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.
If everyone becomes a bodhisattva, won't nobody become enlightened?
The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza
Veteran
I have to wonder if it is the case since supposedly if everyone becomes a bodhisattva all the people are refusing nirvana for the sake of everyone else. If the last sentient being alive becomes a Boddhisattva, and they're all rejecting attainment of Nirvana, won't that mean no one is escaping Samsara ever?
0
Comments
This looks like another stone thrown among the soldiers grown from the dragon's teeth.
If I have understood your belief set, TFPW, you do not hold to the Bodhisattva idea.
I am actually trying to understand it to be honest. Because if it makes sense I am willing to abide by it.
We are deeply grateful for those who, like the Buddha Shakyamuni, delay going beyond for our benefit.
And that is beautiful. It is that compassionate side of the teachings of Mahayana that initially attracted me, but the doctrines didn't make sense. See "live like the Buddha" or "What Would Buddha Do" is a brilliant means, but it isn't something that I think will ultimately lead to liberation, but it's a special type of trap that this question I bought up embodies. If everyone wants to become a Bodhisattva, then there is no one who will be free from Samsara because they intentionally delay their Parinirvana or worse, they do not cut the fetters and impurities in their mind.
That is true, but to become attached to the existence of others is also an impediment to the practice because it implies others are separate from the self, when it is not. Anatta remember?
Such Metta is brilliant, but it also is a crutch if we become attached to Samsara. It's ultimately a crutch, and hurts one's self and others. You subject yourself to Samsara until you are the only one left, and then what? :rolleyes:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html
This sutra comes to mind.
I often have this sutra in mind, TFPW, with its lovely myth of Brahma persuading the reluctant Gotama to turn the wheel of Dharma.
In the same way as the sutra tells us that there are "beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard", so there are those who undertake to help their fellows and some who do not.
This is not a rejection of anatta but, rather, an understanding that the Holy Truth of Suffering, its origin and its ending can be taught, and that relief can be brought to the 'people who walked in darkness'. It is an answer to the question, "Who will do this if I do not?"
As I understand it, this road is not everyone's, not even every Mahayanist. The idea that this vow somehow maintains samsara make little sense to me as anything more than a distracting fantasy but, as usual, I may be wrong.
It's more than that. Some people will honestly refuse the teachings.
That's also a point I do not deny, but I also would like to remind you that because all beings are ultimately inseparable and are interdependent in both origin and causation, it's important to understand what intentionally delaying your enlightenment and liberation does. It keeps you and everyone else stuck in Samsara, and keeps perpetuating the causes and conditions that keep you and other people trapped here. If everyone studied the sutras and became Arahants, would there be a need for another Samyaksambuddha other than the claim that Arahants are spiritually different from a Samyaksambuddha or a Pratyekabuddha? It betrays either a greed for sensuous existence or a greed for immaterial existence. The greed for the unconditional company of others, or the greed for the superior Buddha state, it also reflects conceit that no one else is believed to be a Buddha or an Arahant already, or that people are incapable of becoming Arahants. It also betrays a type of created hierarchy of enlightenment, where some forms of enlightenment is preferred over others merely because of "magical powers" of a Buddha, and not the real capability an Arahant has to help other sentient beings.
That it's also a point that not everyone will listen and even the Shakyamuni Buddha believed it was completely impossible for every living sentient being, everyone, to listen to his teachings with a clear head and an open heart.
It isn't a distracting fantasy. Why are you not liberated? If it is because other people exist this betrays a fundamental problem. It means that you believe other people are separate from you, and a belief that they are not awakened already. We don't know that because of our conditioned and deluded mind. Liberation means that you have to actually take the steps and begin the motions to be free from Samsara and if the belief that other people are here and are deluded and suffering is holding you back and keeping you here.
Consider for a moment that many people or even every person on the planet agrees with you and instead perpetuates samsara by clinging to the idea of the unenlightened other or becoming a Samyaksambuddha, what will happen to these people?
No one attains liberation.
Consider that attaining liberation affects the whole world, and then you will see that is the real way we can help all sentient beings.
