Arahanism vs. Buddhism
From Renunciant Liberation to Awakening
Two Spiritual Goals
To Become an Arahant OR a Buddha
A Historic Declaration for the Restoration of the Liberation Path
The clarification of Arahanism presented in this book is intended to mark a significant moment in the continuing history of humanity’s search for spiritual liberation. It is not merely the declaration of another religious identity or the establishment of another school of thought. It is a call to reconsider a fundamental question that deserves to stand at the centre of spiritual life: What is the ultimate purpose of Gautama’s teaching, and what path leads to complete liberation from worldly bondage?
Arahanism identifies Arahantship, complete worldly renunciation, and the eradication of rāga, dosa, and moha as the central purpose of Gautama’s liberation path. It maintains that spiritual practice must extend beyond the cultivation of virtue, the development of elevated states of consciousness, or the pursuit of spiritual ideals within the world. Its ultimate objective is complete liberation from worldly bondage.
This declaration also calls for a renewed examination of the historical development of Gautama’s teaching. Across the centuries, different religious ideals, scriptural traditions, and interpretations of awakening (Buddhahood) have shaped what it means to follow his path. Arahanism questions whether these developments have obscured the original centrality of renunciation and Arahantship, particularly as the aspiration to Buddhahood and the Bodhisattva ideal assumed greater prominence in many Buddhist traditions. Through a historical and doctrinal inquiry, it seeks to reopen the question of how the liberation-centred teaching of Gautama came to be understood in such different ways.
At the heart of this inquiry lies a fundamental question concerning the nature of the human being: Does complete liberation require the denial of the Soul, or does the prevailing interpretation of anattā require renewed examination? Arahanism maintains that the human being possesses a true spiritual essence, which it identifies with attā or Ātman—the Soul. It challenges the categorical denial of the Soul found in prevailing interpretations of Gautama’s teaching and argues that the rejection of the five aggregates as a permanent self does not, by itself, establish the nonexistence of the Soul. This position calls for careful examination of the early texts, the meaning of their terminology, and the philosophical assumptions through which they have been interpreted.
These questions are inseparable from the purpose of renunciation. If the nature of the human being and the meaning of liberation are misunderstood, the direction of spiritual practice may also be misunderstood. Arahanism therefore seeks to restore the systematic path of Sīla, Samādhi, Paññā, Nibbidā, Virāga, and Vimutti to the centre of religious life, guiding practitioners towards the complete eradication of worldly craving and attachment, fear and hatred, ignorance and delusion.
The significance of this declaration lies in its invitation to examine inherited assumptions rather than accept them automatically. It calls upon monks, nuns, Buddhist practitioners, and all sincere seekers of truth to reconsider the relationship between renunciation, Arahantship, attā, anattā, and the ultimate purpose of Gautama’s teaching. Its intention is not simply to establish a different religious identity, but to renew the inquiry into what complete liberation from worldly bondage means and how it may be realized.
Whether this declaration will come to be recognized as a historic turning point cannot be determined by the declaration itself. Its significance must ultimately be measured by what it enables people to understand, practise, and realize. Yet its aspiration is clear: to reopen a path that Arahanism understands as the essential purpose of Gautama’s teaching, challenge interpretations it believes have obscured that path, and make the pursuit of complete liberation from worldly bondage intelligible to future generations.
If this effort enables even one person to question inherited assumptions, investigate the truth sincerely, undertake the discipline of renunciation, and pursue Arahantship with unwavering determination, its significance will extend beyond the written word. It will have become a living contribution to humanity’s continuing search for liberation.
Arahanism — The Liberation Path of Gautama, the Supreme Arahant.
1. Two Ages, Two Spiritual Goals: Arahantship and Buddhahood
Arahanism begins with a fundamental question: What was the original goal of Gautama’s religious teaching? Was it to become an Arahant or a Buddha? Was it to train renunciants to become Arahants through complete liberation from worldly bondage, or was it to inspire lay people or Bodhisattva to become Buddhas by following the example of Gautama’s supposed previous lives?
For Arahanism, this is not a minor distinction within Buddhism. It represents two different spiritual orientations, two understandings of religious practice, and two conceptions of the ultimate goal.
The Age of Arahanism represents the renunciant orientation of Gautama’s original liberation teaching and his true Dhamma. Its central objective is Arahantship: the complete purification of citta from worldly bondage termed as rāga, dosa, and moha, and liberation from the world into Nibbāna-dhātu, the Deathless realm beyond the universe. Renunciation is central because the practitioner is not merely seeking to become a better person within the world, but to bring worldly bondage to an end.
The Age of Buddhism, as Arahanism understands this historical transformation, represents the growing prominence of Buddhahood and the Bodhisattva ideal as spiritual aspirations. The religious imagination turned increasingly toward the extraordinary figure of Gautama becoming a Buddha through an immense accumulation of wholesome deeds and merit across countless lives. The central question shifted from how one can follow the renunciant path to complete liberation from the world to how one can cultivate merit or wholesome qualities to attain Buddhahood in a remote future life, while in this very lifetime simply remaining a Lay Person and accumulating merit.
