Arhantcy v Bodhisattvahood

Without a specific lineage to follow, many Western practitioners have to make their own choice based on the factor of which aspects they develop first. There is no expected convention leading one to either path, but one has to establish which path one will take individually. In countries where Buddhism is the established religion, one generally takes the choice of the country.

If the path toward becoming an Arhat is to see emptiness directly, and then to climb into this experience and develop it by gradually shedding the 'I want's, 'I don’t want's and multiple 'me-mind' made kilesas, it would seem a far easier path than that of the Bodhisattva. The latter needing to not only do the above, but additionally aim to live continuously among troubled beings, retain an enormous quantity of specific vows, and to develop much stronger levels of karuna and metta.

The key seems to be the amount of compassion one obtains. Once one establishes a certain degree of compassion, one is surrounded by the desire to use this in order to help all beings. It is not a me-mind created desire, but a naturally arising desire that becomes evident as layers of me-mindedness are shed in the presence of compassion. This seems to be why several lineages emphasize the importance of growing compassion as an initial step.

At a certain point of development, the compassion is experienced not as a wish to have it, but as an actuality. At this point, when it naturally arises rather than is wished for and created, the path of the Bodhisattva becomes the preferred option. However, if other factors are worked with and compassion is only considered lightly, the path of the Arhat may become the stronger choice. For example, if one focuses on aspects such as ridding the mind of kilesas or seeking enlightenment, these factors can grow towards a personal saving without leading to sufficient amounts of compassion to establish the desire to assist others to also take the path to freedom.