One Dharma

I was wondering if One Dharma would resolve the arhant v. bodhisattva debate, which of course I realized is no problem. The Buddha was in 2 sanghas and had an independent group of 5 that he lead, in which he practiced and lead before he was enlightened. When he was enlightened he taught the first 60 arhants, and told them to disperse, no two going in the same direction. So you can be in a sangha and even lead a little group, even if you're not enlightened, but once you get more experience of enlightenment, you need to pass on what you have learned. I suppose it's a question of when. The Bodhisattva ideal says start before you are enlightened, and the arhant says just go for your own enlightenment. If that's selfish, I guess we could use more of that kind of selfishness in our world.

The next question I have is if mappo presents a problem for one dharma. Mappo is the idea that we have degenerated so much, that nobody can get enlightened any more, so you have to chant a mantra and hope to be born in a pure land. Goldsetin says it's an error to thin nobody is enlightened, or that you can't become enlightened. So how does he resolve the motivation for pure land Buddhism. Is it not Buddhism, or are there more than one Buddha Dharma.

There were interesting notes about his practice. Even though he was taught in the Vapassana tradition at the beginning ( Anagarika Sri Munindra,[12] Sri S.N. Goenka,[12] Mrs. Nani Bala Barua (Dipa Ma) and the Venerable Sayadaw U Pandita.[12] Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche,[12] Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche), he does Tibettan meditation to start his morning. He touts the Bodhisattva Ideal. Lets see where he goes with Pure Land, which I think is part of the one dharma. Put another way, Goldstein sees all the traditions as contributing to one dharma (so far, p 118).