Arahanism identifies this change of spiritual ideal as a paradigm shift: from Arahantship to Buddhahood, from renunciant liberation to a broader ideal of awakening, and from the direct pursuit of liberation from worldly bondage towards the accumulation of merit and the cultivation of exemplary virtues within the worldly life.
2. The Fictional Jātaka Stories and the Changing Religious Imagination
To understand how this transformation may have taken place, Arahanism directs attention to the Jātaka stories, the traditional narratives concerning Gautama’s supposed previous births.
The Jātakas have been invented to serve an important moral and educational purpose. Through stories of generosity, patience, truthfulness, compassion, self-sacrifice, and perseverance, they offer memorable examples of wholesome conduct. Their narrative form makes ethical teachings accessible to ordinary people who may not be prepared to undertake the demanding discipline of renunciation.
Yet from the perspective of Arahanism, an important distinction must be made between a story that teaches moral values and a historical account that establishes the actual stages of Gautama’s spiritual development. Many Jātaka narratives are best approached as didactic religious literature rather than as independently verified biographies of Gautama’s previous lives. Their value as moral instruction does not, by itself, establish the historical truth of every event they describe.
The difficulty arises when these narratives cease to function primarily as moral instruction and begin to shape the central understanding of the religious path itself. The stories of Gautama’s supposed previous lives can become a model for religious aspiration: practitioners are encouraged to imitate the generosity, sacrifices, and wholesome deeds attributed to him, accumulating merit in the hope of advancing towards a future spiritual attainment.
In this development, the religious emphasis can move away from the question, How do I end my bondage to the world? towards a different question: How do I accumulate merit and cultivate the qualities that may lead towards Buddhahood?
This distinction is especially significant for lay followers. A person who cannot or does not undertake full renunciation can still participate in generosity, moral conduct, devotional practices, and the accumulation of merit. Such activities can provide a meaningful religious life without requiring the practitioner to organize the whole of existence around the renunciant pursuit of Arahantship. The Jātaka stories consequently offer a powerful moral framework through which laypeople can understand their religious participation.
The concern raised by Arahanism is not that generosity, compassion, or moral conduct are without value. They are important qualities. The concern is that merit accumulation can become a substitute for liberation when wholesome deeds are treated as the central religious objective rather than as supports for the path leading to the complete ending of worldly bondage termed as rāga, dosa, and moha.
A person may become generous, respected, compassionate, and morally accomplished while remaining bound to worldly existence. The cultivation of good qualities of a worldly oriented citta and the attainment of complete liberation of the citta from the world are therefore not identical. For Arahanism, the decisive question is whether a practice contributes to the progressive withdrawal of citta from worldly attachment and ultimately to Vimutti.
3. From the Jātaka Ideal to the Bodhisattva Ideal
Arahanism sees this change in religious imagination as an important part of the broader historical transformation through which the ideal of Buddhahood became increasingly prominent in Buddhist traditions.
The Jātaka narratives and the Bodhisattva ideal are seemingly not identical, and the historical emergence of Mahāyāna maybe cannot be reduced to a single cause. Nevertheless, Arahanism identifies a significant conceptual continuity between celebrating Gautama’s supposed previous-life deeds and making the Bodhisattva’s long cultivation of virtues and accumulation of merit a central model for religious aspiration.
Under this orientation, Gautama is understood not as the Supreme Arahant who became an renunciant and attained liberation from worldly bondage and then taught others the path to liberation, but as the exceptional Bodhisattva who pursued Buddhahood, awakening under the bodhi tree, through an immense course of previous lives. His supposed previous-life conduct becomes a model that practitioners may admire, emulate, or aspire to reproduce according to their own spiritual commitments.
Over time, the ideal of becoming a Buddha through the Bodhisattva path gained a central place in Mahāyāna traditions. In Arahanism’s interpretation, this development represents a decisive reorientation of the religious goal. Arahantship, which Arahanism regards as the culmination of Gautama’s renunciant liberation teaching, is no longer necessarily treated as the highest spiritual aspiration. Instead, Buddhahood becomes the supreme ideal, and the Bodhisattva path provides the framework for pursuing it.
The significance of this transformation extends beyond terminology. If Buddhahood becomes the governing ideal, the meaning of spiritual practice changes accordingly. The cultivation of virtues across lifetimes, the accumulation of merit, the aspiration to Buddhahood, and the Bodhisattva’s commitment to the welfare of beings can take precedence over the exclusive renunciant pursuit of Arahantship.
For Arahanism, this is the crucial point: the paradigm shift is not simply from one title to another, but from one understanding of the purpose of religious life to another. The Arahant’s path centres on the ending of worldly bondage in a single life time by a few years’ rigorous yogic practice. The Bodhisattva ideal centres on the long course of numerous lifetimes towards Buddhahood. Although both traditions may value morality, meditation, compassion, and wisdom, they organize these qualities around different ultimate aspirations.
4. From Liberation from Worldly Bondage to Worldly Awakening to Reduce Suffering
The difference between liberation from worldly bondage and worldly awakening to reduce sufferings in life, must therefore be examined carefully.
