Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

what is a Bodhisattva?

Lady_AlisonLady_Alison Veteran
edited April 2012 in Buddhism Basics

Some say you can pray to them?

Are they immortal? Angels in human form? Ascended beings like in stargate sg1?

Can anyone who takes the Bodhisattva vow be considered a Bodhisattva? Or is Bodhisattvahood something practitioners attain at death? When Bodhisattvas continue the cycle of rebirth, are they aware of who they are in their new rebirth, or do they lose their memory of the time in-between rebirths, and of past lives? This thread is for all questions pertaining to Bodhisattvas.

«1

Comments

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited April 2012
    haha *whew* Everyone on the same page now. :D

    Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who vow to continue the cycle of rebirth until all sentient beings are free from suffering. Motivated by compassion for suffering beings, they vow to continue to be reborn to help others liberate themselves and attain Enlightenment.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I will ask again. Have you had personal experience with them?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    Why do you ask?
  • So you @dakini and me, could have taken a vow to continue to be reborn?

    And not know it!! That doesn't sound like something I'd do!

    ...uh, yes it does, sadly.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Why do you ask?
    It sounds as if you are saying they are fact. So I want to how you know that.

  • Ive only met "saint like "people...my husband's grandmother for one...but she was a Catholic.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Ive only met "saint like "people...my husband's grandmother for one...but she was a Catholic.
    I have known "saint like" people...although the better I got to know them, the less they seemed saint-like.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited April 2012
    What school of Buddhism, if any, do you practice, @vinlyn?

    Providing a definition doesn't indicate belief.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Theravada
  • @vinlyn she just quoted something. I don't think either of us see it as factual....we question everything too, as you do. I need a better interpretation, honestly.
  • This is the first time I've heard vinlyn post his belief...do Theravadas believe in Bodhisattvas...or how do they see this?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Let's not get bogged down in some Mahayana-Theravada bickering, please. I'm just answering Alison's question.

    The immortality question is interesting. They die, their "consciousness" (or "very subtle mind", to be technical) is reborn, like most people. Arhats don't choose to be reborn, they're the equivalent (enlightened-being-wise) of Bodhisattvas, on the Theravada side.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ^^ I understand that. But when people start talking about such "beings", I want to know whether they are defining it or saying they believe in it. And if it is the latter, then I want to know what makes them believe in it.

    Not Dakini, but I have seen Buddhists make light of ghosts (and so forth) because there's no real evidence of them. Then they start talking about Buddhist non-human beings, and see no problem with that.

    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Let's not get bogged down in some Mahayana-Theravada bickering, please. ...
    I didn't mention any particular belief system within Buddhism, and I have no idea whether you are Mahayana, Theravada, or any of the other schools of Buddhism.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    But when people start talking about such "beings", I want to know whether they are defining it or saying they believe in it.
    It's irrelevant. This is Buddhism/Bodhisattvas 101, for Lady_Alison's benefit. :)

  • In Theravada, Shakyamuni Buddha often referred to himself as an "unawakened bodhisatta". The Jataka Tales also recount stories of the previous lives of Shakyamuni Buddha as a bodhisattva. There are no bodhisattva vows in Theravada, but the path of a bodhisatta is still valid in Theravada, although it is not seen as practical. This article by Ven. Dr. W. Rahula may also be a useful read, as it talks about the bodhisattva ideal in both Theravada and Mahayana.

    Perhaps Kosho Uchiyama's What is a Bodhisattva? will also be useful for the Mahayana perspective. "A bodhisattva is an ordinary person who takes up a course in his or her life that moves in the direction of buddha. You're a bodhisattva, I'm a bodhisattva; actually, anyone who directs their attention, their life, to practicing the way of life of a buddha is a bodhisattva. We read about Kannon Bosatsu (Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva) or Monju Bosatsu (Manjushri Bodhisattva), and these are great bodhisattvas, but we, too, have to have confidence or faith that we are also bodhisattvas."

    To make things more confusing, here's a quote by Ven. Ajahn Chah, "Do not be a bodhisattva, do not be an arahant, do not be anything at all. If you are a bodhisattva, you will suffer, if you are an arahant, you will suffer, if you are anything at all, you will suffer." :)
  • edited April 2012
    Oh, yeah...in Mahayana a Bodhisattva can chose either of three paths to help sentient beings in the process of achieving Buddhahood. They are King-like Bodhisattva, or 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. Boddhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara and Shantideva (among others) are believed to fall under the latter category.

