SuttaCentral
As one creates the wish that as long as living beings are around, one would want to work to liberate them, that wish traps one in saṃsāra, which is exactly what māra wants. So don’t fall for it. It’s just simulating the desire to become, to become a hero for all beings.
Māra is ok with one becoming the hero, just not ok with one stepping out of the cycle of rebirth.
I wouldn’t say the wish traps one, because one precisely commits to remaining in samsara for the benefit of all beings.
Also, venerable, in practice, in real life, the bodhisattva path takes different forms in different traditions, so it can’t be generalized based on a standard definition from any text. A Zen practitioner in the West does not interpret the bodhisattva as a Tibetan Buddhist does, and the Pure Land Buddhist in China will also have a completely different take on it.
There is a whole chunk of the Mahayana world where rebirth is interpreted as a moment-by-moment event, having to do with the mind’s state, so for someone who doesn’t believe in literal rebirth, the whole concept of bodhisattva practice revolves around manifesting enlightenment here and now, in every action, in this very life, fully understanding nirvana and samsara as different sides of the same no-sided coin and cultivating the good qualities of the buddhas.
This might not match the EBTs literally, but it reflects 2 thousand years of development of Buddhist thought
Greetings, venerable. 
I think oversimplification of Mahayana concepts in such broad strokes is dangerous. 
This is another pet peevee of mine, that sometimes practitioners (really, boths EBT / Theravadins and also Mahayanists) assume that there’s some sort of a doctrinal unity across all Mahayana, when in fact there’s just as vigorous and heated debates on these finer points.
Let’s not also forget that Theravada also has its own canonical Bodhisattva practice, so that shouldn’t be overlooked. So it’s an interesting anachronism to consider that your specific phrasing as representative of “THE” Bodhisattva path, when in EBT realm, such a phrasing is not found.
But I will assume that from the direction of your post, you’re tackling a specific phrasing commonly attributed to “Mahayana”; that is, beings stay in Samsara as Bodhisattvas rather than reaching Buddhahood to keep helping living beings. I can count many Mahayana sutras that support and reject that idea both.
Are you able to tell me what sutra it comes from, what other sutras elaborate on it, what different schools have taught about it, beyond this two piece dismissal, venerable?
Now; whether that phrasing is compatible with EBTs is a whole another story.
So perhaps a more prudent investigation would be to delve into what it means to be liberated and to be a bodhisattva / buddha according to different Mahayana Sutras, and different Mahayana schools’ exegeses; to what extent are these concepts are EBT compatible, etc.
That is a whole article and or a few books. But to offer the curtest explanation matching yours: I believe while EBTs talk about cessation, it might be wise to consider how it sevelopped as an allegory / metaphor that took on a literal meaning.
However, “cessation” taken as a literal fact, might create conplications and paradoxes not easily resolved.
I’ll offer one of my such angles to this debate:
Bhikkhu Bodhi is another Theravadin that doesn’t consider cessation to be existence or non-existence; something transcendal.
Therefore perhaps there’s no difference between Samsara and Nirvana except in the mind of conceptualization.
So perhaps indeed we can talk about a bodhisattva who stays in Samsara forever and help other sentient being, while there’s no Bodhisattva or Samsara in reality.
Mahayana represents an idealogical and doctrinal evolution. Just like with EBTs, many concepts are decipherable when taking in the context of different teachings.
I would assume that this being an EBT focused forums, not many people have this interest nor the background.
I think it would serve our time best if we did that here, focused on EBT studies; not saying never to invoke Mahayana or anything, but curt dismissals like this doesn’t do justice to millenia of developments and debates that have occurred and are still occuring.
Comparative studies are best done with informed parties and with delicate care, respect and extensive sourcing. That seems to be a tall order for this particular thread.
With love and best, venerable.
