Becoming authentic Bodhisattvas

It is my impression, and not without a lot of evidence over the years, that modern Zen practitioners regard themselves as Bodhisattvas.  But I wonder how they deal with passages like this from the Mahayana canon?

“His [the Bodhisattva’s] body is hard, diamond-like, real, infallible and indestructible. It does not contain either a belly, or stomach, or excrement, or urine, or bad odors or impurity” (Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra).

Frankly, the Zen practitioner would be wrong to understand the Bodhisattva in a literal way; as a human who took Bodhisattva vows.  And what about the birth of the Buddha-to-be, the Bodhisattva?  Below, we don’t find any sign of a normal child birth.

“Why is not that side of the Conqueror's mother rent as she is delivered of the Best of Men, and why does no pain ensue ?

Tathagatas are born with a body that is made of mind [manomāyeṅ rūpena], and that is why the mother's body is not rent and why no pain ensues” (Mahavastu).

Is it possible that we are not to understand such words as these at a literal, human level which are, instead, anagogic having a spiritual meaning?  It may well be the truth that Buddhism is one big spiritual allegory about the birth and unfolding of our own spiritual body—a real event—but something so profound that it requires a mythological treatment.

What is missing in the modern Buddhist context is the spiritual life.  Modern Buddhism has overly psychologized itself.  Its new mission, as I see it, is to help people get in touch with their basic humanness, showing some degree of compassion.  But this is a long way from awakening to our spiritual substance and becoming authentic Bodhisattvas.

Comments

[clyde]

Yeti; You asked, “Am I missing something?”

Yes. You misunderstand what Gautama Buddha was, what he taught, and what Bodhisattvas are.

But it's all good.

Take care and be well.

[n. yeti]

Clyde:

Perhaps I misunderstood?

To correct my understanding, could you clarify what you mean when you said, in response to the Zennist, who pointed out to you that the Bodhisattva is spiritual/immaterial, not a physical entity “born” via the birth canal:
“This is where we part: You believe there is a (inferior) corporeal body and a (superior) spiritual body. I don’t.”

Also, you stated that it is not wrong to understand the “bodhisattva is a human being who takes the bodhisattva vows.”

And you said:

“The Buddha was born, awakened and taught, and died.”

By these expressions I understood you are saying that the Buddha was/is to be understood as a born entity, and that a Bodhisattva is a person who has taken vows. This strikes me as a quite mundane interpretation of the spiritual significance of Bodhisattvas.

Further you stated:

“And there’s nothing “underhanded” to not hold the belief that after death our consciousness survives as “our consciousness” and takes residence in a new form. If my not believing excludes me from Buddhism (for you and others), OK.”

And…

“I’m familiar with that quote and others that support transmigration. There are other quotes that seem to leave the question open. For me, I’ve had non-ordinary experiences, but nothing that leads me to believe in transmigration and I’ve not heard an explanation of what is reborn that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly require a separate unchanging self (soul).”

It sounds to me like you are saying we are born, we die and that's it (i.e. nihilism). Am I missing something?

[clyde]

I'm sorry, but you've confused me with someone else.

[n. yeti]

Clyde:

You have argued that the physical body is the body of the Buddha, and that there is no cycle of birth and death (we live we die and that's it).

Were I to support you in these views, I would be doing you far greater harm than wounding your pride by pointing out your arguments don't find much if any support in the scriptures.

[clyde]

Yeti; I know you mean well, but my advice to you is to stop lecturing, especially at people you don’t know. Good Buddhists have held varying views on subtle matters since the Buddha died; hence the multiplicity of traditions, sects and lineages, each proclaiming that theirs is the ‘true way’. I’m delighted to discuss the Dharma, our practice and understanding, but not with contentiousness and without mutual respect.

Take care.