Bodhisattas and the EBTs

I like to approach this question from a somewhat secular point of view.

The concepts of “finite” and “infinite” have been with humanity since antiquity; their occurrence in the Pali Canon testifies to this.

Thanks to mathematics and metamathematics, we now know that there exist various different infinities. In fact, a nonfinite amount of infinities exist.

With “exist” I mean “can be rigorously defined given a suitable choice of axioms.” One may ask to what extent these infinities are actual, real, independent of human existence. Philosophers of mathematics have debated this question.

All this points to the conclusion that saying “the number of beings is infinite” brings ambiguity with it.

Of course, this problem can be alleviated by specifying the type of infinity meant, eg “aleph-null.”

That’s where the epistemological problems kick in. How can a fallible human know if some entity, say the number of beings, is aleph-null, and not aleph-one or just stupendously large?

Personally, I cannot see a way out of these epistemological problems. That’s why my answer to the question “is the number of beings in the cosmos finite or infinite” would be “indeterminate”: I don’t see a fruitful way of addressing, or even rephrasing, the question.

4 Likes

Yes I’ve heard of this theory and it makes a lot of sense. However even in the Sutta Pitaka the term bodhisatta has been applied to the Buddha before his going forth and even in previous lifetimes. And there are suttas that actually probably brought this ideal into existence possibly more than just that mistranslation. An example is MN 123, where we see the idea of a destined buddhahood emerge through Siddhatta’s first words as a baby.

2 Likes

Exactly. I don’t think it’s something a human mind could ever know, or any mind for that matter.

2 Likes

This process happened long before Mahāyāna had anything to do with Buddhism. Much like any confusion that might have existed between pratyeka & pratyaya buddhas.

4 Likes

Pardon my lack of knowledge. What’s the difference?

It’s just two different etymologies, one related to being a “lone” Buddha, and one being related to someone who attains Buddhahood based on some sort of observation of causality and/or the 12 links.

There are a few threads on it: "Pratyaya" Buddha

1 Like

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated reading your thoughtful and reflective post. I went through a similar process many years ago: it was clear from the EBTs that the bodhisattva ideal is a later development.

In many ways, it’s not just a later development, it’s the canonical example of a development that is both clearly late and critically important. It’s not really a Mahayana/Theravada thing, as it is found in all traditions (in somewhat different forms).

So I had to wrestle with this; everyone says something else! Maybe they have access to truths not found in the suttas? Can all the traditions really get something so big, so wrong?

These are not easy questions from a spiritual point of view. Facts and history are one thing, but we feel a sense of connection and belonging to a wisdom tradition, and this transcends sheer factuality.

I have found a measure of peace with all this. But I am so happy to hear of the journeys of others, to see that the questions and issues raised can be brought into conversation in this way.

21 Likes

I highly recommend watching a talk Bhikkhu Bodhi gave in Houston in 2016 on this issue.

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: Bridging The Two Vehicles

4 Likes

I think the bodhisatta vow taken only before a living Buddha makes sense given the immense cosmic potential energy a samasammuddha possesses and to me that potentiality would validate and manifest the intention over multiple lifetimes in the individual.

I don’t see an issue with a bodhisatta training under other Buddhas either. Gotama taking his vow at the feet of Buddha Dīpankara and subsequently training under all the following Buddhas including Kassapa makes sense because he forgets his bodhisatta status with every death and is only ever reminded of it by a living Buddha.

In the commentaries it also says that all bodhisattas have a penultimate birth in the Tusita heaven and are reborn on Earth as a sakadāgāmi. People might think that someone whose already 50% enlightened couldn’t be rightly-self-awakened, but I don’t agree with that. Gotama would be completely unaware of his status until either he was told it by a Buddha or he became a Buddha on his own. His awakening was done on his own without a teacher and he had no accessible knowledge of the saddhamma.

I know the commentaries are often poo-pooed, but I am in full agreement with this issue.
Just my view.:grin:

3 Likes

I have a question regarding Vajrayāna. As I understand it one of the major differences between them and all the other Mahayana, besides the tantric practices, is that they believe that a person can enlighten in their present lifetime. So why do the monastics and often laymen still take the bodhisattva vow? It seems at odds.

That has puzzled me and I’ve never gotten a clear answer. Maybe one of you has a satisfying answer for me…:anjal:

2 Likes

You’re making me blush… :flushed::blush:

I’ve thought the same thing. I guess it depends on your idea of ‘truth’. One could say everyone who’s not awakened has it wrong, and that’s a lot of people! But even arahants and buddhas can be wrong, the only thing they’re guaranteed to be right about is the Four Noble Truths! Awakening to that doesn’t mean they become historians or quantum physicists. So personally I don’t think it’s something that CAN be known. Even the Buddha said no one, not even him, can know everything simultaneously. Some things will never be known, but I think that’s what evidence and theories and studies are for, to get a more accurate picture, not an ultimately real one. A friend of mine who teaches physics to highschool students told me how he warns them, “Scienctific laws are a model of reality that we use to make our refrigerators run. It works. But you shouldn’t take it as ultimately ‘real’.” Well I think the same can be said of both traditional and historical accounts of the Dhamma. We shouldn’t take them as absolute truth, just as the fuel to get our faith, energy, mindfulness, samādhi, and understanding going!