In Arahanism’s understanding, Arahantship means the complete ending of the defilements that bind citta to worldly existence. It is not simply an elevated state of consciousness, a profound insight, an experience of unity, or an improvement in one’s emotional condition. It is the culmination of the renunciant path and the attainment of complete liberation from worldly bondage.
The concept of Buddhahood, as understood across Buddhist traditions, has a different range of meanings. It commonly refers to the supreme awakening of a Buddha, who discovers the truth but chose to stay in the world to help others. In Mahāyāna, the Bodhisattva ideal places particular emphasis on pursuing Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. Arahanism’s criticism concerns the historical truthfulness and doctrinal development in which this ideal becomes the governing objective and the renunciant pursuit of Arahantship is displaced from its central position.
This is why the distinction matters to contemporary practitioners. If the goal is understood primarily as awakening, the cultivation of insight, compassion, wisdom, and beneficial activity may be regarded as sufficient expressions of spiritual progress, even where complete renunciation is not undertaken. If the goal is Arahantship, however, the practitioner must confront a more demanding question: whether worldly attachment is actually being brought to an end.
Arahanism does not deny the value of wholesome conduct or the importance of helping others. It questions whether these activities, by themselves, fulfil the purpose of Gautama’s liberation teaching. Generosity may accumulate merit; compassion may benefit others; meditation may produce concentration and insight. But the central test remains whether rāga, dosa, and moha are completely eradicated and worldly bondage is brought to an end.
The difference is between cultivating goodness within worldly existence and completing the path that liberates one from worldly bondage.
5. How a Paradigm Becomes an Inherited Assumption
A historical transformation does not need to be consciously chosen by every individual for its influence to endure, but unconsciously influenced by forces unimaginable by humans. Once a religious ideal becomes dominant, it shapes institutions, devotional practices, educational materials, public expectations, and the language through which people understand spiritual progress.
Many contemporary Buddhists inherit their understanding of Buddhism from the traditions in which they were raised or trained. They may assume that the Bodhisattva ideal, the accumulation of merit, lay religious participation, and the pursuit of Buddhahood have always occupied their present position within Buddhism. They may never have been asked to examine whether these priorities represent the same spiritual orientation as the renunciant pursuit of Arahantship.
Arahanism invites practitioners to reconsider these inherited assumptions. It asks whether the familiar religious ideal is necessarily identical to the original purpose of Gautama’s teaching, and whether the distinction between Arahantship and Buddhahood has been adequately examined.
This inquiry is not an argument against generosity, ethical conduct, or compassion. It is an invitation to reconsider the hierarchy of spiritual objectives. Are these qualities being cultivated as foundations for complete liberation from worldly bondage, or have they become ends in themselves? Is renunciation understood as indispensable to the final goal, or as one religious option among many? Is the practitioner seeking to end worldly bondage, or aspiring towards a different conception of awakening?
For Arahanism, these are questions of fundamental importance because the goal determines the path. A practitioner cannot properly evaluate a religious discipline without first understanding what that discipline is intended to accomplish.
6. Arahanism as a Return to the Liberation Path
Arahanism presents itself as a return to the renunciant orientation that it understands as central to Gautama’s original liberation teaching, and his true Dhamma. It calls for the restoration of Arahantship as the supreme objective of religious training, the recovery of renunciation as a defining commitment, and the purification of citta from worldly bondage through Sīla, Samādhi, Paññā, Nibbidā, Virāga, and Vimutti.
This return requires more than adopting a new name. It requires examining the assumptions that govern religious life, distinguishing moral improvement from complete liberation, and restoring the question of worldly bondage to the centre of spiritual practice.
The challenge is considerable. The dominant religious paradigm has been transmitted through centuries of tradition, devotion, education, and institutional life. People naturally tend to understand a religion through the categories they have inherited. A different paradigm may initially seem unfamiliar or even contradictory to what they have always been taught.
Yet this is precisely why the distinction must be made explicit. Arahanism asks practitioners to examine their spiritual destination before deciding which path to follow. It asks them to distinguish the accumulation of merit from the eradication of defilements, the cultivation of wholesome qualities from complete liberation from worldly bondage, and the aspiration to Buddhahood from the pursuit of Arahantship.
This question is also relevant to people in Canada and elsewhere who do not identify as Buddhists. They need not begin by accepting a religious label or inheriting the assumptions of an established tradition. They can begin with the fundamental question of what they seek from spiritual life: a more virtuous life within the world, an awakening understood according to a particular Buddhist tradition, or complete liberation from worldly bondage through the renunciant path.
Arahanism offers its answer through the teaching of Gautama, the Supreme Arahant. Its purpose is to restore the Liberation Path as a living discipline and to train practitioners who seek the Deathless through the complete purification of citta.
The question that stands before every sincere seeker is therefore direct:
Is your goal to become a Buddha, or to become an Arahant?
Arahanism calls for this question to be examined without prejudice, inherited assumptions, or confusion between different spiritual objectives. It seeks to renew the Age of Arahanism—not by denying the historical existence or religious significance of the diverse Buddhist traditions, but by restoring Arahantship and complete liberation to the centre of its own religious mission.