Talk:Bodhisattva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikiproject_Buddhism This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Bodhisattva, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] "Buddhahood" clarification

Just to be clear, is "Buddhahood" synonymous with "enlightenment" (since, reading some of the comments below, nirvana can be divided into two degrees), and if so, could we note that in the introduction for clarification? --66.229.183.101 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically the answer is no, though it depends upon which tradition you are studying. Enlightenment is the same as liberation, not Buddhahood. Anyone who has reached the level of a 'non-returner' (e.g. 8th Bhumi Bodhisattvas) is enlightened. Your second conclusion (that nirvana can be divided) is also not correct - there is one type of Nirvana, though there are three types of Buddha. However, the nature of Nirvana differs doctrinally according to the tradition of Buddhism being studied- e.g. within the Theravada, once one has achieved final Nirvana, one can no longer actively teach in Samsara, whereas in the Mahayana, once one has achieved final Nirvana, once can no longer NOT actively teach in Samsara. (20040302 09:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Two questions

This seems a little questionable to me, so please educate. Who considers Maitreya to be a Buddha? Who considers Padmasambhava to be a bodhisattva? - Nat Krause 07:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If a person beseches an enlightened being, that being cannot have achieved Nirvana (the end of existance) as there would be no one to beseech to. Thus, many "Buddhas" are actually Bodhisattvas. The reason this is so problematic is two-fold. Many languages don't distinguish between the two especially in common terms. Secondly many practicing Buddhists arn't scholars of their religion and thus they know little about it (look at how many Christians think that "Immaculate Conception" is a reference to Jesus's birth). Anyway, both are Bodhisattvas. Dustin Asby 08:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dustinasby, I think you may be slightly reductive in your assertion. Remember that there are doctrinal differences of opinion regarding the nature of Nirvana, which in fact lay at the root of distinction of the Mahasamghika. Namely, as to whether or not a Buddha remains actively engaged in benefiting others after bodily death. Nagarjuna (and most other Mahayanists after him) argued that SamyaksamBuddhas actively benefit others for all time - and indeed this capability was what distinguished a SamyaksamBuddha from a SravakaBuddha or a PratyekaBuddha, both of whom rested in peace. So it would be rather odd to say that Nagarjuna was not a Buddhist scholar, and yet his position appears to differ radically from yours. Regardless, there are deeper issues regarding the nomenclature of 'SamyaksamBuddha', which is why I partly concur, but for different reasons. It appears that by definition, a SamyaksamBuddha needs to manifest in a place where the teaching has not been before and to turn the wheel of Dharma there. Until a fully enlightened Bodhisattva has achieved that, he remains a Bodhisattva, though his experience (in terms of realisation of Dharmakaya) can be no less than that of a SamyaksamBuddha. This is why eg. Mahayana traditions generally assert that Gautama Buddha was already enlightened when he was born, and his journey to enlightenment in his life was primarily skillful means. Of course this doctrinal structure belongs firmly to the Mahayana traditions, as the Theravadans consider Nirvana to be final peace with no remainder. I am unsure about the issues of just how long a Bodhisattva remains unable to manifest in the Nirmanakaya form of a SamyaksamBuddha, as due to the effortlessness of distance and omniscience, it may well be that an enlightened Bodhisattva is able to turn the wheel of Dharma at very the moment of acheiving omniscience in some far-off universe. Different Buddhist scholars have mildy different interpretations on these issues.(20040302 08:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC))
These ideas are somewhat beyond my limited knowledge. If you wish to explain that the concepts are viewed differently by different groups in the article, do so, but I suggest making the ideas accessible to the casual observer.
Also, when saying that most Buddhists are not scholars I wasn't referring to writers such as this Nagarjuna fellow. Two of my Japanese friends are Buddhists, one Jodo Shinshu, one Nichiren. In talking with them about their beliefs I discovered that they don't really pay a lot of attention to the "details" (in fact I was reminding the Nichiren girl about particulars she had forgotten). To them Bodhisattvas are called Buddhas. This is the "many practicing Buddhists" I was referring to. I was taught that Nirvana (purportedly) eliminates the existance of the individual, which is good because existance is suffering. Sorry if I am spreading misinformation.--Dustin Asby 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand that some friends of yours are not scholars of their tradition - but Buddhism as a multivalent cultural influence was the most literate environment until around the 17th Century and the commercialisation of printing in Western Europe; so, certainly within a historical stance, it is unfortunate to claim that Buddhists are ignorant. I am aware that many lay peoples have solely cultural approaches to their religion - just as in the UK, most people (37 Million - census data) call themselves Christians, but very few (<1 Million - CoE church goers) can name a single article of faith. However, this is not unusual, and doesn't really indicate any lack of scholarship or historicity of these religions.
Regarding your notion of Nirvana - it is hard to make any headway with it, because several terms ('existence', 'individual', 'eliminate') are technical terms; However in this case it appears that you identify existence as 'Samsara' when you say 'existence is suffering'; of course that 'Nagarjuna fellow'(one of the founders of the Mahayana movement, from around 100AD - and one of the great philosophers in history) says in the MMK 25:19-20, There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing it from nirvana. There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara. Therefore, the notion of 'elimination' needs to be examined very closely, and your declaration of elimination of existance must likewise be treated with utmost care. Finally, if we examine the works of Candrakirti (one of the most influential followers of Nagarjuna, from the 8thC), he tells us that the 'individual' - the self, or atman is to be understood in this context as an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is our innate concept of intrinsic nature that serves as the cognitive obscuration barring us from release. (20040302 09:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] change of first paragraph

a being who is able to achieve enlightenment, but doesn't so that he or she may help others advance toward this goal. This act exemplifies their compassion. has been replaced with A being who is dedicated to achieving complete Buddhahood.