    On the question of being aware of "past lives", G.P. Malalasekera one stated, "Meanwhile the bodhisattva spends the night in deep concentration; during the first watch he acquires knowledge of past lives, during the second watch he develops the divine eye, while during the last watch he ponders over and comprehends the Paticcasamuppada doctrine." So it seems that yes, a Bodhisattva can recall past lives.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ^^ How is something "valed" but "not practical"?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited April 2012
    "Do not be a bodhisattva, do not be an arahant, do not be anything at all. If you are a bodhisattva, you will suffer, if you are an arahant, you will suffer, if you are anything at all, you will suffer." :)
    oops! Too late, we're already here! We already exist, we're "something". So, as long as we're here, we may as well take Bodhisattva vows (or walk the Arhat path) and do what we can for humanity.

  • edited April 2012
    @vinlyn Simply put, because a Bodhisattva remains in Samsara.

    @Dakini I think that has more to do with not getting caught up in self-identity and views.
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran

    Some say you can pray to them?

    Are they immortal? Angels in human form? Ascended beings like in stargate sg1?

    Can anyone who takes the Bodhisattva vow be considered a Bodhisattva? Or is Bodhisattvahood something practitioners attain at death? When Bodhisattvas continue the cycle of rebirth, are they aware of who they are in their new rebirth, or do they lose their memory of the time in-between rebirths, and of past lives? This thread is for all questions pertaining to Bodhisattvas.

    Bodhisattva's are beings who have developed a precious mind stemming from great compassion this mind is called Bodhichitta ( Mind of enlightenment ) this min aspires to become enlightened to benefit all sentient beings unceasingly and continuously, There are two types of Bodhisattva ordinary and superior Ordinary Bodhisattva's are being who nurture Bodhichitta and have not yet attained Nivarna and superior Bodhisattva's are those who have perfected Bodhichitta attained Nivarna and many other abilities of mind to benefit others, Beings who have attained Nivarna are not subject to uncontrolled rebirth and death anymore so their minds are free from dissolution at the time of death and are hence effectively a permanent phenomena.
  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited April 2012
    I personally do not see much in the 'enlightened free from rebirth, but still reborn'-beings. I don't see the logic in it and if they exist at all they are not really affecting my practice.

    I feel more for the Bodhisattva idea that Thich Nhat Hahn teaches. He teaches that we can be a bodhisattva in this life. At some points we are and at other points maybe not so much.

    To quote: “A bodhisattva is someone who has compassion within himself or herself and who is able to make another person smile or help someone suffer less. Every one of us is capable of this.”
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited April 2012
    ^^ I understand that. But when people start talking about such "beings", I want to know whether they are defining it or saying they believe in it. And if it is the latter, then I want to know what makes them believe in it.

    Not Dakini, but I have seen Buddhists make light of ghosts (and so forth) because there's no real evidence of them. Then they start talking about Buddhist non-human beings, and see no problem with that.

    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    According to traditional Theravada, there are 31 planes of existence, which are taken literally by traditional Theravada view. They include god beings (beings of pure light with no physical body), demon beings, actual ghosts, etc. Human beings (manussa loka) are only one of those realms. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

  • Different schools of Buddhism and different cultures have different ideas of what being a bodhisattva means, certainly. You will hear Heavenly beings referred to as Bodhisattvas, such as Kwan Yin, the Goddess of Compassion in her many names and forms. In that case, a Bodhisattva is a celestial being, capable of being prayed to and interceding in times of trouble.

    You will also hear the "person who delays their own enlightenment for the sake of others" definition, so a Bodhisattva is seen as more like a Saint, being reborn and sacrificing their own happiness to serve others. These might actually be identified and hold repeated office like the Dalai Lama.

    For yet others, including my own practice, a Bodhisattva is simply someone who takes the Bodhisattva vows and that becomes the focus of their practice and effort.

    Take your pick.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited April 2012
    One definition of a bodhisattva is that they directly with no doubt and with truth see that all beings can become awakened.

