Question about Bodhisattvas

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Post Reply
User avatar
Vidyaraja
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:48 am

Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Vidyaraja »

I've always been more attracted to Mahayana, primarily because of Chan/Zen, and, while extraneous, its artistic and aesthetic traditions, as well as a great love for various Mahayana sutras, such as the Avatamsaka, over that of Therevada.

However, one thing I never really "got" was the Bodhisattva ideal, at least in relation to awakening and nirvana. I can understand the idea of having compassion for all sentient beings and a desire to save all sentient beings, and how such an attitude would be conducive to spiritual growth and potential awakening. What I don't understand is the notion of eternal (or close to eternal) return based upon the vow not to "enter nirvana" before all sentient beings are saved. This seems problematic to me for two reasons.

First, from what I understand about metaphysics and spirituality in a general sense, there is no such option as eternal return after enlightenment, as if we have a choice not to enter nirvana. Enlightenment, as I understand it, is the cessation of becoming, and, in many traditions, liberation from what Buddhists would call the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, once one is enlightened, that's it, they are in the "nirvanic state" and after the body is shed, such is the end of the wheel. I don't understand how one can choose to come back perpetually (or near perpetually) in order to save other beings, especially since, in many traditions, a nondual view of reality is intuited with enlightenment.

Secondly, it seems to me that, with the vow of "not entering nirvana before saving all beings", one is almost saying that they will not enter nirvana period, thus nearly negating the whole purpose of the Buddhist path (nirvana.) The reason I say this is because there are so many sentient beings, and so few of them Buddhas, and ignorance so rife and powerful, that it seems it would be countless trillions of years (say like 999 trillion to the 999th trillionth power, 999 trillion times, and then 999 trillion times over again or even more) before all beings could be saved. Perhaps I am overestimating samsara in this regard, but nonetheless it seems it would be such an expansive length of time as to be an eternity before one would ever get to enter nirvana. This is almost, but not quite, like saying "I will stay in samsara forever." Since samsara is suffering according to Buddhism, this is almost akin to saying, "I will suffer forever." While doing that for the sake of all beings certainly is noble, it also seems highly impractical and too much to ask, and not a very happy vision.

So am I understanding these matters correctly, or is it more nuanced than how I am understanding it? Is taking the eternal return to save all beings vow literally required, or can it be viewed as an inner attitude or mode of will conducive to enlightenment?
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Wayfarer »

Well, that is a very big question, and no doubt many more learned than I will respond, but I don't think it is true that for the Bodhisattva, 'nirvana' equals 'extinction' in the sense of 'the end of being'.

Note this statement from H. H. The Dalai Lama:
There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence. On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer.
Source

So, generally, one is either under compulsion to exist, out of craving, or one might be re-born voluntarily, out of compassion. It's quite a profound idea, really.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Adi
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Adi »

I think it is a big question. The best help I got from a book was to read, many times, Shantideva's The Way of the Bodhisattva. (Revised Edition, Padmakara Translation Group, Shambala Publications. 2006. ISBN 978-1-59030-614-7)

Reading and contemplating, reading and contemplating…and one day it started to make more sense.

Adi
JamyangTashi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by JamyangTashi »

jeeprs wrote: So, generally, one is either under compulsion to exist, out of craving, or one might be re-born voluntarily, out of compassion. It's quite a profound idea, really.
Does this mean that the Buddha Gotama ended his cycle of rebirth because he lacked compassion?
Or does this mean that the Buddha Gotama did not actually end the cycle of rebirth?
Or did he end his cycle of rebirth because he fulfilled the vow to save all beings, in which case what's left for other bodhisattvas to do?
Last edited by JamyangTashi on Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Wayfarer »

This is one of the areas where there is a big difference between Mahayana and Theravada. In Mahayana, there is the teaching of the Tri-Kaya, the 'three bodies' - the Dharmakāya or Truth body; the Sambhogakāya or 'body of mutual enjoyment' which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation; and the Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space. And also in Vajrayana, there are ideas such as 'Adi-Buddha', the 'primordial Buddha', of whom the Buddhas are manifestations or emanations.

