why a Bodhisattva needs to postpone enlightenment?

[padma]

Hello there, I have a question for Mahayana Buddhists. I hope my question doesn't offend anyone.

So, in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva is one who postpones enlightenment for the sake of all beings. My question is, why he/she needs to postpone it? I mean, in Mahayana tradition, even after one reaches enlightenment, one still exists. so, he/she can help other beings after he/she reaches enlightenment. Why need to postpone it?

Thank you for your answers, and if I have a misconception about Boddhisattva concept, please let me know.

Namaste :hands:

[Trilaksana]

I study Zen but I don't only identify with that tradition I also like Thai Forest a lot. My interpretation was that while they are alive after enlightenment if you die a fully enlightened being then you aren't reborn according to some Mahayana schools. So the idea is to be reobrn again and again as a bodhisattva until all sentient beings are saved. I don't think there is a rebirth like this that would allow an enlightened being to continue trying to save other beings in future lives. I also don't understand why being fully enlightened would stop you from being reborn. The claim is that if you don't want to be reborn you won't but to me that only makes sense within the context of ego births rather than trans-lifetime births.

[Aloka]

Hi padma,

There's an article (with 9 short sections) by Bhikkhu Bodhi with might be of interest to you:





Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas

by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi

Competing Buddhist Ideals

The arahant ideal and the bodhisattva ideal are often considered the respective guiding ideals of Theravāda Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism. This assumption is not entirely correct, for the Theravāda tradition has absorbed the bodhisattva ideal into its framework and thus recognizes the validity of both arahantship and Buddhahood as objects of aspiration. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the arahant ideal and the bodhisattva ideal are the respective guiding ideals of Early Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism. By "Early Buddhism" I do not mean the same thing as Theravāda Buddhism that exists in the countries of southern Asia. I mean the type of Buddhism embodied in the archaic Nikāyas of Theravāda Buddhism and in the corresponding texts of other schools of Indian Buddhism that did not survive the general destruction of Buddhism in India.

It is important to recognize that these ideals, in the forms that they have come down to us, originate from different bodies of literature stemming from different periods in the historical development of Buddhism. If we don't take this fact into account and simply compare these two ideals as described in Buddhist canonical texts, we might assume that the two were originally expounded by the historical Buddha himself, and we might then suppose that the Buddha — living and teaching in the Ganges plain in the 5th century B.C. — offered his followers a choice between them, as if to say: "This is the arahant ideal, which has such and such features; and that is the bodhisattva ideal, which has such and such features. Choose whichever one you like."

The Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Mahāprajñā-pāramitā Sūtra and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra (the Lotus Sūtra), give the impression that the Buddha did teach both ideals. Such sūtras, however, certainly are not archaic. To the contrary, they are relatively late attempts to schematize the different types of Buddhist practice that had evolved over a period of roughly four hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa.

The most archaic Buddhist texts — the Pali Nikāyas and their counterparts from other early schools (some of which have been preserved in the Chinese Āgamas and the Tibetan Kanjur) — depict the ideal for the Buddhist disciple as the arahant. The Mahāyāna sūtras, composed a few centuries later in a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, depict the ideal for the Mahāyāna follower as the bodhisattva. Now some people argue that because the arahant is the ideal of Early Buddhism, while the bodhisattva is the ideal of later Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Mahāyāna must be a more advanced or highly developed type of Buddhism, a more ultimate teaching compared to the simpler, more basic teaching of the Nikāyas. That is indeed an attitude common among Mahāyānists, which I will call "Mahāyāna elitism." An opposing attitude common among conservative advocates of the Nikāyas rejects all later developments in the history of Buddhist thought as deviation and distortion, a fall away from the "pristine purity" of the ancient teaching. I call this attitude "Nikāya purism." Taking the arahant ideal alone as valid, Nikāya purists reject the bodhisattva ideal, sometimes forcefully and even aggressively.

I have been seeking a point of view that can do justice to both perspectives, that of the Nikāyas and the early Mahāyāna sūtras, a point of view that can accommodate their respective strengths without falling into a soft and easy syncretism, without blotting out conceptual dissonances between them, without abandoning faithfulness to the historical records – yet one which also recognizes that these records are by no means crystal clear and are unlikely to be free of bias. This task has by no means been easy. It is much simpler to adopt either a standpoint of "Nikāya purism" or one of "Mahāyāna elitism" and hold to it without flinching. The problem with these two standpoints, however, is that both are obliged to neglect facts that are discomforting to their respective points of view.

CONTINUED :

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html




:hands:

[riju]

Hello there, I have a question for Mahayana Buddhists. I hope my question doesn't offend anyone.