Sort of like "If everyone becomes Super, then no-one becomes Super" Syndome in the Incredibles. I love that line and the monologue-ing.
I think the term "rejecting Nirvana" is too strong. Also the merit accumulated by such actions leads to blissful states even within Samsara. Another thing is that you imputing a finite amount of sentient beings, especially some Mahayana literature goes to quite some length to show that the number of sentient beings is limitless. So basically a Boddhisattva is in it for the long hall, literally. It has been said, that such a motive will bring a Boddhisattva swiftly toward enlightenment even against their wish. There is also some indication from something I have read in Zen literature, that when "you" become fully enlightened, then everyone else simultaneously becomes enlightened, yet this is Zen we're talking about so I wouldn't take this at face value. Also full enlightenment is supposed to transcend all dualistic conceptions, so that ideas of Samsara and Nirvana are no longer opposed to each other and are non-differentiated.
That's what put me off the ideas in Mahayana :crazy: Everyone is stuck and no one wants to leave because they want to stay with loved ones rather than help them attain liberation, by first actually becoming liberated and then teaching before Parinirvana like the Buddha did.
Without a doubt but the purpose of Buddhism isn't merit because anyone can achieve merit. The purpose is to LEAVE SAMSARA. :crazy:
Ultimately as I said everyone is connected to everyone else, and delaying your salvation is delaying the salvation of everyone else. It's a self perpetuating hole.
Ironic isn't it? That's why I asked before this if it was even possible to delay salvation without actually violating or ignoring Buddha's teachings.
Actually that's one Mahayana teaching that is quite true.
Nor is the differentiation between one's self and the other, so c'mon and let's get liberated M'kay? None of this waiting or delaying otherwise it's sabotaging each other.
That is an incredibly dangerous assumption. We only know we have this one life, so we should try and work our hardest to attain Nirvana now for the sake of all sentient beings.
So what then, you give up? You don't even try? Right effort comes to mind even in this model.
Which is why I said "Living like the Buddha" is a brilliant means, but taken in the literal or extreme fashion as I have described, it creates the self-perpetuating hole where there is no one who becomes enlightened anymore because everyone wants to puts off Nirvana to become a Bodhisattva. :crazy: No one ultimately is enlightened, nor achieves Nirvana. Not a distraction at all, a real consideration.
Sorry for the short reply, I've got to do the dishes and my wife's due home soon
1) I think that the purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering. Any path that fully achieves that outcome, whether based in Samsaraland or Paranirvana is valid.
2) You rely too much on logic, in this situation an attack on logic is an attack on the self
3) Either method will work fine, achieving enlightenment ASAP is extremely, extremely....., extrememly good.
4) You appear to have a aversion to Samsara, unfortunately to become enlightened you need to overcome all aversions including this one
5) We'll be OK don't worry about us
Cheers, WK
True, but in Samsara land it is impermanent, and ultimately not solving the problem.
Is it? Or is an attack on logic an attack on logic? I don't like logic much myself, but it's a very useful tool to achieve realizations.
Well yes, but you missed the point that not getting it while it is available is really really bad.
Not an aversion for samsara, but an aversion to suffering, which is the nature of Samsara.
Who gets the fried chicken? I want the drumstick!
No way, this is not just about me. I think it's a bad idea for everyone.
No. The aim is to end one's suffering.
Do you see how a bald statement like this can be read as the extreme of arrogance: you become the arbiter of truth. On what authority? Own your opinion and state it humbly as that and that alone. Or do you go out of your way to offend those who hold to opinions which were once yours, just like ex-Christians? For shame: you are bigger than this.
Obviously, I was saying you give up on idle questions like this, not that you give up on practice.
Sounds like you're looking for a fight. If you're looking for the difference between arrogance and certainty, look here.
Would I be right in thinking that you take the Ayacana Sutta as a poetic metaphor? If so, what is your problem with the Bodhisattva Vow?
apratiṣṭha-nirvāṇa: (Sanskrit). Literally, ‘unlocalized nirvāṇa’. The Mahāyāna concept of the ideal state of nirvāṇa. It is said to be ‘unlocalized’ because in this state a Buddha does not dwell exclusively in either saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. By virtue of his great insight (prajñā) and awareness (jñāna) he does not dwell in saṃsāra, and because of his great compassion (karuṇā) he does not disappear into final nirvāṇa.