I always thought this was one of those things that maybe seems dislike or unaligned and a thing people can get hung up on or think is awkward but in fact is an articulation of the insight that’s beyond sakayaditthi - for instance the version of the bodhisattva vows I understand is the point of discussion of the diamond sutra - which also mentions the 4 levels of noble beings - a vow like “liberating all the sentient beings” (even though there is not such a thing as a single sentient being to be liberated) the sakayaditthi is the view of self or objects outside causes and conditions - the kaya is body-view or essence - “there is someone who realises” etc, kinda only way I can make sense of the diamond sutra - as like footnote to meaning of “tathagata”
But I think you’re right about Mara in that the most common interpretation could be that way- like for instance there can be a lot of harm done in the name of “saving others” when one doesn’t quite understnad or see ones own mind, but equally theravada has it’s version of mara aplenty too (e.g. dhutanga held for wrong reasons)
so I always thought like correctly understood the bodhisattva vow was a version of khanti (patience) being the highest virtue
I’m new. What are EBTs?
Early Buddhist Texts.
Welcome to the forum!
EBT: Early Buddhist Texts.
I feel the wish definitely traps one and that is one form of craving only. Moreover how can one benefit others if one has not yet benefitted oneself? How can one help other’s cross samsara if one has not yet crossed it himself? How can a drowning person save other drowning person?
Ok I don’t disagree but in order to understand the 2 sides of same coin, one really needs to understand nibbana isn’t it?
Moreover, the need of path of bodhisattva is there only when the true teachings of buddha are no more available. Off course this is just my opinion ok.
I have read many many mahayana suttas very passionately. I started studying buddhism from mahayana buddhism only. Only after so much time I realized that mahayana buddhism is just kind of covering around true teachings of buddha.
I agree with you sir on this part.
Exactly. I remember reading a mahayana sutta, from 84000 org site, their buddha literally says that, making or causing one person to attain sotapatti phala (stream-entry) is of more worth than establishing every single person of this earth into 10 wholesome deeds (which is I think what universal monarch does). So this single occurence (there are other such peculiar points as well in other mahayana suttas) made me realize the supremacy (or rather higher importance) of buddha’s teachings (ebt, theravada I mean). Because after reading that part, I immediately remembered how in a certain dhammapada quote buddha says something like, lordship over all earth, birth in heaven… fruit of stream-entry excels them all!!!
I can actually find that mahayana sutta which I was referencing here if necessary, it was talking about many types of bodhisattvas, like those who got prediction, those who know who will get prediction and so on. I have read many many such mahayan suttas very passionately.
Moreover as per ten bhumis sutras, the 10th bhumi is cloud of dharma, on which the most famous bodhisattva avalokiteshvara is said to be and 11th bhumi (path of no more learning/universal radiance) is the level of samyak sambuddha/tathagata. So even if we consider this, it makes sense to me to follow samyak sambuddha’s teachings (broadly theravada and ebt). My take is that, following tenth stage bodhisattva is like better than following 9th stage bodhisattva, so why not follow the 11th stage one? Because that stage is even beyond 10th stage buddha, so why not follow that person because that person is same as our historical buddha isn’t it?
Btw, I found two similarities, or for me it sounded similar. The explanation of 1st bhumi which says, that at this stage one experiences a happiness like never before and the explanation of satipatthana sutta (from certain webpage, this also I can find if required), where at one of the last stage, there is also realisation of happiness like never before. These two things I feel are maybe pointing to same thing. Just an observation.
I came to this speculation because, I was confused like, in theravada and ebt the one we see as highest is buddha only and in mahayana suttas also the highest is generally buddha only. So if one person is really serious about attaining nibbana in this life only, then better to stick with ebt/theravada teachings, which are direct teachings from lord buddha. Just my opinion ok.
