According to the suttas in SN13 , a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna ) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering. On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow , would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis ). However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most. So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana ) perhaps?

Today I see a great Vajrayana khenpo monk (also a vajra master) sharing an interesting opinion in this video : > (Translation) > > One of the 5 Silas of monks forbids stealing... However, you will not break the Sila if you steal from a bodhisattva. > > Why? Because a bodhisattva has no obsession (on material posessions), > he has given them up. So, if you take something from a bodhisattva... > you steal something from a bodhisattva, it is not breaking the Sila. If you steal from a normal person, because he will be obsessive on his possesions, so it is breaking the Sila. > > What the Sila forbids is robbing or stealing something from another person who cares about them...what about an enlightened bodhisattva? His thing is practically owned by no one (because of his Dāna). Remember this. > > This is how the bodhisattva's Dāna is different with normal person's Dāna... The Khenpo mainly wants to tell us bodhisattva's Dāna donates everything, and a normal person's Dāna does not, by this example. But this really sounds strange. In modern legistration system, a crime of theft or robbery is determined by the convict's will and action, and not by whether the victim cares about his/her property. The Khenpo says otherwise, since a bodhisattva does not care about his/her property, then it is not owned and can be taken away freely. Does the Sila here work more like the police than laws, that if the victim does not call the "police" (Sila? Karma?), then the convict will not be arrested? My question is, 1. Is it really legal (in perspective of Sila) to steal from a Bodhisattva? Is there any books or written creeds confirming this? Or the Khenpo just makes simile and not really means it is legal? 2. Is it also legal (in perspective of Sila) to steal of other enlightened people, like, an Araham? 3. Is it also legal to steal from a monk who claim him/herself as bodhisattva, or vow to follow a bodhisattva's standard?

This question is inspired by this online video : A lady asked a Rinpoche 3 questions, that translate to (a bit complicated logics here): > 1. Is Tulku's (Living Buddha)'s reincarnation process predetermined by his/her Karma(Karmaphala) or by Willpower(Praṇidhāna) ? > > Some explanations: Here she was actually asking, that by Buddhism doctrines, the *fact* that (bodhisattva) reincarnation will *happen* is result of Praṇidhāna, but is the *process* or *outcome* also determined by Praṇidhāna? Or like all other Sentients, that it is determined by Karmaphala? > > 2. If reincarnation is mainly determined by Karma, does a Tulku still have Karma? Why can bodhisattva still be affected and get life determined by > Karmaphala? Shouldn't a Tulku be already liberated from (Karma-driven) Saṃsāra or at least have already purified his/her Karma in his first life? > > 3. If reincarnation is mainly determined by Praṇidhāna, why would next-generation Tulku still need to be selected, to study his/her > knowledge before, to suffer from real-life setbacks? Why does his/her > Praṇidhāna determine his/her life to be so? In the video this Rinpoche said: > 1. He believes he is mainly affected by Karma, but many other greater Tulkus believe reincarnation is determined by Praṇidhāna. But he didn't explain why he or the others think so. > 2. Either by Karma or by Praṇidhāna, the setbacks that real-life Tulkus meet (*e.g. forgetting many knowledge after > reincarnation*) makes a Tulku more human-like, and that make people > believe in him/her because people think Tulku and theirselves are equal. I am confused on this too - shouldn't people believe in him/her more firmly if Tulku is more god-like? Like Jesus Christ revived and ascended, everyone saw this will believe in him. I also asked Deepseek R1, it says something similar like the Rinpoche said in the video, plus > Tulku can purify the Karma in their every new life in order to help achieve the Praṇidhāna will. I think here Deepseek indicates, every reincarnation brings new karma. after reincarnation and before Karma is fully purified, a Tulku is still predetermined by Karmaphala. Also I find a video from a much respected Taiwan Mahayana monk's view, Bodhisattva's reincarnation relies on both Praṇidhāna and Karmaphala . A Tulku is a Vajrayana Buddhist Lama who has taken the *bodhisattva vow*, but still different from Mahayana bodhisattva. I believe this is an open, speculatve, theoretical question. I want to listen what more others think about this question, and think about the above Rinpoche's explanation. Any view is welcomed.

Śāntideva's *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* is a renowned Mahayana text and the source of many ideas, prayers and practices, down to today, particularly the Bodhisattva ideal, Bodhicitta, and practices for achieving it. Śāntideva wrote it in the 8th-century CE (with a miraculous story to go with it), and it was a major source of Atiśa's teachings in India and Tibet in the 11th-century CE. Atiśa learned about it from Dharmakīrtiśrī (Tibetan: Serlingpa), an Indonesian master, particularly the eighth chapter on practices for the development of Bodhicitta, according to commonly accepted history. Since then, it has become a standard part of the Mahayana literature across Asia and the world. My question: are there any extant references to the *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* **between those dates -- its origin in the 8th-century and Atiśa's 11th-centuries teachings** -- commentaries or other mentions? The Indian Mahayana was at its peak in those years, prior to its decline in the wake of various invasions, so it stands to reason that the *Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra* would have been a significant part of it. Or did Serlingpa and Atiśa resurrect it from a relatively unknown, under-appreciated state? ------------ Addendum 1/6/2021 -- The fact that Atiśa had to go to Indonesia for twelve years to study Bodhicitta and its practices with Serlingpa suggests that the subject was indeed under-appreciated in India prior to Atiśa, even at the great centers such as Nalanda and Vikramaśilā (where Atiśa was abbot upon return from Indonesia). That all raises the question of ancient Mahayana history in Indonesia, which seems little studied or documented, at least in English.