But these are very deep and profound questions.

On a practical level, I understand it like this: the point of the Bodhisattva way is to live from compassion or from Bodhicitta- in other words, bodhicitta becomes your motivation and guide in life, rather than craving. If you do that, you are in effect not living out of a sense of compulsion or 'being driven' any more. That is the sense in which it is liberating.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
JamyangTashi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by JamyangTashi »

jeeprs wrote: On a practical level, I understand it like this: the point of the Bodhisattva way is to live from compassion or from Bodhicitta- in other words, bodhicitta becomes your motivation and guide in life, rather than craving. If you do that, you are in effect not living out of a sense of compulsion or 'being driven' any more. That is the sense in which it is liberating.
On a practical level this makes complete sense and is clearly beneficial. But this practical understanding seems to render the vow to save all beings as a hyperbolic expression of an attitude to be cultivated, rather than a literally true vow. Is that a proper understanding of the vow?
Vajraprajnakhadga
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:16 pm

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Vajraprajnakhadga »

A buddha does not cease to exist as an individuated being or lose the capacity to interact with phenomenal reality. Also within Vajrayana bodhisattvas are seen as fully enlightened buddhas.
Vajraprajnakhadga
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:16 pm

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Vajraprajnakhadga »

JamyangTashi wrote:
jeeprs wrote: On a practical level, I understand it like this: the point of the Bodhisattva way is to live from compassion or from Bodhicitta- in other words, bodhicitta becomes your motivation and guide in life, rather than craving. If you do that, you are in effect not living out of a sense of compulsion or 'being driven' any more. That is the sense in which it is liberating.
On a practical level this makes complete sense and is clearly beneficial. But this practical understanding seems to render the vow to save all beings as a hyperbolic expression of an attitude to be cultivated, rather than a literally true vow. Is that a proper understanding of the vow?
It should be seen from the perspective of skillful means of the Karma family: all accomplishing activity. That is activity that is always successful due enlightened intention regardless of the apparent result.
AlexanderS
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:58 am

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by AlexanderS »

JamyangTashi wrote:
jeeprs wrote: So, generally, one is either under compulsion to exist, out of craving, or one might be re-born voluntarily, out of compassion. It's quite a profound idea, really.
Does this mean that the Buddha Gotama ended his cycle of rebirth because he lacked compassion?
Or does this mean that the Buddha Gotama did not actually end the cycle of rebirth?
Or did he end his cycle of rebirth because he fulfilled the vow to save all beings, in which case what's left for other bodhisattvas to do?
I believe that according to the mahayana teachings Buddha Gautama had already achieved full enlightment many eons ago but appeared in this world as a part of a universal doctrine where an enlightened being appears in the world from a miracleus birth in a family of nobility and "pretends" to be unenlightended and then goes on a path on renunciation until they achieve full enlightment and then progress to turn the wheel of dharma.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Astus »

Nirvana as annihilation is a misunderstanding. A bodhisattva realises on the very first stage that there is no difference between samsara and nirvana, so there is no attachment and no suffering. A bodhisattva liberates beings without the grasping of the idea of liberating beings.

As for the Zen view, even Shenxiu taught that the six realms are the six senses, and liberating beings is not clinging to the six types of impressions. So, if you want to liberate all beings, see that the nature of all experience is unattainable, that there is nothing to rely on or hold on to, as it's all constantly changing.

By the way, if bodhisattvas had delayed complete enlightenment until samsara was emptied of beings, there would have been no buddhas at all.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Kaccāni »

Very good question.

Once you see a couple of things can happen.
You're basically free. You can do whatever you want, and nothing will be able to stick to you.
It will blow through you like a wind. There will simply be no attachment, and the next will come.

But something will happen. There will not be nothing. Being goes on. And if you don't decide to leave the body, you will live on in it.
Somebody asked Mooji "So I'm sitting here in all peace for all the time, but what to do now?"
He laughed at him and told him: "You're free! You can do whatever comes to you!"

