The Bodhisattva Ideal in Mahayana Buddhism

[Santi253]

Only those who want to wait for everyone else to get to nirvana first before they enter (thus creating a never-ending queue where nobody dares enter) is any good according to lotus sutra

In the Lotus Sutra itself, the dragon king's daughter attained enlightenment in an instant, so what you are saying about the Lotus Sutra cannot be true.

The common misconception is that a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened. If sentient beings are infinite, then the Bodhisattva would never attain enlightenment, thus abrogating the original intent of Buddhism.

Instead, the Bodhisattva vows to attain enlightenment as quickly as possible to lead all other beings to enlightenment, since you can’t give what you don’t have.

This clearer understanding of the Bodhisattva makes more sense of the word’s original meaning:

Bodhisattva (n.) from Sanskrit, literally “one whose essence is perfect knowledge,” from bodhi “perfect knowledge” (see Buddha) + sattva “reality, being.”
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=Bo ... in_frame=0

The word Bodhisattva originally meant “an enlightenment being” or “an enlightened being,” not a being who’s renounced the pursuit of enlightenment.

What the Bodhisattva renounces is the goal of enlightenment as an escape from the world, rather than as a way to being more fully engaged in the world’s well-being. If all things are interconnected, as the doctrine of dependent origination teaches, then the enlightenment of one is the enlightenment of all.

The Bodhisattva ideal is based on the historical Buddha’s decision to teach others the Dharma, out of compassion for the world’s suffering and delusion, after originally desiring to live as a hermit:

Moved by Brahma’s passionate plea, the Buddha surveyed the world with his spiritual eye and saw that there were indeed people of different predilections – ‘some with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties … easy to teach and hard to teach.’ His deep compassion (karuna) stirred by this vision, the Buddha resolved to remain in the world and accept Brahma’s request to teach the dhamma to all.
http://www.buddhanet.net/skilful-means.htm

It's celestial Bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara who choose to postpone their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened, and the Mahayana sutras are specific in making this distinction:

The Buddha said to Ananda, "All the bodhisattvas in the land of Amitayus will ultimately attain the Stage of Becoming a Buddha After One More Life. Excepted are those who have made original vows for the sake of sentient beings, resolving to cultivate the merit of realizing their great vows to save all sentient beings. Ananda, each shravaka in the Buddha-land of Amitayus emits light for one fathom around his body. The light of a bodhisattva shines a hundred yojanas. There are two bodhisattvas who are the most dignified; their majestic light shines everywhere in the universe of a thousand million worlds."

Ananda asked, "What are the names of those two bodhisattvas?"

The Buddha replied, "One is called Avalokiteshvara and the other, Mahasthamaprapta. They had both performed Bodhisattva practices in this world, and, at the end of their lives, were born by transformation in that Buddha-land. Ananda, the sentient beings born there all fully possess the thirty-two physical characteristics of a Great Man as well as perfect wisdom, with which they penetrate deeply into the nature of all dharmas and reach their subtle essence. Their supernatural powers know no obstruction, and their physical senses are sharp and clear. The bodhisattvas of lesser capacities attain two insights. Those with superior capacities attain innumerable [merits by the] insights into the non-arising of all dharmas. Those bodhisattvas will not be subject to rebirth in evil realms before they become Buddhas. Excepted are those who seek birth in the worlds of other quarters during the turbulent period of the five defilements, manifesting their forms in the likeness of the beings there, as in this world. They can freely exercise supernatural powers and always remember their past lives."
http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/larger.html

[davidbrainerd]

The common misconception is that a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened.

The common misconception I seem to keep encountering in both Theravada and Mahayana is that what the text literally says is a misconception.

If the text says a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened, Mahayanist says that's a misconception. If the text says you are neither any 1 of the 5 aggregates by itself nor the aggregation of all 5 aggregates, Theravanist says that's a misconception and you are simply the aggregation of all 5 aggregates. Its starting to get old.

[Santi253]

The common misconception is that a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened.

The common misconception I seem to keep encountering in both Theravada and Mahayana is that what the text literally says is a misconception.

