A Fistful of Sand

I received this question through an email. It seemed like a reasonable question and points that there are teachings in Buddhism that are not terribly Buddhist at all. These distortions of what the Buddha taught are so common that we often take them for granted without question. This emailer question the standard distorted teaching.  How does a Bodhisattva save sentient beings when there are no beings to save. From a practical position this seems like quite a tricky paradox. I mean in your studies you at some point realise that you don't actually exist from the perspective of being interdependent from other things, yet of course you do....paradoxes abound eh! One question that might need to be answered is where do these vows come from. That may help us understand their meaning. Then I will discuss some of the more obvious problems with the vow as it is presented today and offer a solution to the apparent paradox. Origins of the Vow Current wisdom has it that the Bodh...

He, refraining from such views, grasps at nothing in the world; and not grasping, he trembles not; and trembling not, he by himself attains to perfect peace. And he knows that rebirth is at an end, that the higher life has been fulfilled, that what had to be done has been accomplished, and that there is no more becoming. Digha Nikaya XV - 68 One of the things that attract educated people to Buddhism is that it seems free of what we might call “religious messiness”. They think of it as just a philosophy. Much of Buddhism does stand up fairly well to philosophical critique. Yet, still, in the background is this whole messy rebirth thing that is an embarrassment to some contemporary Buddhist teachers. Many people are seriously interested in Buddhism but have concerns about “rebirth”.  Because translators have actually used the term “reincarnation” instead of “rebirth” the student might become wary of the teaching. The Suttas are a little hard for Westerner...