In Mahāyāna Buddhism, Nirvana and Samsara are said to be not-different when viewed from the ultimate nature of the Dharmakaya. An individual can attain Nirvana by following the Buddhist path. If they were ultimately different this would be impossible. Thus, the duality between Nirvana and Samsara is only accurate on the conventional level.
The Madhyamaka, for example, famously conclude that one who perceives emptiness (śūnyatā) as the true nature of phenomena will see nirvāṇa and saṃsāra as co-terminous. The Yogācāra school also teaches that the cessation of dualistic mental discrimination will lead to the realization that the opposition between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra is merely conceptual. Schools such as zen Buddhism also emphasize that for those who are awakened and perceive with insight (prajñā), nirvāṇa saturates every aspect of saṃsāra. Certain texts also elaborate a distinction between two types of nirvāṇa, mirroring the one made in the early sources between nirvāṇa in this life and final nirvāṇa. In the Mahāyāna these are known as localized (pratiṣṭhita) and unlocalized (apratiṣṭhita) nirvāṇa. The latter corresponds to the state of parinirvāṇa, but in the former a Buddha remains ‘in the world but not of it’, free of any attachment to saṃsāra but accessible to help suffering beings.
...
oh yea
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8108&page=2
To address the original question:
There is absolutely no limit to the number of sentient being in the universe, now or in any time. The vow to liberate and enlighten all sentient beings is an act of charitable merit. It is the intention of turning the wheel of dharma in a future age, thereby enlightening countless living beings as well as providing the cause for further enlightenment after parinirvana both in Arahants and Boddhisattvas.
Nirvana is not "rejected" for nothing is rejected and there is nothing to be rejected and no self to perform the rejecting. This path involves the perfection of wisdom and taking a personal vow of charity and love in service of all sentient beings. It's as simple and as "not-simple" as that.
This explanation, however, does not do justice to the complexities of such a path and it is no wonder that you are so confused by many of the concepts.
You are not going to find sufficient explanations or answers on an online message forum, no matter how articulate or intelligent it's member may be. It is obvious that your knowledge of the Boddhisattva path and Mahayana literature are very poor. I would suggest that instead of insulting a lot of kind and intelligent people, that you do some personal research on the subject, specifically by reading and researching the Mahayana sutras and commentaries.
Read the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra (The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines) It is the oldest literature on the subject of the Boddhisattva path and a very compelling read.
By achieving Nirvana and leaving Samsara. Don't try and deny the purpose, because the idea is that Nirvana is peace. That's ultimately the answer regardless of all Buddhist sectarian ideals.
Only from my perspective. Unless you happen to agree.
You assumed I was creating a broad generalization, but honestly, a fact is a fact, and an opinion is not just an opinion but it is a perspective. To negate its existence merely from your point of view is to be willfully blind to a perspective.
Oh yah it's all about Ex-Christians.... What does that have to do with anything I have said? or are you doing the generalizing? :rolleyesc
I see. That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for that.
There is no idle questions, only questions that should be answered categorically (straightforwardly yes, no, this, that), There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer (defining or redefining the terms). There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions. And the only questions that should be put aside are whether the world is eternal or not eternal, Whether the world is finite or infinite, Whether the soul and body are identical or different, Whether the enlightened one exists after death, or does not exist after death, or both exists and does not exist after death, or neither exists nor does not exist after death. Otherwise a refusal to answer a question is either an ambiguous evasion or a refusal to help someone who asks a question.
To accuse a person of arrogance for believing in the certainty or discernment of certain views is not giving any answer when discernment is actually explicitly stated to be not there and when one is asking a question
Oh, come on. This is obviously a rhetorical question, an out of hand rejection of what you thought I was saying.
I started the thread so as to stay on topic and not go off topic in the other thread.
We don't know that.
But as I said, one cannot attain Nirvana and return to Samsara.