    Another definition is that they never give up in the long run on beings. Though I am sure that they don't always 'know the answer' of how to help.
  • One definition of a bodhisattva is that they directly with no doubt and with truth see that all beings can become awakened.

    Another definition is that they never give up in the long run on beings. Though I am sure that they don't always 'know the answer' of how to help.
    Rev Young used to tell me the Bodhisattva vow was a promise, not a goal. "Nobody gets left behind!"
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ^^ I understand that. But when people start talking about such "beings", I want to know whether they are defining it or saying they believe in it. And if it is the latter, then I want to know what makes them believe in it.

    Not Dakini, but I have seen Buddhists make light of ghosts (and so forth) because there's no real evidence of them. Then they start talking about Buddhist non-human beings, and see no problem with that.

    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    According to traditional Theravada, there are 31 planes of existence, which are taken literally by traditional Theravada view. They include god beings (beings of pure light with no physical body), demon beings, actual ghosts, etc. Human beings (manussa loka) are only one of those realms. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

    Seeker, I know that. My question is -- do you believe that. If so, what makes you believe it?

  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012


    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    I am unable to comply with that.. My views and beliefs are shifty things.. and situational. That is because the ground of practice (no pretense here) is not a standard of belief.. but an unconditional, experiential, "now and now and now", that is very forgetful of standards and beliefs. Sometimes, depending on who I'm talking to, I'll grasp a view and run with it for a while.. doh! ..then walk into another situation and find myself grasping its opposite..

    Transcendent beings? Poppycock! ......Transcendent beings? For sure!

    Still, an observer could probably plot a view profile over time... not my job though.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    I am unable to comply with that.. My views and beliefs are shifty things.. and situational. That is because the ground of practice (no pretense here) is not a standard of belief.. but an unconditional, experiential, "now and now and now", that is very forgetful of standards and beliefs. Sometimes, depending on who I'm talking to, I'll grasp a view and run with it for a while.. doh! ..then walk into another situation and find myself grasping its opposite..

    Transcendent beings? Poppycock! ......Transcendent beings? For sure!

    Still, an observer could probably plot a view profile over time... not my job though.

    Interesting post, Richard, and one that got me to thinking more.

    And I'm not suggesting that one should not change their mind. I think as we experience things, we ought to be able and willing to change our minds.

    Let me give you a real example of having a standard for belief. My secretary and I were talking about religion, in general. And the topic of the Mormons came up, and she was extremely critical of their religion. At one point she said, "Well, if there were Golden Plates given by an angel (Moroni), let them show us the Golden Plates!" My response wsa, "If there were Ten Commandments given by God on a stone tablet, show us the stone tablet."

    And note above that I say a "standard for belief" and not a "standard of belief". To there's a big difference, the former being a standard the process of deciding what you believe and don't believe (which I think is necessary), while the later is having to have a certain belief or beliefs (which I think is usually a negative thing).

  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited April 2012


    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    I am unable to comply with that.. My views and beliefs are shifty things.. and situational. That is because the ground of practice (no pretense here) is not a standard of belief.. but an unconditional, experiential, "now and now and now", that is very forgetful of standards and beliefs. Sometimes, depending on who I'm talking to, I'll grasp a view and run with it for a while.. doh! ..then walk into another situation and find myself grasping its opposite..

    Transcendent beings? Poppycock! ......Transcendent beings? For sure!

    Still, an observer could probably plot a view profile over time... not my job though.

    Interesting post, Richard, and one that got me to thinking more.

    And I'm not suggesting that one should not change their mind. I think as we experience things, we ought to be able and willing to change our minds.

    Let me give you a real example of having a standard for belief. My secretary and I were talking about religion, in general. And the topic of the Mormons came up, and she was extremely critical of their religion. At one point she said, "Well, if there were Golden Plates given by an angel (Moroni), let them show us the Golden Plates!" My response wsa, "If there were Ten Commandments given by God on a stone tablet, show us the stone tablet."

    And note above that I say a "standard for belief" and not a "standard of belief". To there's a big difference, the former being a standard the process of deciding what you believe and don't believe (which I think is necessary), while the later is having to have a certain belief or beliefs (which I think is usually a negative thing).