Not saying I have bodhicitta, one assumes I would know the answer if I did, but we can all emulate enlightening beings. What is the best way to respond to an nominally (nothing like that is innate) evil person doing evil (whatever you think amounts to that enough to at know not only that they should be stopped but that a lot hinges on it for other people) to get what they want? We vow to save all sentient beings: can we postpone it for some? Do we say "a Buddha would help you in your next life, but I cannot"? I suppose the answer is just to offer help to others first: after-all, we are all said to have undergone countless, trillions by trillions of lives, so no one life can be blamed for how it has suffered. But what if the evil doer turns to you for a better rebirth, after or even before their evil actions?

I think it translates as e.g. "one who has thus gone". My question is whether any historical being has ever really and in entirety "thus gone". Perhaps in spirit, or in expression, but if e.g. Gautama really did - wouldn't we all be likewise "thus come"?

Disciples of the noble ones are supposed to take the Buddha as the role of the Father, and Dhamma as Mother. When a disciple attains full liberation, completes the path to self-enlightenment, becomes a Buddha/Tathagata, does he become his own Father and his own word becomes his own Mother? Specially: did Gotama Sakyamuni take himself as Father and his own speech as Mother? and would all of his arahants be expected to do the same, or keep the Boddhisatta and his Word as Father-Mother? Also maybe, how about the disciples committed to the (Mahayana) bodhisattva vows?

In daily (secular) life, if you realize that you are being or have been losing (or forgetting) mindfulness of Bodhicitta and/or right view of Śūnyatā, what (most efficient practices) you will quickly do to recover/re-generate Bodhicitta and/or right view of Śūnyatā in you? 🙏 Thanks in advance for any possible answer and/or instruction for the question in this post you can and will give. 🙏 P.S. I am unsure having figure out a good title for this post so everyone is welcome to help.

I am doing Vajrasatva purification practice, and wonder whether this is a training in Ultimate Bodhicitta? As stated in the Scriptures related to Mind Training: one should first train in Ultimate Bodhicitta. So is purification through Vajrasatva Practice the kind of training to be used to get accustomed to the view of emptiness? Also, is it the best antidote for attachment? Many thanks!

Everybody is born under his own Karma. Indeed, while respecting the Dharma, we need to follow our own paths. Monks live an undisturbed life inside closed communities apart from samsaric suffering. And when they are ready, they try to enlight others under the Bodhisattva_vow If Sunyata is the ultimate reality, why hasn’t anyone achieved the ability to save others nowadays? UPDATED: How (and with all respect) the Dalai Lama and other monks can have reached the Enlightenment if he wasn't able to free in this life ALL human beings? They are not reborn KNOWING TO BE a Bodhisattva. They can maybe get near it with a hard work and faith, and so they cannot free others from bonds in this life. Furthermore, they can teach a path, which is of course important, but the basic logic of BEING a Bodhisattva contradicts this flow. How can Bodhisattvas enlighten others if they themselves are not fully enlightened? If they are enlightened, then they would not have been reborn in the first place. If they were reborn, then it means they are not fully enlightened and therefore still working towards it and at this time, cannot liberate others because they themselves are not liberated. And they cannot be liberated until ALL beings are liberated, due to the Bodhisattva Vow. That's the paradox of the Bodhisattva path. How can the paradox of the Bodhisattva path be resolved?

One thing that seems fascinating about the rules of the monastic life, the rules of poverty and celibacy, and so forth, is that as strict as the rules are, it seems that compliance is voluntary. A monk could, at any moment, choose to disrobe and leave the order, and he would still be welcome to hear the Buddha and practice as a lay believer. It seems almost as if he is lauded for acknowledging his limitations rather than continuing to struggle without making progress, and continuing to eat the alms food in vain. I haven't yet read any sutras where a lapsed monk is told that he earned himself a rebirth in a bad destination. Am I mistaken? Does a lapsed monk earn bad karma from leaving the order, or from having mistakenly joined the monastic order? On the other hand, is it possible that he earns good karma and a good rebirth for having been in the Sangha? Suppose that his time in the Sangha makes him more wise, compassionate, forbearing as a lay person than he was previously. Suppose a recently divorced banker or stock broker resolves to join an established Therevadin order for exactly seven years. He will memorize the teaching and meticulously follow the rules during that time, after which he will return to his profession (and find a new wife). Is this permissible and beneficial, according to the Dhamma?

On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist? If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected? Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others? I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit. Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?

