Talk:Bodhisattva

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Nepal Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have been hesitant to add anything to this discussion because I am so ignorant about Buddhism compared to the other people who post here. I was wondering if anyone had seen Kon Ichikawa's film "the Burmese Harp" ? It seems to me that the protagonist, Miziushima, is an example of one who has become a Bodhisattva when he passed up a ride home with his friends and stayed in Burma to bury all the body's of soldier's killed in the later part of the pacific war. Is that an example of a bodhinsattva or am I way off base?

thanks srlasky (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

That's not quite correct according to my reading of texts, but of course you are right in mentioning that these questions depend on the tradition you are studying. The term "Enlightenment" is reserved in most traditions for a samyaksambuddha, i.e. for a "fully enlightened Buddha". That is also true of Theravada Buddhism. There are only a few instances in the Pali canon where the term "enlightenment" (bodhi) is used for an ordinary Arhat. In later Theravada tradition--after Buddhaghosa--this term is avoided for an Arhat, whereas the Sarvastivada-tradition (another school following the Arhat ideal) discriminates between shravaka-bodhi, pratyekabuddha-bodhi and samyaksambodhi (don't get me wrong, the shravaka, pratyekabuddha, and samyaksambuddha are known in Theravada also, but they seem to avoid the term bodhi in the former two cases). However, I have never heard that a bodhisattva of the 8th bhumi is called "enlightened" in the sense of his having attained samyaksambodhi. In the English language we use the word enligtenment as a matter of convention. The term bodhi does not convey any association to "light". Buddhist text, however, know many different termini technici to name different stages of realisation, for example the (in translations) much underestimated term abhisamaya. This term is used for different categories of realisation in Theravada and Mahayana texts. Usually four abhisamaya moments are discriminated. When somebody follows the Shravakayana path (e.g. a Theravadin) he/she attains nirodha "extinction" (=nirvana) as the fourth abhisamaya, a bodhisattva however attains samyaksambodhi (full buddhahood) as the fourth abhisamaya. To come to a conclusion: Enlightenment IS the same as Buddhahood, but there are liberations in Buddhism that are not enlightenment (at least not in the full sense of the term) (e.g. the liberation of an Arhat).

By the way, that a Buddha is incapable to NOT teach in Samsara is only true as long as there are still unliberated beings in Samsara. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.92.9.57 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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."

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It seems fine to me, the only problem being the repetition. :) Somnior 20:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The reason is that they are rarely used in English. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those words in Chinese, Japanese and Pali are common in English? Janviermichelle 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If someone can add the vietnamese and korean, let's go ahead and do so to round things out. --Ph0kin 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tried to fix a fair bunch of things, including the point that half the page was gone... I hope this makes is better readable?rudy 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a paragraph about this, deleted it when I read the bit about "Shepard Bodhistatva" then I have come back having read one of the external links about the three people in the desert. It seems to suggest that those that leap into enlightenment are less able to lead others into the water of enligtenment. The fact that there are "Shepard" Boddhistatva's seems to suggest that there is something problematic about being a "King" or being enlightened. Is this a Buddhist dillema?

It seems to be a matter of differences between schools. Tibetan Buddhism says that Buddhas remain in some sort of existence for ever, so there's no point in delaying Buddhahood. All the other ideas must therefore belong to various forms of East Asian Buddhism. Eg Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism (pennsylvania State University Press, 1977), says that school believes in delaying Buddhahood till all beings are liberated, apparently for ever. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page 110, I forgot to add. Peter jackson (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are different levels of Bodhisattvas in some traditions. Secretlondon (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before my recent edit, the intro said there were various meanings, & then proceeded to give a detailed account of 1 of them, making no further mention of any others. I've deleted this for now to give balance, but the intro should outline the main meanings. Unfortunately we're a bit confused about this at present, possibly because Buddhism itself is. There are at least 2 basic meanings:

• in Theravada & some Mahayana sources, a bodhisattva is someone on the path to Buddhahood; this includes
  • in early Pali sources the Buddha in his final life before his enlightenment (I'm not sure whether this is actually a different concept, or just the contexts in hich the term happens to be used),
  • the 3 types listed in the article? No source is cited. The only 1 I've come across is Lopez, who doesn't cite a source, but includes them in the same para as something cited from Zhiyi (Chih-i).
• in some Mahayana sources, a bodhisattva is, or can be, someone who deliberately refrains from becoming a Buddha to help beings. If this refraining goes on for ever, as some sources have it, then it's a different meaning from the above.