(P. S. - I don’t believe anything including my understanding as final, off course except the words of buddha from tipitaka)
By becoming a Buddha. At least, that was the initial idea when they began creating the bodhisattva path. Nowadays, it is infinitely more complicated. The vow is not taken as a literal salvation of all, but rather as an unattainable aspiration and a commitment to continuously practice for the benefit of others. What the bodhisattva vows is, first of all, to drop the self (the first vow is to care for others) or to stop creating separation in the mind, stop dividing the world into self and not self, then to work tirelessly at ending their own inexhaustible delusions, which is again, a boundless vow. Then, to enter all dharma gates, which can mean to learn from all teachings of the dharma, not to dismiss any of the means by which one can awaken, and also to perceive reality just as it is. The last one is to realize the Buddha´s way, which can mean to express enlightenment in every action, here and now, one thing after another, with this very body-mind, dealing with the great matter of life and death.
I agree with you about the craving part. It was people’s inability to accept the Buddha’s mortality and humanity, along with their desire to attain something more—something better and greater—that led them to aspire to become Buddhas themselves.
Doesn´t it by any chance continue by saying something like¨how much more merit then is there in turning someone into a bodhisattva?” It usually goes like that. 
Interesting thing, since you mention the bhumis, is that they are not a universal part of the bodhisattva practice. Some traditions hold on to them, others don´t. In the same way, some schools will hold on to some sutras while others dismiss them. There is very little generalization that can be made.
Do they say how exactly does one turn someone into a bodhisattva? Who can do this and who cannot?
Yes, the prajnaparamita depiction of a bodhisattva is someone who is a bodhisattva rather than thinks they are a bodhisattva or claims to be a bodhisattva. These are three different things, and the first is the genuine article. An actual bodhisattva is hard to spot, like an arhat can be hard to spot. You have to observe their behavior for a long time because they aren’t going to try to advertise it.
There was a historical process that took place that led to traditional Buddhism in India and Central Asia disappearing. Other religions supplanted the traditional monastic order slowly over time, Hinduism won the cultural struggle over the identity of Indian civilization, etc. Then there was the advent of Christianity and Islam, both of which converted people in South & Central Asia aggressively and were anti-asceticism. It all added up to monastic Buddhism disappearing from the regions that they successfully conquered or converted. Seen in that context, the rise of bodhisattva practice makes sense as a response to what was taking place at the time. Following the traditional teachings of the Buddha as part of a monastic order became more and more difficult or impossible. That’s what seems to have happened.
Well, one doesn’t turn another into a bodhisattva. Usually becoming a bodhisattva occurs when they make the decision to pursue the anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, often referred to as bodhicitta. That’s the genesis of the bodhisattva path. Then there is the point at which one receives the assurance from a Buddha that they will become a Buddha in the future. That’s the point at which one is firmly on the path. This second event might happen after serving many Buddhas beforehand.
Traditionally, it was considered a very long road in terms of rebirths between Buddhas. It was considered the practice to pursue during the periods between Buddhas, like the pratyeka buddha path, which was an ascetic who gains awakening without a buddha’s teaching as a guide. Bodhisattva practice was considered superior to being a pratyeka buddha in the sense that a bodhisattva assures that the lineage of buddhas will continue, whereas a pratyeka buddha enters nirvana like an arhat.
I am familiar with all those above concepts, I mean I have read them in mahayana texts.
Exactly sir. People were unable to accept the buddha’s mortality and humanity. I see it as those beings were unable to understand the direct teachings of someone who has traversed and completed the whole path of bodhisattva and is now buddha, which is the 11th ground. But they were able to understand the teachings from those below that stage, like bodhisattvas and all.
I can understand sir why you are saying that, but I am confident that it definitely did not continue like that. I understand from where this “…it usually goes like that.” is coming. Because I personally used to think like that (off course in very much past), making someone sotapanna would give one so much merit, I have tried to literally search anything which says something like that if not exactly like that in some mahayana suttas. I did not find anything like that, atleast in places I searched.
I did not read all but based on few mahayana suttas I read, I personally like only 1 sutta from mahayana which I don’t think contradict/conflict with tipitaka the original/direct teaching of buddha. It is ‘The Noble Application of Mindfulness of the Sacred Dharma’.
