The Difference Between Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas

Inference does not necessarily mean realization. For example, pratyekabuddhas may trace the twelve links of dependent arising, or the ten links, back to the ālayavijñāna, yet they have neither found nor realized the eighth consciousness, and are not those who have realized the ālayavijñāna. Those who realize the ālayavijñāna are Mahāyāna bodhisattvas; this is Mahāyāna path-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 followers also have the bodhicitta of Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, then they must be Mahāyāna bodhisattvas, because no matter what dharma a bodhisattva studies, it all revolves around the Mahāyāna, for the sake of liberating sentient beings and accomplishing the Buddha Way. Without making the vows of a bodhisattva, one's conduct and results certainly cannot be those of a bodhisattva; one certainly cannot attain path-seeing, and certainly cannot possess the fruited virtues of a bodhisattva. Otherwise, making the aspirations of non-Buddhists could also lead to buddhahood. Then the Buddha would have no need to emphasize that sentient beings must make great aspirations and great vows, must make the pure great vows of a bodhisattva that benefit both self and others, in order to complete the process of cultivating and realizing the Buddha Way and perfectly achieve 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 enough 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 right 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. Although they hold this view, after all it is merely understanding, inference, and imagination; they have not realized the eighth consciousness, and do not count as bodhisattvas who have seen their true mind.

There is a huatou in the Chan school for the assembly to investigate: "The ten thousand dharmas return to one; where does the one return to?" Countless people have conjectured that this "one" is the tathāgatagarbha, that the ten thousand dharmas all return to the tathāgatagarbha and all come from the tathāgatagarbha. Yet even so, this still does not count as Mahāyāna path-seeing, does not count as breaking through the barrier, and such a person is not yet a bodhisattva 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 dharmas are, after all, merely similar dharmas; they cannot substitute for the true dharma, and without the merit and benefit of the true dharma, speaking of food does not fill the 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 arising, and the Mahāyāna bodhisattva's six pāramitās; they could all simply be called bodhisattva-dharmas, with seeing one's true mind and one's Buddha-nature and attaining buddhahood as the fundamental aim. In fact, this is not at all the case; the differences among them are very great.