Help me understand what justifies the Bodhisattva ideal?
Tor
California New
So I can't really ask this question at any Buddhist center because teachers are uncomfortable being seen as possibly "criticizing" other Buddhist schools.
I left Mahayana in favor of Theravada because I could not reconcile certain things, like:
1) Buddha taught that the god realm of samsara is still samsara; that even the devas are destined for the lower realms one day because...samsara. Yet,
2) The Bodisattva ideal seems to paint a picture that when one chooses to remain in samsara to help others, that one will somehow always remain in a position to help...always remain a deva of sorts.
These seem in conflict to me.
Plus, I don't understand how it's at all practical to remain in samsara, trying to help and direct all the beings towards enlightenment, and that we all, on some sort of cue, will one day transcend together. Have any Mahayanas here ever heard any teachings that detail the logistics of how this might happen?
Comments
That's their egos talking, In order to shed all prejudicial comparisons, and the impression that one is better/worse than another, it is admirable to be able to discuss different schools in such a way as to denote no comparison... RE teachers at school, are compelled by their teaching ethics, to teach about different religions without criticism or judgement.
What makes it so hard for Buddhist teachers therefore, to lay aside their discomfort?
Ego.
I see no conflict, personally. I'm not sure where you see one...
The gods aren't out to help anyone. They therefore wish to exit samsara.
Bodisattvas are, and remain there willingly.
It's metaphorical.
It's a vow to behave in a skilful way and to always put others first, but not in the sense of being a doormat.
It is a vow to reside in the 4 sublime states.
"Beings are numberless; I vow to save them" (or the vow, words to that effect) is a total physical and cerebral impossibility.
So long as we love, we serve.
As long as we serve lovingly, I would say we are indispensable.
>
@Tor - you only have to meditate to see that the mahayana ideal has been achieved.
I think @federica may be alluding to this, when she says that beings are numberless... and its a cerebral and physical impossibility to save them all - well if they are... it is... and that is where love and compassion come into the equation... Saving every bloody soul is hard work, especially when they are ignorant of it!
And the bodhisattva ideal is an internal recognition of this.
btw @federica: "So long as we love, we serve. As long as we serve lovingly, I would say we are indispensable." that is really lovely. Is that from your heart or taken from something you have been taught or read?
It is not meant to be taken literally, though some teachers do put it forth that way. Mine does not (neither do other teachers I have been on retreats with). My teacher is Vajrayana but we spend a lot of time discussing Bodhisattva-hood. It is a way to build up compassion and focus on Right Effort and Right View. Today, right now. Not 20 life times from now. Many do believe you have a choice to be reborn should you so choose to do so rather than exit Samsara. But that is not the focus that I have ever been taught. It is not at all maintaining oneself as a deva or any other such thing. It is a decision to dedicate ones life to helping other people.
It is an ideal to live up to. That is all. In what way do you think it is in conflict? I don't see conflict either. But if you already made the choice to leave Mahayana, why does it suddenly matter now? Even if you could not (sadly) get answers from the center, it is widely discussed online and answered by many teachers.
It is, in part, a quotation from Robert Louis Stevenson (He being the author of 'Treasure Island').
His accurate and full quotation runs -
The change in the saying is my own work, and from the heart.....
"Treasure Island" How wonderful!
"TREASURE ISLAND"
Thank you @federica !
You're very welcome.
Outstanding explanation from @federica ...
Here is how Mahayana and Theravada are both logically true at the same time.
The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature.
Nagarjuna
https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth
Do I understand that or Yogacara or Theravada philosophy? Not required to be 'understandable'.
Is it true? Sure. That I know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)
When thinking in linear, non holistic ways we assume paradox and contradiction can not coexist? Not this crustacean.
As I said to the Buddha only this morning, 'Think or think not, there is no thought.' ... actually come to think of it, might have been Yoda ...
My understanding is that the answer to your question lies in the teachings on the Bhumis. A bodhisattva doesn't fall because of their constant effort and because they develop the wisdom and compassion so that they don't acquire negative karma and continuously gain positive karma. There also comes a point where it is said to be impossible to back slide.
I don't have the knowledge to explain it all, but I think I'm at least pointing you in the right direction.
Thanks for your contributions everyone! You gave me some more stuff to think about.
Here in California most every center is Mahayana and I got my start at a center that I later learned was loosely based on Pure Land, and I mistakenly thought that all schools were like that. I didn't know any better! I'm still open to Mahayana, but for the past few years my focus has been on Theravada and I found a not-too-far-away Thai center so I could first learn to distinguish the Buddha's core suttas from the Mahayana sutras that came later.