then they must be Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, because no matter what dharma a bodhisattva studies, it all revolves around the Mahāyāna, for the sake of delivering sentient beings and attaining buddhahood. Without generating the bodhisattva's vows and aspirations, one's conduct and results certainly cannot be those of a bodhisattva; one certainly cannot attain the path of seeing, and certainly cannot have the fruited virtues of a bodhisattva. Otherwise, generating the mind of a non-Buddhist could also lead to buddhahood. Then the Buddha would have had no need to emphasize that sentient beings must generate great mind and great vows, must generate the pure great bodhisattva vows of benefiting both self and others, in order to complete the process of cultivating and realizing the Buddha Way and perfectly attain buddhahood.

Although pratyekabuddhas trace the source of birth-and-death back to the Ālayavijñāna, in the end they still proceed to nirvāṇa and extinction; after all, they have not walked the great path of the bodhisattva to benefit and bring joy to sentient beings. This alone is sufficient to prove that pratyekabuddhas are not bodhisattvas and have not realized the Ālayavijñāna. If the seed is not right and the root is not right, how can there be a correct fruit? It is like some people who, before enlightenment, attribute all dharmas to the eighth consciousness, believing that their source is all the eighth consciousness and their nature is all buddha-nature. Even though they hold this view, after all it is merely understanding, inference, and imagination; they have not realized the eighth consciousness and do not belong to the bodhisattvas who have seen the mind.

There is a huatou in the Chan school for the assembly to investigate: "All dharmas return to the one; where does the one return to?" Countless people have guessed that this "one" is the tathāgatagarbha, that all dharmas return to the tathāgatagarbha and all come from the tathāgatagarbha. Yet even so, this still does not constitute Mahāyāna path-of-seeing, does not constitute breaking through the huatou, and they are still not bodhisattvas of true meaning. Because they still have not realized the tathāgatagarbha, they do not know where the one returns to. Not knowing where, not having found where the tathāgatagarbha is, they remain in ignorance, and no one knows how long the road still is before realization. Similar dharma is, after all, only similar dharma; it cannot substitute for true dharma, and without the merit and benefit of true dharma, speaking of food cannot fill one's belly.

Some people say that arhats and pratyekabuddhas have all realized the eighth consciousness, the Ālayavijñāna. If that were so, then they might as well all be called bodhisattvas—why still call them arhats and pratyekabuddhas? The Buddha's teachings would not need to be divided into the Hīnayāna Four Noble Truths, the middle vehicle twelve links of dependent origination, and the Mahāyāna bodhisattva's six perfections; they could all be called bodhisattva dharma, with seeing the mind and attaining buddhahood as the fundamental purpose, and that would suffice. In fact, it is not like this at all; the differences among them are very great.