Are there resolved authorities in what is called Buddhism or is there an array of separate, respected lineages practicing different things, believing different premises, and therefore in dispute on innumerable points of knowledge and aim? Are monks and nuns more advanced than what are called lay practitioners? Can we assess someone's 'Buddhist progress' by how they look, the way that they dress, speak, and behave? Will someone with knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have read a large number of sermons, tracts, or scriptures from known and agreed authorities. Are there 'solitary saints' whose innate knowledge of the Dharma is so forged as part of their being that exposure to the religion which is Buddhism was unnecessary for their role as a catalyst in waking people up?

Seongcheol 's parinirvana gatha reads: > Deceiving people all my life, my sins outweigh Mount Sumeru. > > Falling into hell alive, my grief divides into ten thousand pieces. > > Spouting forth a red wheel, > > It hangs on the blue mountain. Has anyone written about what this means? I see that Seongcheol had this explanation > I've lived my entire life as a practitioner, and people have always > asked me for something. Everyone is already a Buddha, but they do not > try to realize that fact and only look towards me. So, in a way, you > could say I've deceived people all my life. I've failed to get this > message across to everyone so I'm suffering in a kind of hell. But I wonder if it is definitive? You read people who think it's an admission that he's wasted his "entire life", whereas I thought it could be a statement about "saving all sentient beings".

In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings? Do they claim that it isn't impossible, or only need be partially achieved, or that not all Buddha's took this vow, or what?

Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so? Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out, why does a Bodhisattva instigate others to stay on this normal course of birth and death? Does he need food to nourish his undertaking and fearing to find nobody and nothing as reason for further becoming? Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work? Just to become one day wise and listen to what the Buddha say and trap others who have the same blindness for it? (Given that the Teachings of the Buddha of our time is still available) Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

This seems to be a common trope-- samnaha. I honestly have no idea what they mean, it strikes me as a "it's raining cats and dogs" sort of idiom. Is there an explanation for what it means? Examples: > For they wear the armor of great vows, accumulate merits, deliver all > beings from birth-and-death, visit Buddha-lands to perform the > bodhisattva practices, make offerings to Buddhas http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/48-bosatsu-vows.shtml And in Shingon, they visualize themselves putting on armor (or physically don?) Thinking Through Shingon Ritutual "Then one protects the body by donning armor..."

What would the buddha advise to someone considering reducing or eliminating visting a parent that causes emotional distress and fear after one has tried to practice patience, acceptance, acknowledement that this behavior is coming from their own suffeirng, metta practice, meditation, along with trying different ways to communicate so as to not arouse negative statements to an adult child? Also, a reference text, if any could be appreciated. Would distancing onself not be in accordance with the path of a bodhisattva? These dynamics have always existed and it has become worse. Recently the sibling of this parent that distanced herself years ago from this parent and validated the narcissistic behavior of this parent. In this specific situation and which is a factor in the level of difficulty dealing with this parent is that the other parent requires 24 hour nursing care at home and is unable to care for herself (including the inability to communicate). The other parent/caretaker has refused to disginate the next of kin (adult child) living in a reasonable distance from their home in the event that something unforeseen happens to the caretaker. Even a short hospitalization would require someone to step in immediately. The rationale has to do with the fear of not being in control with money. After trying to assure this parent that this is not about money, rather the other parents coordination of outside care, in different ways and at different times, it is met with cruel, untruthful statements about the adult child that is willing to step in. The response also included a statement that if something did happen he didn't care if the estate all went to the State. Again, money and control of money was not mentioned to this parent. This parent was told by the adult child that the statements were hurtful and not true. The response from the parent was that it was not his responsibility how this adult child felt and would not take any responsibility. The fear and emotional distress mentioned above mainly is the result not having an emergency plan in place and second the acknowledgment of the diffence in character, values and feelings of loss of both parents. Exposure to this parent tends to water the unwholesome seeds of unsatifactory feelings of this adult child.

Is the taking of a Bodhisattva vow a *requirement*(1) in Mahayana, or is it merely an *option* (or maybe at most a recommendation)? And if it's not a requirement, then for someone who decides not to take it, what if anything is the difference, in terms of the overall aim(2), between the Mahayana approach and the Theravada approach? -- (1) By "requirement" I'm invoking the usual idiomatic use of that word -- i.e. pointing to an action and its consequences. For example, "if you want to build muscle, you are required to lift weights" or "if you want to avoid rebirth in a hell realm you are required to refrain from murdering your parents" (2) Clearly there are differences in practice formats, but I'm thinking more of the end point. In that context, without the vow to continue as a Bodhisattva, Theravada and Mahayana seem like one and the same.

As far as I know, the story of Khantivadi illustrates the perfection of Khanti by the Bodhisatta, and the Vessantara Jataka illustrates the perfection of Dana - on similar lines - is there a Jataka(s) which illustrates the perfection of Viriya in the Pali Canon ? Also , Could anyone point out references to other articles/suttas/commentaries etc. inside/outside the Pali Canon on the topic of Viriya Paramita and its cultivation ?