    I agree with your skepticism about the two examples you cite. However, for me, standards for belief are context bound, and not absolute. Not just the belief, but the whole belief/non-belief complex represented by your example, is a mental phenomena, an object of mind. In other words, I do not have an absolute standard for belief.. such an absolute would be a stealth idee fixe (hidden thought being identified with). Meditation (Zazen) uproots these stealth absolutes leaving the sitter groundless, yet very clear while sitting "without wobbling" on the simple solid earth.

    So , to put it simply, generally I share you standard for belief, but have perhaps a different relationship with it, because the Zazen practice.. and approach.

    Thoughts are thoughts...whether a belief or a meta-belief complex.

    That's a bit wordy.. sorry just had an espresso.

    Anyway I have to get back to work.. will continue later if you want to.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2012
    In my mind, a bodhisattva is somebody who desires out of loving-kindness and compassion to help other beings suffer less and makes a vow to do what they can to achieve that goal. Beyond that, I don't know.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    I am unable to comply with that.. My views and beliefs are shifty things.. and situational. That is because the ground of practice (no pretense here) is not a standard of belief.. but an unconditional, experiential, "now and now and now", that is very forgetful of standards and beliefs. Sometimes, depending on who I'm talking to, I'll grasp a view and run with it for a while.. doh! ..then walk into another situation and find myself grasping its opposite..

    Transcendent beings? Poppycock! ......Transcendent beings? For sure!

    Still, an observer could probably plot a view profile over time... not my job though.

    Interesting post, Richard, and one that got me to thinking more.

    And I'm not suggesting that one should not change their mind. I think as we experience things, we ought to be able and willing to change our minds.

    Let me give you a real example of having a standard for belief. My secretary and I were talking about religion, in general. And the topic of the Mormons came up, and she was extremely critical of their religion. At one point she said, "Well, if there were Golden Plates given by an angel (Moroni), let them show us the Golden Plates!" My response wsa, "If there were Ten Commandments given by God on a stone tablet, show us the stone tablet."

    And note above that I say a "standard for belief" and not a "standard of belief". To there's a big difference, the former being a standard the process of deciding what you believe and don't believe (which I think is necessary), while the later is having to have a certain belief or beliefs (which I think is usually a negative thing).

    I agree with your skepticism about the two examples you cite. However, for me, standards for belief are context bound, and not absolute. Not just the belief, but the whole belief/non-belief complex represented by your example, is a mental phenomena, an object of mind. In other words, I do not have an absolute standard for belief.. such an absolute would be a stealth idee fixe (hidden thought being identified with). Meditation (Zazen) uproots these stealth absolutes leaving the sitter groundless, yet very clear while sitting "without wobbling" on the simple solid earth.

    So , to put it simply, generally I share you standard for belief, but have perhaps a different relationship with it, because the Zazen practice.. and approach.

    Thoughts are thoughts...whether a belief or a meta-belief complex.

    That's a bit wordy.. sorry just had an espresso.

    Anyway I have to get back to work.. will continue later if you want to.
    Thanks for outlining your way of thinking...which has got me thinking!

  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited April 2012
    ^^ I understand that. But when people start talking about such "beings", I want to know whether they are defining it or saying they believe in it. And if it is the latter, then I want to know what makes them believe in it.

    Not Dakini, but I have seen Buddhists make light of ghosts (and so forth) because there's no real evidence of them. Then they start talking about Buddhist non-human beings, and see no problem with that.

    I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    According to traditional Theravada, there are 31 planes of existence, which are taken literally by traditional Theravada view. They include god beings (beings of pure light with no physical body), demon beings, actual ghosts, etc. Human beings (manussa loka) are only one of those realms. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

    Seeker, I know that. My question is -- do you believe that. If so, what makes you believe it?

    Yes, I believe it, because the Buddha said it.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ^ Thank you for clarifying.


  • I just like people to be consistent about their standards for belief.
    I am unable to comply with that.. My views and beliefs are shifty things.. and situational. That is because the ground of practice (no pretense here) is not a standard of belief.. but an unconditional, experiential, "now and now and now", that is very forgetful of standards and beliefs. Sometimes, depending on who I'm talking to, I'll grasp a view and run with it for a while.. doh! ..then walk into another situation and find myself grasping its opposite..