So in other words, Nihilism? That's different. I haven't seen that perspective there before. Perhaps I have what you're saying wrong. Are you saying there's neither anything there nor anything at all? So then who makes the vow, and what sentient beings are saved?
Not quite. It's very complicated once fit in the Paradigm of most Buddhist cosmology and thought.
I would like to know a bit more. You got any tips?
Ah, so I can't ask any questions then?
On the contrary. It's vast, I just have trouble fitting it together with other Buddhist Literature and the history of Buddhist ideology. I know that the Boddhisattva path is the resolve to become a Samyaksambuddha in one's lifetime, but there's only one Samyaksambuddha every turning of the wheel of the Dharma so to say one can become a Samyaksambuddha in one's lifetime now is to do the impossible unless previous Buddhist literature is rejected.
So I'll clear the air with what I do know: the Boddhisattva path from what I know is vows, one makes as a promise to work for the complete enlightenment of all sentient beings by practicing the six perfections and by delaying one's achievement of Nirvana until one is able to become a Samyaksambuddha.
You know for one who claims to be part of the kinder and more intelligent people, I am rather confused and surprised by the profound lack of understanding and compassion I've been getting. I have been told a lot about my ignorance and arrogance which I neither denied nor rejected, and indeed asked for help for, and I have not gotten a lot of honesty from any of you, just been browbeaten for asking questions and having these admissions of fallibility thrown in my face in attempts to try and disparage my questions.
I read it before. Is there another piece of Literature you recommend? :rolleyes:
No it wasn't. It was an obvious statement that whether it lasts eternally or in the moment it doesn't matter at all with respects to how one commits to liberation. You either try or you don't. It wasn't a rejection but a reinforcement of what I've been saying all along, you can either reach for liberation or live in a prison of your own making. To reach for liberation is to forfeit any expectation that you will or will not reach or achieve the Bodhisattva ideals.
You assert that your knowledge of Mahayana is vast. Indeed, you certainly ask a lot about it.
You also have told us that you used to be a Mahayanist but are now Theravadin. Would it not be more skillful to be asking about areas of Theravada which you do not yet understand, rather than wasting bandwidth on Mahayana which you have given up?
Like I said, if you want a practical example of the difference between arrogance and certainty, this is an excellent one. You obviously still haven't tried to understand what I was saying, just reacted to what you thought I was saying.
No, I want to know what I got wrong because I was mislead by a rogue teacher, so I want to see the reality of Mahayana so that I don't get mislead again nor misunderstand Mahayana doctrine. It's a sad reason that I walked away from Mahayana Buddhism, and I will not continue to have lies about it live in my mind.
So for the sake of my greater understanding can you clarify what you mean? and please be as clear as possible. I don't trust metaphors because such metaphors can be misunderstood of hide the truth, so I tend to over-analyze or focus intently on what has been said.
I understand that you adhere to the Theravadan tradition. It is a very noble community and I am glad that you are able to find practice and faith through their teachings.
Why do you even ask about Mahayanist beliefs, if all you do is try to refute every sentence I state? Maybe instead you could add a complimentary statement that shows how our possibly conflicting ideologies are part of a grander and more unifying theme. There is no need to cause unwarrented dissention and unharmony.
I respect your beliefs and I expect nothing less of you.
I loved the compassion and the warmth of a community that the Mahayana tradition offered.
I am not trying to refute, I'm looking for clarity. Pure clarity.
Without a doubt. Some of the Mahayana literature was the most beautiful sets of metaphors that I have ever read, and it's brilliant without a doubt, but I need to separate fact from fiction because I was mislead by not the sutras, but by the teachers.
There is indeed no need to cause unwarrented dissention and disharmony, but I have tough questions to ask. If a person is unable to bear the weight of the questions, it's okay to get mad at me, and okay to call me arrogant and ignorant, and I have admitted it not denied it. I would just appreciate it more if the truth was included in the statements.
Same here, I just need to find the truth. This is why I am trying especially hard to get it sans metaphors. I don't need metaphors or indirectness anymore, I need to clear my head of lies.