I personally don't believe in vows. Either you do something, or you don't.
Vows are about the future. Being is about now. Vows are thoughtwork which may be able to guide you for a while, but finally won't help you fall into the pond of nothingness.

So what will you do once you've come at rest? It can't be predicted. Whatever occurs to you. But what one can say is that love and compassion are highly likely to play a role in it. Its the one thing that stays which you can really do without bringing harm to other beings or to contribute to their illusion.

Best wishes
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
JamyangTashi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by JamyangTashi »

AlexanderS wrote: I believe that according to the mahayana teachings Buddha Gautama had already achieved full enlightment many eons ago but appeared in this world as a part of a universal doctrine where an enlightened being appears in the world from a miracleus birth in a family of nobility and "pretends" to be unenlightended and then goes on a path on renunciation until they achieve full enlightment and then progress to turn the wheel of dharma.
So a fully enlightened Buddha continues to experience birth in our sensual realm out of compassion to turn the wheel of Dharma. Do Arhats continue to experience birth like this as well, allowing them to continue to perfect their paramitas until they become fully enlightened Buddhas?
Vajraprajnakhadga
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:16 pm

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Vajraprajnakhadga »

JamyangTashi wrote:
AlexanderS wrote: I believe that according to the mahayana teachings Buddha Gautama had already achieved full enlightment many eons ago but appeared in this world as a part of a universal doctrine where an enlightened being appears in the world from a miracleus birth in a family of nobility and "pretends" to be unenlightended and then goes on a path on renunciation until they achieve full enlightment and then progress to turn the wheel of dharma.
So a fully enlightened Buddha continues to experience birth in our sensual realm out of compassion to turn the wheel of Dharma. Do Arhats continue to experience birth like this as well, allowing them to continue to perfect their paramitas until they become fully enlightened Buddhas?
There is absolutely no way to understand such things conceptually.
JamyangTashi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by JamyangTashi »

Vajraprajnakhadga wrote: There is absolutely no way to understand such things conceptually.
Then is it misguided to try to conceptually distinguish between a bodhisattva, a Buddha, and an Arhat? Or is there some way other than through concepts of compassion and rebirth to form such distinctions?
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Wayfarer »

JamyangTashi wrote:So a fully enlightened Buddha continues to experience birth in our sensual realm out of compassion to turn the wheel of Dharma. Do Arhats continue to experience birth like this as well, allowing them to continue to perfect their paramitas until they become fully enlightened Buddhas?
The notion that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are born into the human realm to benefit all beings is particular to Mahayana. The Theravada don't accept that idea, generally. It is one of the main distinctions.
Then is it misguided to try to conceptually distinguish between a bodhisattva, a Buddha, and an Arhat?
The ideas can be distinguished in the sense that a textbook of Buddhist studies could describe. Actually the idea of 'bodhisattva' was always present in the teachings (the Pali is Bodhisatta) but the pre-eminence given to the role of the Bodhisattva, is associated with the Mahayana in particular.

But it should always be recalled, that the nature of the Buddha's enlightenment is beyond conceptual thinking. That doesn't mean just shrugging it off, as one of the goals of the Buddhist spiritual life is to form a better understanding of that question, but it is something deeper than simply conceptual or discursive thought can grasp.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
JamyangTashi
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:01 am

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by JamyangTashi »

jeeprs wrote: On a practical level, I understand it like this: the point of the Bodhisattva way is to live from compassion or from Bodhicitta- in other words, bodhicitta becomes your motivation and guide in life, rather than craving. If you do that, you are in effect not living out of a sense of compulsion or 'being driven' any more. That is the sense in which it is liberating.
jeeprs wrote: The notion that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are born into the human realm to benefit all beings is particular to Mahayana. The Theravada don't accept that idea, generally. It is one of the main distinctions.
These points seem to clarify things a bit. So the bodhisattva vow to delay enlightenment until all beings are saved is a matter of forming an intention or aspiration to help other beings and not to be taken literally. Additionally, Mahayana holds that a Buddha continues to be born into the human realm even after enlightenment.