I wanted to mention this yesterday too, but I felt it would need a whole other post. I started papañca’ing about where all this comparative study will get us in the future, and started thinking about a new ‘non-sectarian’ school of Buddhism that relied on the EBTs only, and realized that even that would become a sect. It’s inevitable. I’m not sure how BSWA works, do you guys consider yourselves Theravada or non-affiliated or something else? The question about a new school like that is, would it even be a good thing? Sure there’s some benefits of following the ‘the most accurate way’ and practicing ‘what the Buddha most likely taught’ as a whole community, but I feel that you’d be missing a certain amount of, well, tradition! Traditions have been what’s kept the Dhamma alive for so many years, it’s what gives a large number of people faith, it clears up uncertainties, and it can provide a wholesome identity that strengthens your practice. Of course it has downsides, such as extremism and fundamentalism, but so does this new era of Buddhism where we doubt even these traditions, and that is exactly that, doubt! For me personally doubt can be a strong hindrance and it can take many subtle forms. Studies can like these can cool that doubt but who knows what they’re doing under the rug. As a whole, the question of where these studies will lead is unknown, and so far it has helped me immensely, but I know after a certain point I’m going to have to put the books down and just get to work. Ultimately, experiencing the Four Noble Truths is more important than studying them. But still, I do have to thank you for all the work you’ve done. I’m currently reading Sects and Sectarianism :pray: very insightful so far.

And I’m happy that you provided your input and experience with this as well! Sadhu, sadhu :smile:

9 Likes

Ah I saw this on YouTube a while ago and wanted to watch it but forgot. Thanks for reminding me :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Well this raises the question of “what does it really mean to drop the fetters?”. Is this saying that already at birth Siddattha knew the five aggregates weren’t self, yet it took him 35 years to explain that to others? He already let go of doubt of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, that he knew nothing about? He knew that rights and rituals and certain practices weren’t essentially purifying, yet he practiced extreme austerities for years? Something doesn’t add up. Also, if all traditions agree that he had knowledge of his past lives before the final knowledge of destruction of the taints, he would in fact have a teacher, past Buddhas! That recollection right there would be accessible knowledge of the sadhamma. Rather than him finding it on his own he would simply remember what he was told by his past teacher and finish the job. Kind of inconsistent but hey, no one said it can’t be.

1 Like

No idea but one possibility is that their idea of enlightenment would be 10th bhumi bodhisattva, and maybe next lifetime they’d become a sammāsambuddha in another world system or something.

1 Like

A 10th bhūmi practitioner is a fully enlightened Buddha in both systems (Tantra & Mahāyāna). Although some Tantric sects add up to 10 extra stages after the completion of Buddhahood.

1 Like

Right. But do the Mahayana consider it possible to attain all 10 stages in one lifetime?

That’s a good question!
But how would any sakadāgāmi know from birth that the lower three fetters had been abandoned in a previous rebirth?
The answer to me is that he couldn’t possibly know without engaging in mediation practice. Remember sakādāgāmis can be reborn outside of a Buddha’s sāsana or beyond the reach of an ongoing one. In that case they would either become a paccekabuddha or potentially a sammasambuddha if there isn’t a current sāsana.

Sotāpanna and sakādāgāmis must be born with the potential for the fetters in some regard and huge potential for their re-disappearance. How could a sotāpanna as a kid have supreme unwavering confidence in the dhamma? They pretty much couldn’t.

Let’s say “potentially” a sotāpanna could have been born in 12th century France and had lived that whole life as a Catholic. They would still be a sotāpanna, but in a “circumstantial stasis.” The right conditions must be in place for the fetters to instantaneous fall away and return to the prior attained status.

Sakādāgamis are guaranteed to awaken in their next and final birth as a human so the conditions for realization will certainly become present in that life, but are unlikely to be immediate. Sotāpannas don’t necessarily have that certainty unless it is their seventh rebirth in which case they are essentially a sakādāgami.

Most sammasambudddhas awaken in either one week, three weeks or three months after brief austerities practice. In the Pali commentaries it’s stated that Buddha Gotama took six years because of vipāka from insulting Buddha Kassapa twice as told in the Ghaṭikāra Sutta: MN #81.
Of course it is wise to always take the commentaries with a pinch of salt.

Don’t think these questions can be adequately answered where all potential doubts are quelled…

1 Like

Indeed they most likely never will be. But the search can still bring useful knowledge.

This is also mentioned in Anālayo’s book. But from my own understanding it’s a way of sweeping that whole bit under the rug. “Oh you know, he was just mean to a Buddha so he felt compelled to torture himself.” Kind of goes against my (and the Buddha’s) idea of kamma, in that present circumstances are conditioned both by past and present kamma. He definitely intended to perform those penances and to say he only did because of past bad kamma gives a feel of determinism and lack of will.

You raise some good points about sotāpannas and sakādāgamis though, and it’s something I’ve wondered about for a while and decided to put aside. If I reach a stage I’m not stopping there and waiting to pick it back up next lifetime, it’s all or nothing baby :dharmawheel:

2 Likes

It depends on the sect. Tantrists believe that they are already on that 10th bhūmi, so they certainly believe that it is attainable in this life. It also contextualizes why they felt the need to add up to ten extra stages after the end: because nothing seemed to happen when the guru laid his hands on their heads.

2 Likes

It occurs to me that Buddhism in its pure, undistorted, core EBT form has never really existed for very long anywhere since it’s earliest days. It has always been Brahminized, Vedantized, Hinduized, Mahayanized, Scholasticized, Shaivized, Confucianized, Taoized, Tibetized or Westernized. Plus there are innumerable and untraceable inputs from all sorts of local cults and practices.

The original teaching, it seems to me, taught the necessity of going forth into the homeless, mendicant life. This wasn’t some pretty euphemism, but the real deal. But even the most authentic forms of contemporary Buddhism assign homeless wandering an optional status as a special form of austerity.

Maybe the original teaching is so challenging, and so restricted to the needs and goals of a spiritually elite class of virtuoso practitioners, that it is unsustainable in pure form? If so, then it is no wonder ordinary people had to invent all sorts of other kinds of Buddhism to satisfy their personal spiritual needs.

9 Likes