In the context of the many-lives model, this question is idle, because it is remote. The practice is the same in any case. You interpreted this statement as giving up, but it is giving up on a cipher. The practical steps to take in Buddhist practice don't change one iota, whatever the answer is. So who cares?
You could have had the same objections, but avoided coming across as arrogant by exploring them in a less bombastic manner, probably by asking a series of genuine questions. (Not that I mind, but you were asking, and this is an excellent example of how you're screwing up.)
In the many-lives model, there is still no question that is idle if it leads to truth and insight.
The cipher is really important within the context of insight.
It's tough to say. I would have thought most people would.
They're genuine questions. Bombastic is how they were perceived.
So how do I avoid it? :rolleyes: What do you recommend? I cannot control the perceptions of others.
If you're genuinely struggling with this, Crucial Conversations is a good book on communication.
The Truth cannot be stated, discussed, conceived, apprehended, known, given, remembered, grasped, or attained. We may only state the paths that may lead one to the Truth.
My path is 8-fold.
Thanks I'll save up some money and get this book.
You've been very helpful!
We walk the same path brother, it's just 2 different methods.
The Bodhisattva ideal is the highest, but only when it is selfless. This is where your mind seems to be, but it won't necessarily help to argue with people about it. There are layers of belief, of clinging, that have nothing to do with realization or direct experience... and these are the things that must first be abandoned before the truly selfless reality can assert itself.
I applaud your fearless questions but must sadly conclude this will just be a never-ending argument, the same as the ones about rebirth... and every person involved in it will manage to be offensive, including me. So, I'm in and out with this single post to you and anyone else willing to truly think about it.
"It is sometimes said that the Bodhisattva ideal would be to stop the progression toward Buddhahood to continue working for the benefit of all beings in samsara. This affirmation is founded on some confusion. First, it is necessary to understand that the Bodhisattva even if working in samsara, does not belong to samsara. On the first [Bodhisattva] stage, the Bodhisattva is liberated. Secondly it is a erroneous to believe that the faculties possessed by a Bodhisattva to help beings are superior to those of a Buddha, because the qualities of a Buddha are infinite. The aim of a Bodhisattva is, therefore, not to put a halt on the way to Buddhahood, thinking it would help beings if he or she stays in the Bodhisattva stages, but to attain Buddhahood.
The confusion as to the objectives of the Bodhisattva is mainly a question of vocabulary. When it is affirmed that a Bodhisattva benefits beings, whereas a Buddha does not, it appears that the term Buddha is limited in this case to the Absolute Body (Dharmakaya) and that the form bodies ... only receive the title of Bodhisattva.
As it is true that it is not the Dharmakaya of a Buddha that accomplishes the benefit of beings... then according to this point of view, it is indeed the Bodhisattva who is in charge of benefitting beings.
In reality, however a Buddha possess the three Bodies and consequently has the ability to help beings in various ways, including the manifestation of a Bodhisattva."
P.S.
Um, this is my first post, and I couldn't find the rules, so i hope such an extensive quote from a book isn't against them.
Excellently spoken Trinley, and welcome, though I'm new here myself.
Cheers, WK
bodhinagamin is maybe a better concept for the intent.
travel the path, cease suffering, then return to help samsaric beings.
Cheers, WK
Well I can't take credit for Bokar Rinpoche's eloquent explanation, but to me it certainly addresses the OP's question.
Thank you for the kind welcome
then how is a buddha different from a boddhisattva?
A buddha realises that there is nothing more to learn and acts for the benefit of sentient beings effortlessly without intention, yet a boddhisattva still has doubt, fear, and still needs to strive and does not perfectly know what is beneficial and what is not, and does not know perfectly what is real and what is not........maybe
Cheers, WK
So basically, boddhisattva is just a not-silent buddha?
Yes, but there is art is knowing what to say, even if it isn't your own words, at least you were able to find them. I have perfected the art of never being able to find the right page when I'm looking for something specific.
Cheers, WK
In the same book i quoted before Bokar Rinpoche states that a boddhisattva is already liberated and just has a duller experience of the true nature of reality which is developed through the levels to full clarity.
Trungpa Rinpoche's book "The myth of freedom" also covers the nature of the different boddhisattva levels in great detail