If the text says a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened, Mahayanist says that's a misconception. If the text says you are neither any 1 of the 5 aggregates by itself nor the aggregation of all 5 aggregates, Theravanist says that's a misconception and you are simply the aggregation of all 5 aggregates. Its starting to get old.

https://www.google.com/#q=king+like+bodhisattva

In the Lotus Sutra itself, the dragon king's daughter attains enlightenment in an instant, so it cannot be the case that Bodhisattvas postpone their enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened.

[davidbrainerd]

If sentient beings are infinite, then the Bodhisattva would never attain enlightenment, thus abrogating the original intent of Buddhism.

Instead, the Bodhisattva vows to attain enlightenment as quickly as possible to lead all other beings to enlightenment, since you can’t give what you don’t have.

Right, Mahayana is "abrogating the original intent of Buddhism" by teaching ultimate enlightenment is not going to a permanemt nibbana after death never to return to samsara but to a temporary fly-by-night University of Phoenix nibbana where you get a diploma-mill enlightenment degree to return to samsara and parade it around to get followers.

[Kim OHara]

The common misconception is that a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened.

The common misconception I seem to keep encountering in both Theravada and Mahayana is that what the text literally says is a misconception.

If the text says a Bodhisattva postpones their own enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened, Mahayanist says that's a misconception. ...

Hi, David,
You said ...

Only those who want to wait for everyone else to get to nirvana first before they enter (thus creating a never-ending queue where nobody dares enter) is any good according to lotus sutra

...but you didn't provide any text which says so - or not here at any rate. Can you?
Because that might show which position is a misconception.


Kim

[Santi253]

I don't have anything bad on this forum to say about Theravada Buddhism, because that would be slandering the Dharma and dividing the Sangha. I only ask that, in the very least, you please refrain from misrepresenting what the Mahayana teaches.

Right, Mahayana is "abrogating the original intent of Buddhism" by teaching ultimate enlightenment is not going to a permanemt nibbana after death never to return to samsara but to a temporary fly-by-night University of Phoenix nibbana where you get a diploma-mill enlightenment degree to return to samsara and parade it around to get followers.

In the Lotus Sutra itself, the dragon king's daughter attains enlightenment in an instant, so it cannot be the case that Bodhisattvas postpone their enlightenment until all other beings are enlightened.

The Bodhisattva ideal is based on the historical Buddha’s decision to teach others the Dharma, out of compassion for the world’s suffering and delusion, after originally desiring to live as a hermit:

Moved by Brahma’s passionate plea, the Buddha surveyed the world with his spiritual eye and saw that there were indeed people of different predilections – ‘some with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties … easy to teach and hard to teach.’ His deep compassion (karuna) stirred by this vision, the Buddha resolved to remain in the world and accept Brahma’s request to teach the dhamma to all.
http://www.buddhanet.net/skilful-means.htm

[davidbrainerd]

I don't have anything bad on this forum to say about Theravada Buddhism, because that would be slandering the Dharma and dividing the Sangha. I only ask that, in the very least, you please refrain from misrepresenting what the Mahayana teaches.

It was already divided long ago by those who say nibbana is not the goal but getting a lesser enlightenment (called a higher one) is, on the one hand, and by those who say nibbana is only anhihilation on the other hand. Both Mahayana and Theravada deviated from the original dhamma and divided the sangha. I can't divide a sangha that's already been divided in four, so I'm not worried.

[Santi253]

I visited a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist temple for Vesak, and a plaque outside said that the goal of Buddhist practice is to attain Nirvana.

The only difference between Mahayana and Theravada, regarding the ultimate goal of the spiritual life, is whether Nirvana is abiding or non-abiding:

The main difference between static and non-abiding nirvana is that those who attain the latter actually speaking reside neither in samsara or nirvana. For them the distinction between samsara and nirvana breaks down completely. The arhats believe that there is such a distinction and they forever remain on the side of the static nirvana. The Buddhas and highly realized Bodhisattvas, on the other hand, do not remain in this static condition, for they are always motivated by their bodhicitta vows to help ferry sentient beings across to the other shore. So they cannot remain completely still and static. They have to move and act. So on the one hand we can say that they are in nirvana (or they have attained nirvana) because they, being Buddhas, have completely destroyed all causes of being compelled by the force of karma, but on the other they do not have to remain in that blissful, static state.
https://soraj.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/ ... g-nirvana/

Mahayana Buddhists believe in non-abiding Nirvana because of their belief in non-duality, which is based on their belief in dependent origination.