So, in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva is one who postpones enlightenment for the sake of all beings. My question is, why he/she needs to postpone it? I mean, in Mahayana tradition, even after one reaches enlightenment, one still exists. so, he/she can help other beings after he/she reaches enlightenment. Why need to postpone it?

Thank you for your answers, and if I have a misconception about Boddhisattva concept, please let me know.

Namaste :hands:

The answer to this question is very clear from Lotus sutra.
Guatam Buddha taught for 40 years various methods of reaching enlightment.
After 40 years to those who had reached enlightment, he taught Bhoddissattva path.

A true enlightment makes a person Arhant. This is a NO SELF stage. A person in this stage truely realises that ultimately nothing is happening, so he goes to total rest accepting life as it comes. It is surrendering to element of nature. In this state he is so peaceful that he takes this state to the end till he is no more and he is free from future births.

Guatam valued this state of peacefulness and told the disciples that they should accept existence (by sharing life with other persons) leaving aside the peaceful state that they have learned to live. When this persons (arhant) shares other persons life, he knows that the other person is sad, unhappy, happy. all out of ingnorance. So he goes in a state of compassion for that person.
This compassion disturbs his peaceful state of Arhant. But after sharing the compassion , the arhant again goes back to meditation and catches with his peaceful state.

By repeating this process, his existence helps others as will as it helps the arhant himself. It is said that his capacity is increasing and he is on the path of Bhoddisattva. This is Mahayana path. This path ends in Buddhahood and Nirvana.

Guatam buddha says and rightly so that this Nirvan is the true stage of eternal rest, and it also develops future correct universes without sickness, death and sufferings.

[patr]

The Bodhisattva and Arhat paths are one and similar.
One must qualify as an Arhat, have the realisations before proceeding onwards to help others, the Bodhisattva path.

It would be very wrong to see them as completely separate entities, its just a role played out. For how can one save others without first having the knowledge/realisations. One cannot apply without the prerequisite realisations. The bodhisattva, in 'helping' others is actually to teach, so how can one teach without the necessary knowledge gained?


In your post, 'to postpone enlightenment' to Buddhahood.... To achieve that, A Bodhisattvas' last birth must be in the human realm and I guess they have to await their turn(?), We're still awaiting the next Buddha, Maitreya's coming.


"A true enlightment makes a person Arhant. This is a NO SELF stage. A person in this stage truely realises that ultimately nothing is happening, so he goes to total rest accepting life as it comes. It is surrendering to element of nature. In this state he is so peaceful that he takes this state to the end till he is no more and he is free from future births." quote.

Lastly, to think that Nirvana means 'nothingness...... Nirvana is but a state of mind, a state where the mind reaches, so it is a place that the mind achieves. To imagine that it is nothing, has nothing, is categorically wrong.
Only that the mind has gained ultimate knowledge of the Dharma or Universal law and has control over all its faculties. That is Enlightenment, aka supreme knowledge gained.

[Yuan]

Hello there, I have a question for Mahayana Buddhists. I hope my question doesn't offend anyone.

So, in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva is one who postpones enlightenment for the sake of all beings. My question is, why he/she needs to postpone it? I mean, in Mahayana tradition, even after one reaches enlightenment, one still exists. so, he/she can help other beings after he/she reaches enlightenment. Why need to postpone it?

Thank you for your answers, and if I have a misconception about Boddhisattva concept, please let me know.

Namaste :hands:

In my opinion, enlightenment is not an either-or attribute for a practitioner. It is really a progression. One gets progressively more enlightened. The common analogy used is that when one works his/her way to the well of Nirvana, one has the choice of taking a drink. Now if you have the ability to drink from the well, I would say you are plenty enlightened and are in a position to help majority of beings.

From the point of view of beginners, the vow can be seen as a motivation to focus oneself. Furthermore, Boddhisattva's path is about helping self by helping others. The vow can help aspiring practitioners stay on the path. But at this level, vows are just words.

Finally, a practitioner, in his/her path to enlightenment, upon comprehending the Noble Truths and how it impacts all beings, might develop compassion so overwhelming, that he/she cannot help but intent on helping all beings. But why the postponement? I guess it is for him/her to know and for you to find out.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva) has a decent entry on the Boddhisattva ideals from different schools and touches upon the vows. It might worth a look.

[andyrobyn]

For me, the vow and concept is about intention, an attitude of progression and compassion whilst at practice along the path ... not a concept to be used for making judgements and comparisons ( that misses the mark ).

[SeeknShinjin]

A Bhodisattva is one who wishes to attain enlightenment not only for himself but for others as well. Yesterday in my temples bonbu class we were discussion how the Buddha was also a Bhodisattva, in that he attained his enlightenment and when out to share what he had awakened to for 40 years helping other beings awaken to this same truth or enlightenment.