..續本文上一頁l clear and are unlikely to be free of bias. This task has by no means been easy. It is much simpler to adopt either a standpoint of "Nikāya purism" or one of "Mahāyāna elitism" and hold to it without flinching. The problem with these two standpoints, however, is that both are obliged to neglect facts that are discomforting to their respective points of view.

　　Although I am ordained as a Theravāda Buddhist monk, in this paper I am not going to be defending the opinions of any particular school of Buddhism or trying to uphold a sectarian point of view. For six years, I have lived in Chinese Mahāyāna monasteries, and my understanding of Buddhism has been particularly enriched by my contact with the teachings of the Chinese scholar-monk Master Yinshun (1906-2005) and his most senior living pupil, Master Renjun, the founder of Bodhi Monastery in New Jersey. My first purpose is to draw out from the texts what the texts say explicitly, and also what they imply, about these two competing ideals of the Buddhist life. At the end, when I draw my conclusions, I will clearly state them as such, and they will be entirely my own. Sometimes I will not draw conclusions but instead raise questions, pointing to problems in the history of Buddhism that I am acutely aware of but unfortunately cannot resolve. It is quite possible that what I consider a nuanced and balanced point of view will draw fire from partisan advocates on both sides of the pide. However, from the standpoint of my present understanding, I have no choice but to take this risk.

　　II. Looking to the Buddha as the ideal

　　I want to start by making what I think is an extremely important but seldom made observation, namely, that both types of texts — the Nikāyas and Āgamas on the one hand, and the Mahāyāna sūtras on the other — are in a sense looking to the Buddha himself as the ideal. That is, it is not the case that Early Buddhism overlooks the Buddha and instead takes his disciples as the ideal, while Mahāyāna Buddhism comes to the rescue and recovers what the "Hīnayānists" had missed, namely, the inspirational impetus imparted by the Buddha himself. Rather, I want to maintain that followers of both forms of Buddhism — and the authoritative texts from which both forms of Buddhism develop — are looking upon the Buddha as the exemplary figure that a true follower of the Dharma should emulate.

　　The two differ primarily in so far as they view the Buddha from two different perspectives. I”ll use an analogy to illustrate this and then provide a fuller explanation. The Buddha Hall here at our monastery has two entrances situated on either side of the Buddha image. If one looks at the image after entering the hall by the west entrance, the Buddha appears in one way; the angle highlights certain characteristics of the face. If one looks at the image after entering the hall by the east entrance, the Buddha appears in a different way; the angle highlights other characteristics of the face. I see this as a fitting simile for the way the two traditions view the Buddha and his enlightenment. I see both the early suttas of the Nikāyas and Āgamas, and the Mahāyāna sūtras, to be giving us different perspectives on the Buddha and his enlightenment and thus as offering different understandings of what it means to be a true follower of the Buddha.

　　To briefly characterize these perspectives, I would say that the Nikāyas and Āgamas give us a "historical-realistic perspective" on the Buddha, while the Mahāyāna sūtras give us a "cosmic-metaphysical perspective." By using these terms, I”m not intending to use the Nikāyas to trump the Mahāyāna sūtras — though naturally I hold they are more likely to be closer to the Buddha”s own verbal teachings. Rather, I”m just trying to characterize the st…

《Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas》全文未完，請進入下頁繼續閱讀…