[davidbrainerd]

Mahayana Buddhists believe in non-abiding Nirvana because of their belief in non-duality, which is based on their belief in dependent origination.

A "non-abiding Nirvana" is no nibbana. Because the whole point of nibbana is to not be reincarnated again. Not to go spend a night in hotel nibbana, then come back as the dalai lama.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Firstly, there are three kinds of bodhisattvas - king-like - ship captain and shepherd. The first becomes a buddha as fast as possible, to help best as many beings as possible. The 2nd paces himself to reach buddhahood at the same time as his passengers. The third puts his buddhahood last, after everyone else.

Nagarjuna was asked (I will try to recall where) the popular question 'how can a bodhisattva save all beings' since they are endless in number. His response was that karmic connections determine 'all beings'. That is, a bodhisattva or buddha must have some past life tie or contact with beings that he can help. Since bodhisattvas, like all beings have many (not countless) lives, they naturally will have made very many karmic ties, but not numberless. So 'saving all beings' means all that one has ties to - which may mean a thousand, a million or more, but not literally all.

The Bhadrakalpika Sutra has a long list of buddhas, and the size of their assembly or sangha. They vary in number much, some have a few hundred, another will have many thousands, other run into the millions. Also their lifespans vary wildly too.

[Santi253]

Firstly, there are three kinds of bodhisattvas - king-like - ship captain and shepherd. The first becomes a buddha as fast as possible, to help best as many beings as possible. The 2nd paces himself to reach buddhahood at the same time as his passengers. The third puts his buddhahood last, after everyone else.

Celestial Bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara might be described as shepherd-like or boatman-like, but the average Mahayana Buddhist is not expected to postpone their own enlightenment in that way.

My personal opinion is that Avalokitesvara is an archetype for how to live compassionately and selflessly in our daily life, rather than a literal historical person.

The most common understanding of the Bodhisattva path that Mahayana Buddhists vow to follow in their own lives is the king-like Bodhisattva. If it were really all about postponing one's own enlightenment until all other beings were enlightenment, that would be a logical absurdity, since sentient beings are innumerable.

[davidbrainerd]

Celestial Bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara might be described as shepherd-like or boatman-like, but the average Mahayana Buddhist is not expected to postpone their own enlightenment in that way.

You're missing the point. 'Mahayana' says a Bodhisattva goes to a higher nirvana than an arhat (i.e. a 'Hinayana'). Yet the arhat's nirvana is permanent (per 'Hinayana' belief), and the Bodhisattva's is temporary (per 'Mahayana' belief). In other words, the relationship is exactly reverse: the Bodhisattva goes to a temporary lower "nirvana" and the arhat goes to the higher permanent nirvana. The supposedly higher "nirvana" of the Bodhisattva is a fake, and this is proven by its temporary nature: Nirvana is by definition free of impermanence; therefore an impermanent "nirvana" is a fake "nirvana" still within samsara. In this sense the Bodhisattva rejects nirvana and refuses to go there because he only goes to a temporary impermanent counterfeit.

[Santi253]

Celestial Bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara might be described as shepherd-like or boatman-like, but the average Mahayana Buddhist is not expected to postpone their own enlightenment in that way.

You're missing the point. 'Mahayana' says a Bodhisattva goes to a higher nirvana than an arhat (i.e. a 'Hinayana'). Yet the arhat's nirvana is permanent (per 'Hinayana' belief), and the Bodhisattva's is temporary (per 'Mahayana' belief). In other words, the relationship is exactly reverse: the Bodhisattva goes to a temporary lower "nirvana" and the arhat goes to the higher permanent nirvana. The supposedly higher "nirvana" of the Bodhisattva is a fake, and this is proven by its temporary nature: Nirvana is by definition free of impermanence; therefore an impermanent "nirvana" is a fake "nirvana" still within samsara. In this sense the Bodhisattva rejects nirvana and refuses to go there because he only goes to a temporary impermanent counterfeit.

I visited a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist temple for Vesak, and a plaque outside said that the goal of Buddhist practice is to attain Nirvana.