    Transcendent beings? Poppycock! ......Transcendent beings? For sure!

    Still, an observer could probably plot a view profile over time... not my job though.

    Interesting post, Richard, and one that got me to thinking more.

    And I'm not suggesting that one should not change their mind. I think as we experience things, we ought to be able and willing to change our minds.

    Let me give you a real example of having a standard for belief. My secretary and I were talking about religion, in general. And the topic of the Mormons came up, and she was extremely critical of their religion. At one point she said, "Well, if there were Golden Plates given by an angel (Moroni), let them show us the Golden Plates!" My response wsa, "If there were Ten Commandments given by God on a stone tablet, show us the stone tablet."

    And note above that I say a "standard for belief" and not a "standard of belief". To there's a big difference, the former being a standard the process of deciding what you believe and don't believe (which I think is necessary), while the later is having to have a certain belief or beliefs (which I think is usually a negative thing).

    I agree with your skepticism about the two examples you cite. However, for me, standards for belief are context bound, and not absolute. Not just the belief, but the whole belief/non-belief complex represented by your example, is a mental phenomena, an object of mind. In other words, I do not have an absolute standard for belief.. such an absolute would be a stealth idee fixe (hidden thought being identified with). Meditation (Zazen) uproots these stealth absolutes leaving the sitter groundless, yet very clear while sitting "without wobbling" on the simple solid earth.

    So , to put it simply, generally I share you standard for belief, but have perhaps a different relationship with it, because the Zazen practice.. and approach.

    Thoughts are thoughts...whether a belief or a meta-belief complex.

    That's a bit wordy.. sorry just had an espresso.

    Anyway I have to get back to work.. will continue later if you want to.
    Thanks for outlining your way of thinking...which has got me thinking!

    Unfortunately all I can do with words is outline my way thinking, I can't express Zazen, only thoughts about practice. "A miss is as good as a mile"

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    You also might benefit from learning about the ten bhumis or levels of a bodhisattva.

    At the basic level a bodhisattva is someone who's motivated by the altruistic wish to achieve Buddhahood in order to help others. With this motivation it takes many lives to achieve the necessary level of wisdom and compassion to perfectly help others on the spiritual path like a Buddha can.

    Someone, like Mother Theresa perhaps, can have a truly altruistic motivation to help others and maybe could be considered a bodhisattva. At the first bhumi a bodhisattva has a direct understanding of emptiness and I believe? its at this point that they can start to control their rebirth.
  • edited April 2012
    Bodhisattva are enlightened sentient being who refuse to attain Buddhahood for the purpose of helping sentient being to liberate from suffering in this world.

    In this age, If you met a Bodhisattva, Bodhisattva won't tell you he's/she's a Bodhisattva. The one who do, are fake.





  • But what I don't understand is when we are fully aware and experiencing that we are not seperate then we truly are a boddhisatva and also not one. Because we are not separate from those who come back and those who do not,

    I could be confusing myself
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    yes, I think you could well be.

    you're confusing me..... :crazy:
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    Bodhisattva are enlightened sentient being who refuse to attain Buddhahood for the purpose of helping sentient being to liberate from suffering in this world.

    In this age, If you met a Bodhisattva, Bodhisattva won't tell you he's/she's a Bodhisattva. The one who do, are fake.






    Might be so in the Northen Chinese schools that Bodhisattva's refuse to attain enlightenment or it might just be a misunderstanding on their part however according to the Mahayana that came from India to Tibet Bodhisattva's know they can only really benefit others when they attain full enlightenment so they work quickly for that goal.
  • But what I don't understand is when we are fully aware and experiencing that we are not seperate then we truly are a boddhisatva and also not one. Because we are not separate from those who come back and those who do not,

    I could be confusing myself
    Take that thought and follow it a bit. In what way does the Bodhisattva path differ from the Buddha's path? Did he not devote his life to helping the world after his great awakening?



  • From what I read above, it seems that the Bodhisattva doesn't even know that he or she is actually one. unless, of course, you take a vow. . .



  • there are only bodhisattva's.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    there are only bodhisattva's.
    Please, instead of saying half a sentence, please explain and share with us your personal experience.

  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    From what I read above, it seems that the Bodhisattva doesn't even know that he or she is actually one. unless, of course, you take a vow. . .