The following from the Mahayana article explains why: "Mahayana traditions generally consider that Sravaka-Buddhahood is not final. This is based on a subtle doctrinal distinction between the Mahayana and Nikaya traditions concerning the issues of Nirvana-with-remainder and Nirvana-without-remainder.

The Nikaya traditions considered that Nirvana-without-remainder always follows Nirvana-with-remainder (Buddhas first achieve enlightenment and then mahaparinirvana at 'death') and that Nirvana-without-remainder is final; Whereas the Mahayana traditions consider that Nirvana-without-remainder is always followed by Nirvana-with-remainder – the state of Sravaka-Buddhahood is not final, and is eventually succeeded by the state of Samyaksam-Buddhahood, or total enlightenment.

This distinction is most evident regarding doctrinal concerns about the capability of a Buddha after mahaparinirvana (which is identified by the Nikaya as being nirvana-without-remainder). Most importantly, within the Nikaya, a SamyaksamBuddha is not able to directly point the way to nirvana after death. This is a major distinction between Nikaya and the Mahayana, who conversely state that once a SamyaksamBuddha arises, he or she continues to directly and actively point the way to nirvana until there are no beings left in samsara. Because the views of Nikaya and Mahayana differ in this respect, this is exactly why the Mahayana do not talk about a bodhisattva postponing nirvana, and exactly why the Nikaya do.

For example, within Nikaya traditions, Maitreya has chosen to postpone his Nirvana in order to introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists. While within Mahayana schools, Maitreya will also be the next Buddha manifest in this world and introduce the Dharma when it no longer exists; however he is not postponing his Nirvana to do so, and when he dies (or enters mahaparinirvana), he will likewise continue to teach the Dharma for all time. Moreover, Mahayana argues that although it is true that for this world-system Maitreya is the next Buddha to manifest, there are an infinite number of world-systems many of which have currently active Buddhas or Buddhas-to-be manifesting.

So based on the Nikaya/Mahayana doctrinal distinction of the meaning of nirvana-without-remainder, we see two distinct views concerning the path of the bodhisattva, with the Nikaya stating that Bodhisattvas postpone their own Nirvana, whereas the Mahayana schools stating that Bodhisattvas attempt to reach Nirvana as soon as possible, just like Nikaya Sravakas do, but with the motive to continue to effortlessly benefit all beings for all time due to the distinction of views regarding the ability of a Buddha after mahaparinirvana."

[edit] An observation on the article

I'm still fairly new here myself, having started slowly on general editing, but there's a blatantly obvious fault with the current incarnation of this particular article. The section "Bodhisattvas in Mahayana Buddhism" is repeated in its entirety once, and then, decapitated of its heading, the contents of it are repeated four more times immediately following the first repeat.

The user Kirobos is a personal friend of mine, and he's newer still than I (although he's taken a more direct approach to editing than I do). He and I are chatting on AIM at the moment, and he directed me here to take a look.

The IP 70.110.102.239 (hence 70.110.102.239) is Kirobos' IP. The first edit Kirobos made to the page was to remove much of the repetition of the one section. His next edit, which only registered the IP address (I had that happen to me once or twice, I don't understand why), completed the removal of the extra sections.

The next edit, by Adashiel, reverted back to Kirobos' first edit. The effect of the revert was to put back in the repeated sections - but not all of them, because the first change Kirobos made was to remove some of them.

Is this solely because an IP showed up as initiating the change, and not a registered user? Nevermind that he is a registered user - like I said, I don't know why the system sometimes logs people out (something that's not easy to notice).

I'm not editing the page myself, because I don't want to jump in the middle of the editing process. My best guess is that, because he had not quite yet gotten the preview function ingrained in his mind (I've made a few mistakes in saving without previewing myself), resulting in a handful of gratuitous edits on his part (while showing up as registered to the IP), the frequent (and mistaken) changes were taken as vandalism. Still, it's beyond my ken as to why all of the reverts failed to take into account that he did in fact remove repetition from the article - sure, the reverts fix the erroneous insertions of blank lines, but in doing so they return the article to a broken state.

Any chance of the article being fixed properly, allowing the repeated sections to be removed? Also, does it commonly occur that the system (seemingly) logs a user out? It's very difficult to realize that it has (and it's happened to me a few times). Somnior 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps neverming - the repetition was again removed while I was writing this.
I saw the error and corrected it. I hope there were no changes that were lost. I didn't do a detailed comparison since it just seemed to be the same thing repeated over and over. Csbodine 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems fine to me, the only problem being the repetition. :) Somnior 20:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tripp Gobble

(Bodhisattvas in Popular Culture)Is there any verification on Tripp Gobble, or is this just vandalism?

[edit] Bodhisattva in various languages

If you're going to include then I think you have to include all. (OR you can delete all but china since chinese buddhism is the root of korean, japanese, and vietnamese buddhism.) There's no reason why Korean and Vietnamese names are not important. Janviermichelle 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that they are rarely used in English. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Those words in Chinese, Japanese and Pali are common in English? Janviermichelle 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Relatively common, yes, I think. Actually, the Chinese probably isn't very common, but it would seem a bit odd to have the characters in there without some kind of Chinese pronunciation. The Pali will tend to be used by students of Theravada Buddhism, and the Japanese shows up now and then because Japanese Buddhists had a disproportionate influence on English-language Buddhist jargon in the 20th century. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph 2.2 and 2.3

The things brought up in these two paragraphs are totally confusing to me. My background is Tibetan Buddhism, so where does this info come from? Para 2.2. is a very strange interpretation of the Jataka tales, certainly not one that I believe is mainstream? Also 2.3 suggests as if one can go beyond buddhahood into praccekabuddha - sounds like upside-down to me? rudy 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/d/Talk%7EBodhisattva_0623.html"