The only difference between Mahayana and Theravada, regarding the ultimate goal of the spiritual life, is whether Nirvana is abiding or non-abiding...

Please stop using the term "Hinayana," since it's a pejorative term which I never use.

[davidbrainerd]

Celestial Bodhisattvas like Avalokitesvara might be described as shepherd-like or boatman-like, but the average Mahayana Buddhist is not expected to postpone their own enlightenment in that way.

You're missing the point. 'Mahayana' says a Bodhisattva goes to a higher nirvana than an arhat (i.e. a 'Hinayana'). Yet the arhat's nirvana is permanent (per 'Hinayana' belief), and the Bodhisattva's is temporary (per 'Mahayana' belief). In other words, the relationship is exactly reverse: the Bodhisattva goes to a temporary lower "nirvana" and the arhat goes to the higher permanent nirvana. The supposedly higher "nirvana" of the Bodhisattva is a fake, and this is proven by its temporary nature: Nirvana is by definition free of impermanence; therefore an impermanent "nirvana" is a fake "nirvana" still within samsara. In this sense the Bodhisattva rejects nirvana and refuses to go there because he only goes to a temporary impermanent counterfeit.

I visited a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist temple for Vesak, and a plaque outside said that the goal of Buddhist practice is to attain Nirvana.

The only difference between Mahayana and Theravada, regarding the ultimate goal of the spiritual life, is whether Nirvana is abiding or non-abiding...

Please stop using the term "Hinayana," since it's a pejorative term which I never use.

Doesn't matter that you want to hide from what Mahayana really is, that's what it is, it defines itself in contradistinction to Hinayana, so you can't just get rid of the term Hinayana.

You could argue that by Hinayana was not meant Theravada. Maybe not. In fact, let us assume not. Fine. But to understand Mahayana we must first understand what Hinayana is since Mahayana defines itself by opposition to it.

What then is Hinayana? Lets see how it compares to and differs from Theravada.

(1a) Like Theravada it views Nibbana as permanent.
(1b) Unlike Theravada it does not view Nibbana as mere anhihilation.
(2) Like Theravada it says arhats go to Nibbana.
(3a) Like Theravada, the goal in Hinayana is to reach Nibbana for one's self.
(3b) Unlike Theravada, the goal in Hinayana is to reach Nibbana for one's SELF.

In other words, the only difference between 'Hinayana' and Theravada is that 'Hinayana' acknowledges that someone actually goes to Nibbana, that Nibbana is an afterlife because there is a self. (An individual self, not Hindu-corporate-blob-self.)

This is why Hinayana is accused of being 'self'ish.

What do you think?

This is why Theravadans play nice with Mahayanans: neither of them really believes in anything anyway, everything is nothing. But someone who believes in a self will be deeply offended with Mahayana's denial of reality, the claim that nothing exists (emptiness) and everything is non-dual (no distinction between self and non-self, no distinction between nibbana and samsara).

[Santi253]

Doesn't matter that you want to hide from what Mahayana really is, that's what it is, it defines itsrlf in contradistinction to Hinayana, so you can't just get rid of the term Hinayana.

It was a reference to "Hinyana" being a "small vehicle".

I just don't think of Theravada in that way, since it's not historically accurate:

According to Paul Williams, "the deep-rooted misconception concerning an unfailing, ubiquitous fierce criticism of the Lesser Vehicle by the [Mahāyāna] is not supported by our texts."[14] Williams states that while evidence of conflict is present in some cases, there is also substantial evidence demonstrating peaceful coexistence between the two traditions...

Although the 18–20 early Buddhist schools are sometimes loosely classified as Hīnayāna in modern times, this is not necessarily accurate. There is no evidence that Mahāyāna ever referred to a separate formal school of Buddhism but rather as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines.[15] Paul Williams has also noted that the Mahāyāna never had nor ever attempted to have a separate vinaya or ordination lineage from the early Buddhist schools, and therefore bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs adhering to the Mahāyāna formally adheres to the vinaya of an early school...

Mahāyāna was never a separate sect of the early schools.[16] From Chinese monks visiting India, we now know that both Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna monks in India often lived in the same monasteries side by side.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana

"Hinayana" doesn't refer to any school of Buddhism that exists today. Full stop.