I have a very solid reason to feel like that. This is I think the only mahayana sutta which describes all the hells in as much details as possible and all the heavens. It describes the deeds which take one to that realm. It has description of many parts of one single hell and same for heaven. Before reading that text, I was very obsessed with doing so many good deeds so that I will get next birth in heaven to enjoy. But when I read the description of hells, I was frightened like never in my life, and immediately lost all the interest in heavens or all those divine things. Because it has description of what kind of god dies because of what and how that god takes birth in hell afterwards, then again after immense duration of suffering gets rare human birth and again repeats the cycle out of ignorance of four noble truths, so it kind of helped me realize why buddha many times said that, fruit of stream-entry (which frees one from lower realms i.e. apayas forever!!!) is greater than the birth in highest of sense heaven. Now currently I fear both heaven and hell, my belief is that heaven is just gateway to hell for someone who is not at least sotapanna. Every anariya is bound to fall in hell sooner or later unless he attains fruition of stream entry.
Wow sir, thank you for putting this. I wanted to say this but couldn’t find the words! My take here is that, one is said to be bodhisattva only after one receives prediction of buddhahood from any buddha, like bodhisattva sumedha got the prediction of future buddhahood from lord Dipankara buddha of unimaginable past.
Exactly sir, I would even say more than hard, it is almost impossible and even saying that it is impossible wouldn’t be exaggeration. But I also think that ariyas like the 8 ariya pudgalas, are also called bodhisattvas by mahayanists. Moreover I also think 99% of those who are experts in buddhism like academic scholars or like that, can NOT identify any ariya, let alone arhat!
I absolutely agree with you. I think the same. I personally believe that mahayana is kind of covering/protection around the true/direct teachings of buddha.
I have even heard that avalokiteshwara is pratyekabuddha! (I don’t know what is reality, just mentioning here) I mean if we go by meaning I feel, pratyekabuddha is someone who perfects the conduct of buddha, and he does that when there is no buddha sasana, maybe that’s why he is placed above arahats! I also feel pratyekabuddhas are like those who launch one into next buddhasasana from the in between period of buddhasasana. There is one sutta I read or rather it was a story, but not from tipitaka I think, it was maybe from a story from any text of sarvastivada or something like that. But that story goes like this, there is one person who works tirelessly to just have a food with 100 flavors as lunch, he achieves that, but when he sits to enjoy that hard earned fortune, for which he worked extremely hard for 3 contiunous years, just before he was gonna take first bite, he sees pratyekabuddha approaching in that premise for alms, so he feels overwhelmed and desire to give alms arises in him, so he gives half of that lavish food he earned by his 3 years of efforts. But while he was giving half of it, he feels immense joy while giving that half meal to that monk (who is pratyekabuddha) and then out of happiness he donates even the remaining lavish meal and prays that may I also experience the happiness which is experienced by you venerable. Pratyekabuddha accepts it and flies away and distributes that meal among total 500 pratyekabuddhas like him. After this in that story, because of his powerful effect of that kamma he is born in heaven and he lives in heaven for the complete buddhantara (time between two buddhas) and then takes birth in the time of Gautama buddha and I think becomes the disciple of ven sariputta, and he becomes anagami as a child only, but he becomes arhat because of buddha’s intervention.
I agree about lineage of buddhas thing but regarding other part I think, everyone who enters nirvana enters like arhat as that is the final goal isn’t it? (for example the king shuddhodhana the father of buddha was also said to have become arhat during his death and died as arhat..he did not become monk but still died as arhat..) Even for someone who wants to liberate others like bodhisattvas are thought of thinking, they also desire and are thought of working so that in the end everyone will be arhat. Atleast I think like that. Just my opinion.
If you read very early sutras, like the Inquiry of Ugra, you will discover a completely different Mahayana, where the push was towards returning to forest practice, to following the Vinaya and the teachings of the Buddha, and not to spend time in monasteries coming up with philosophical texts or associating with people too much. That early period in the development of Mahayana was very much a “return to the old values” movement, before it became this sectarian approach, so antagonistic to what they labeled Hinayana.
