SuttaCentral
Yes of course it is. Here’s an interesting article: Bodhisattva in Buddhism
You might know that no one has accurately identified 84,000 dhamma paths - no one has been able to learn them or accurately teach them to someone else. It seems learning the 37 factors of enlightenment (bodhipakkiya dhamma) is a worthy challenge for one lifetime. This is what the Buddha used extensively to teach his disciples with emphasis on the Noble Eightfold Path.
With metta
Mahayana Buddhists usually interpret the 84,000 paths to enlightenment as referring to the various sects and schools of Buddhism as legitimate Buddhist paths, including Theravada.
Why can’t you attain it now in this world?
That’s a good question. As a householder with a wife and children, rather than a monk, it’s just not feasible or practical that I will attain Buddhahood in this current lifetime.
So there are lot of Mahayana monks why cant attain Nibbna in this life itself?
Do Mahayana monk have wives and children?
What I meant is that it’s much easier to attain Buddhahood if you are a monk, which is one reason why the historical Buddhahood left his wife and children. Most Mahayana monks are celibate, but they have the option of getting married in Japan.
Why un married monks can’t attain Nibbana in this life?
What I meant is that, for unmarried monks, who aren’t involved with the demands of a wife and children and a secular job, it’s much easier to attain Buddhahood.
Pure Land Buddhism is the most popular school of Buddhism in East Asia, because it offers a path to Buddhahood for lay people.
So none of Mahayana followers can attain Nibbana in this life?
Even in the Pali scriptures and early Theravada literature, there is a distinction made between the enlightenment of an Arahant and the enlightenment of a Buddha.
Mahayana Buddhism is based on the ideal that one should seek full Buddhahood, in order to then lead all other beings to Buddhahood, rather than merely seeking the personal enlightenment of an Arahant.
That is fine then why can’t you become a Buddha in this life?
As a householder with a wife and children, it’s just not feasible or practical that I will attain Buddhahood in this current lifetime. The Buddha himself left his wife and children before attaining Buddhahood.
So what about the unmarried Mahayana monks?
As I said, it’s easier for them to attain Buddhahood, since they are not as tied down to worldly things as a householder is required to be.
Good, can they do it in this life?
I believe so, though Theravadins might disagree.
Can’t you support this with your scriptures?
Interesting, indeed. Thanks. You’ve prompted me to finally dip my toes into Ven. Analayo’s The Genesis of the Bodhisattva Ideal (summarized in Gombrich’s review).
Bhikkhu Cintita wrote an essay where he presents the notion of Adept Buddhism vs Folk Buddhism:
The content of Adept Buddhism tends to be relatively orthodox in that it is not nearly so subject to innovation and to culture-specific understandings, trends or fads as Folk Buddhism. This means also that Adept Buddhists are very likely to share most of their understandings and practices with the Adept Buddhists of other lands, cultures and traditions, and so to possess what is most universal about Buddhism. However Adept Buddhism itself is also over time shaped by the local culture as its adepts sometimes appropriate in a deliberate manner expressions of that culture into their adept understanding or practice
Folk Buddhism is a wilder, less domesticated and more popular understanding of Buddhism than Adapt Buddhism that manifests in a particular social, cultural or regional context. Accordingly malleability is a prominent property of Folk Buddhism. Folk Buddhism includes many elements found also in Adept Buddhism but also a hefty admixture of folk beliefs, highly devotional practices, elements of non-Buddhist religious, ethical and philosophical traditions, many colorful elements from myth or popular entertainment, and many false understandings of Buddhist teachings.
Any random sampling of Buddhists is going to largely be folk buddhists as this group makes up the majority of buddhists within any given culture. And within such a group you will find the dominant belief systems of that culture heavily represented. In the west I think scientific materialism and Christianity would be common. I think this is what the Pew survey has discovered.
As I’ve explained, the actual survey question asked if they believed in God or a universal spirit, which are two different things.
Mahayana concepts such as Buddha-nature, Dharmakaya, etc., can be described as a “universal spirit,” though not a theistic god.