Mahayana often adopts a pragmatic concept of truth (Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, p2): doctrines are "true" in the sense of being spiritually beneficial. As a result, Mahayana is full of contradictory doctrines. In some branches, there may be an "official" hierarchy of truths, so that one can give a definite answer to questions about the "real" teaching. However, this is certainly not always the case: in modern Chinese Buddhism all doctrinal schools are regarded as equally true (which is the same as saying they're all equally false). (This may mean only those schools principally studied in China.) So if there's disagreement between schools one can't give a definite answer. Peter jackson (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bodhisattva is defined most essentially as one who is on the path to buddhahood. This is established clearly in the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra and other early texts. Bodhisattvas practice according to the six paramitas in order to do this. The central paramita that includes all the others is Prajnaparamita, which is why Prajnaparamita sutras are central texts in Mahayana Buddhism. To practice the paramitas is always considered a difficult path, though, so the bodhisattva cannot simply be doing it for himself or herself. Therefore, the motivation for all bodhisattvas is to become a buddha in order to help everyone else and teach the Dharma. This is how the path to buddhahood is related to bodhicitta and compassion for others. According to the Mahayana sutras, someone on the sravaka path who is seeking Nirvana may be able to stay in samadhi without entering back into the mundane world for as long as 84,000 kalpas, but such behavior would be a breach of discipline in Mahayana.

All the teachings are taken to be skillful means in Mahayana, so it's actually very consistent in one sense as well. They are all taken to be useful "remedies", but the absolute truth is still inconceivable (literally: cannot be conceived of by the mind). That's why in the Mahayana sutras always emphasize silence, suchness, emptiness, non-attachment, the unconditioned, etc. Tengu800 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about this edit by Jccraig. First, the three paths of the Bodhisattva are covered in a preceding section, (see "Bodhisattva ideal"). However, there are differences between the Mahāyāna and Theravāda conceptions of the Bodhisattva. Starting a new section is potentially confusing to the reader. Another concern I have is with the use of the source Practising the Dhamma with a view to Nibbana, by Abeysekera. I cannot verify the reference given, as this appears to be an (unofficial?) translation of a text written in Pali. In any case, the numbers don't correspond and the text is not searchable in English. If it is to be included, it might be a good idea to quote the actual English text. Would Jccraig please do that here, so it can be verified? But, again, much of the information is already stated in the Mahayana section. I'm not sure how to reconcile this. Sunray (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the online reference: [1]

The file is in English (original) and the source of the information is on page 36 of this file as a footnote. Here it is:

The period of the Kaya-panidhana kala varies depending on the method of training selected by the Buddha. It could be 4, 8 or 16 infinite periods along with the 100,000 world cycles. The Gotama Buddha selected Wisdom (Pañña), which resulted in a period of 4 infinite periods and 100,000 world cycles. Had He selected faith (Saddha-8) or effort (Viriya-16) as the method of attaining perfection, :He would have taken a longer period to attain Buddhahood. The Metteya Buddha selected effort. Jccraig (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "types of Bodhisattva" in the excerpt you quote, nor anywhere on that page. Sunray (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here from Help:Edit summary/feedback. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figure from Ajanta caves given under Bodhisatva is of 'Padmapani'(holding a lotus in the hand, padn=lotus, paani-hand) and not of Avalokitewsara. To the best of my knowledge the two are different —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.36.128 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2011

Padmapani, Lokesvara, and Lokanatha are all names for Avalokitesvara. In fact, the form Padmapani-Avalokitesvara is sometimes used. Tengu800 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then it was reverted by someone who didn't make any other change, restoring the grammatically incorrect version. --Skaizun (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"is an enlightenment (bodhi) being (sattva)" is grammatically incorrect, at least in English. I am not going to edit it, again. Perhaps the person who changed it back to the incorrect version would consider a compromise: "is a being (sattva) of enlightenment (bodhi)", which is grammatically correct, if not in correct order of the word "bodhisattva". Skaizun (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bodhisattva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090411014117/http://www.aaa.org.tw:80/Chen_voice/a_2008_11_25.pdf to http://aaa.org.tw/Chen_voice/a_2008_11_25.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130526210637/http://www.hwayue.org.tw:80/lama/question4_08.htm to http://www.hwayue.org.tw/lama/question4_08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bodhisattva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410162534/http://nt.med.ncku.edu.tw:80/biochem/lsn/newrain/books/sou/sou1.htm to http://nt.med.ncku.edu.tw/biochem/lsn/newrain/books/sou/sou1.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wisdom.buddhistdoor.com/alankwan/2009/09/13/459-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121061430/http://www.chinawts.com/list/budedu1/082718255.htm to http://www.chinawts.com/list/budedu1/082718255.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911101206/http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/HamburgUP_HBS01_Analayo.pdf to http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/pdf/publikationen/HamburgUP_HBS01_Analayo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103093104/http://www.buddhanet.net:80/e-learning/history/tstang-txt.htm to http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/tstang-txt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added two links to two published papers:

• Arahants, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas by Bhikkhu Bodhi
• The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravāda Theory and Practice by Jeffrey Samuels

Kt66 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work has gone into this article (which indeed is now rather too long), but I think it creates considerable problems for the reader. The lead is pretty confusing - right at the start, in "[a] bodhisatva is any person who is on the path towards bodhi ('awakening') or Buddhahood", the "any" is at best highly misleading, and not very helpful. There is much too much on "how to become a bodhisattva"; I think much of this should be split off to a new article. The huge etymology section should be moved well down the article, and the sections on actual recognised bodhisattvas moved up to below the lead. This is likely to be of most interest after the lead. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Holy Thousand-Hand Guanyin Statue.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ascetic Sumedha and Dipankara Buddha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]