Also, keep in mind that the canon in Mahayana is dynamic, not closed, so one can’t simply take old sutras and interpret them as the Mahayana standard, because they are not.
Ok this I was not aware of. Thanks. This seems not so much like general mahayana texts surprisingly.
oh alright. I appreciate you for pointing this. Will keep that in mind. This definitely updated my perspective.
Right, Charles! I was interested in how their source explains it:
Again, there isn’t a single definitive source for any of this. In the Lotus Sūtra, for example, when the bodhisattva path is taught, some 5,000 practitioners turn away and leave, refusing to accept the teaching. In contrast, many arhats receive confirmation that they too will attain buddhahood, gladly accept this, and from that point onward practice as bodhisattvas rather than as śrāvakas.
According to the EBTs, after stream-entry, one is certain to become an arhat. However, in later Mahāyāna sources, even one who has already attained arhatship can “switch buses” or vehicles, as Bhikkhu Bodhi jokingly put it.
So, in a sense, the idea was that teaching the Mahāyāna to śrāvakas would “turn” them—primarily in their own understanding, since they were regarded as already being on the One Vehicle, regardless of how they themselves felt.
However, in the Ugraparipṛcchā Sūtra, which seems to be among some of the oldest Mahayana or bodhisattvayana sutras we have, when addressing the duties of a lay bodhisattva when visiting a vihara, it is said, “If he furnishes a monk whose course is not yet certain with a robe and bowl, he should induce that monk to [strive for] Supreme Perfect Enlightenment. And why? Because material furnishings provide an occasion for Dharma-furnishing. O Eminent Householder, in that way should the householder bodhisattva become knowledgeable about the conduct of the sramana*.** Moreover, he should reconcile those sramanas who are in a state of discord with one another.*”
So, here there is a clear difference in approach, since one can be on a fixed path after a certain point, either as a shravaka or a bodhisattva. Of course, a text like the Ugra, which was very popular for a while, is extremely different from ones like the Lotus, which actually gained more prominence in time.
Yes, it’s the same nirvana for everyone. I wasn’t trying to say there’s a nirvana for arhats and a nirvana for others. I’ve not heard of that before, so I didn’t think about it. I was just saying that pratyeka buddhas were very similar to the disciples, but they have the merits to be able to realize dependent origination, end rebirth, and enter nirvana without a Buddha to teach them.
There are similar themes in the Ekottarika Agama as in the Ugra Sutras. It seems as though bodhisattva practice was something found among retired laypeople at some point in Buddhist history. The Ekottarika Agama has a set of sutras that have the Buddha praising Anathapindika as practicing like a bodhisattva. One of my favorites is EA 10.5. But there’s a few of them scattered about EA in which the Buddha makes references to paramita practice, and it’s usually when talking to a layman.
There is considerable proof that the Mahayana path started among monastics. Both Paul Williams and Jan Nattier dive into this topic, though there are scholars who want to pin the thing on laypeople.
Obviously, with the rise of the Mahayana, it appealed more to laypeople, who, by simply adopting the ideal of the bodhisattva, were told they were superior to the shravakas and arhats. The Mahayana also offered easier ways of practicing, by copying sutras, chanting them, making offerings to stupas, and building them.
The Ugra very much tells laypeople that their goal should be to go forth as soon as possible. It instructs on how to train while “stuck” in lay life, but the drive is to get out ASAP.
I’ll have a look at EA 10.5 Thanks for pointing it out to me
I’m sorry. I didn’t actually mean to say it began with laypeople. I generally say what I mean, but other people suggest things instead, and then all of these kinds of misunderstandings take place because people think I’m suggesting something. I was just pointing out that there is a theme of laypeople practicing as bodhisattvas in the Ekottarika Agama. I thought you might be interested, that’s all!
As far as where or how Mahayana began, it depends on what we mean by Mahayana probably. I would expect that monks were involved, but there’s clearly a lay component as well. It doesn’t have to one thing or another. History is usually more complicated than that.