    No a Bodhisattva certainly knows when they have developed genuine Bodhichitta,
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    From what I read above, it seems that the Bodhisattva doesn't even know that he or she is actually one. unless, of course, you take a vow. . .
    They may have subconscious past life memories that draw them toward altruistic activity.

  • Lady_AlisonLady_Alison Veteran
    edited April 2012



    Isn't it dangerous to believe your are an actual bodhisatva? then whatever you do in life, whether it produces positive or negative results won't matter... because you believe that you have attained some sort of "sainthood"... my problem with this statement is that many people with GOOD intentions have paved their own way to hell..such as Hitler. An artist with a delusional mentality who intended on helping his people through a socialist government.

    Second, we can't prove past lives, like we can't absolutelly prove the existance of ghosts, aliens, angels or demons. How do these people know what they know and does it matter?

    The point is that they are helping sentient beings...who cares what they are right? I doubt that aside from taking a wonderful vow, real bodhisatva's could care less about really being one but only desire to aid others...that is the driving force... their action into good or positive deeds... not a sort of HONOR of being called a bodhisatvva...

    did i ramble...
    From what I read above, it seems that the Bodhisattva doesn't even know that he or she is actually one. unless, of course, you take a vow. . .



    No a Bodhisattva certainly knows when they have developed genuine Bodhichitta,
    From what I read above, it seems that the Bodhisattva doesn't even know that he or she is actually one. unless, of course, you take a vow. . .
    They may have subconscious past life memories that draw them toward altruistic activity.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    edited April 2012



    Isn't it dangerous to believe your are an actual bodhisatva? then whatever you do in life, whether it produces positive or negative results won't matter... because you believe that you have attained some sort of "sainthood"... my problem with this statement is that many people with GOOD intentions have paved their own way to hell..such as Hitler. An artist with a delusional mentality who intended on helping his people through a socialist government.

    Second, we can't prove past lives, like we can't absolutelly prove the existance of ghosts, aliens, angels or demons. How do these people know what they know and does it matter?

    The point is that they are helping sentient beings...who cares what they are right? I doubt that aside from taking a wonderful vow, real bodhisatva's could care less about really being one but only desire to aid others...that is the driving force... their action into good or positive deeds... not a sort of HONOR of being called a bodhisatvva...

    did i ramble...


    Yes it is dangerous to believe you are an actual bodhisattva. I think an actual bodhisattva knows if they are a bodhisattva or not, or what level of bodhicitta or altruistic attitude they have.

    You're right, a real bodhisattva also doesn't really care if they are considered a bodhisattva or not, they only really care about helping others.
  • I like my approach on life:

    I'm a very shitty, selfish, self absorbed, materialistic, greedy, mean, ego centric and me me me kind of person and therefore I could never ever be a Bodhisatva nor do I ever believe I could take an uphold that vow... that' would be like marriage to a 45 year old happy professional bachelor.

    So what now?

    Now, it's time to turn around and help others anyway! Start again! Do more... keep trying, keep helping, keep doing...why? for the selfish reason that it pleases ME to help others... hopefully they get relief, and in most cases they do. And it's better than not doing anything at all and watching others drown when I could have done something but didn't...

    Mother Teresa, btw... most of her life, did not feel God around her... she talked about feeling completely abandoned by him and many times she questioned his existence and her inner faith... but this didn't stop her from trying and trying to help others.

    Her "doubt" was a problem when Rome was in the process of beatifing her. And they did shortly after her death.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited April 2012
    Isn't it dangerous to believe your are an actual bodhisatva? then whatever you do in life, whether it produces positive or negative results won't matter... because you believe that you have attained some sort of "sainthood"...
    Is that what saints believe? They they can get away with murder?
    Bodhisattvas don't believe that they can do anything, and it doesn't matter. They're committed to doing good. Where the problem you mention does arise is in the context of the "enlightened" master, guru, teacher. For some reason, students in the past have believed their teachers can do no wrong, and they've allowed them to commit crimes and other malfeasance. Many of these seem to be cases of very ordinary people being ordained as masters, not enlightened at all. Don't give away your critical thinking power.

    Usually, anyone who says they're enlightened, isn't. I suppose the Buddha was an exception.
Sign In or Register to comment.