This also seems to be supported from the Wikipedia page on Bodhisattva
There are a variety of different conceptions of the nature of a bodhisattva in Mahāyāna. According to some Mahāyāna sources a bodhisattva is someone on the path to full Buddhahood. Others speak of bodhisattvas renouncing Buddhahood. According to the Kun-bzang bla-ma'i zhal-lung, a bodhisattva can choose any of three paths to help sentient beings in the process of achieving buddhahood. They are:

king-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to become buddha as soon as possible and then help sentient beings in full fledge;
boatman-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to achieve buddhahood along with other sentient beings and
shepherd-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteśvara and Śāntideva are believed to fall in this category.

According to the doctrine of some Tibetan schools (like Theravāda but for different reasons), only the first of these is recognized. It is held that Buddhas remain in the world, able to help others, so there is no point in delay. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso notes:

In reality, the second two types of bodhicitta are wishes that are impossible to fulfill because it is only possible to lead others to enlightenment once we have attained enlightenment ourself. Therefore, only king-like bodhicitta is actual bodhicitta. Je Tsongkhapa says that although the other Bodhisattvas wish for that which is impossible, their attitude is sublime and unmistaken.
This also seems to suggest that if a Buddha remains in the world able to help others, then an Arhat would similarly be able to continue to improve their perfections to become a Buddha to help others as well. So it seems then that the difference would simply be a matter of the order of development of the various aspects of Buddhahood. Is this a proper understanding?
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Wayfarer »

Well, I think it is (//edit// but I don't think that a Theravadin would agree//edit//.)

I am not so sure about the idea that the bodhisattva 'puts off' or 'postpones' enlightenment. Even though in some ways, enlightenment is the 'ultimate destination', it is also in some sense 'right here and now'. I suppose this view is one of the consequences of the non-difference of samsara and Nirvana. So the bodhisattva locates Nirvana in the world, rather than leaving one for the other. It is not as if s/he has postponed it, but that s/he is concerned with, and awakened to, the suffering of the world, and so is not concerned with his/her own ultimate release. (As your quote above notes, it is only bodhicitta which makes that possible.)

That is why in the early period, the Mahayana was regarded with suspicion by those of more traditional attitude - because in the 'old wisdom' schools (Conze's term), the division between Samsara and Nibbana, and also between the enlightened and worldly persons, was basically absolute. Among other things, Mahayana tended to blur that distinction, by denying any ultimate difference between nirvana and samsara, and also by down-playing the exclusivity of the monastic role. So Mahayana was, and is, quite a radical philosophy.

This is explained well in Conze's Buddhism: Its Essence and Development.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Kaccāni »

Hello together,

who says that after "enlightenment" there is no option to act?
Why would somebody have to "delay" enlightenment to help others?
That would imply that after enlightenment there would be no possiblity of helping anybody anymore.

When I'm reading this I get the impression that enlightenment is something that stops and immobilizes any options, and options are only to be discussed before, that goes along with physical death of the body/mind.

I reject that notion. Options, emergence are the very nature of this universe.

But it seems to me that any vow only has validity within an awareness that is trapped in the mind. Because once awareness is free, anything which is born from the mind no longer has power over awareness. So also vows lose their power. Motivation works differently then, because there is no need for motives. Actions just come out and happen.

Regards
Gwenn
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by seeker242 »

If you really want to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing, try the diamond sutra. :jumping:
Diamond Sutra
Chapter 3.

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."
Diamond Sutra
Chapter 25.

"Subhuti, do not say that the Buddha has the idea, 'I will lead all sentient beings to Nirvana.' Do not think that way, Subhuti. Why? In truth there is not one single being for the Buddha to lead to Enlightenment. If the Buddha were to think there was, he would be caught in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. Subhuti, what the Buddha calls a self essentially has no self in the way that ordinary persons think there is a self. Subhuti, the Buddha does not regard anyone as an ordinary person. That is why he can speak of them as ordinary persons."
Hmm, I can't help but think this is somehow related to the whole "saving all beings" question!
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Question about Bodhisattvas

Post by Kaccāni »

:twothumbsup:
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”