He said the first question is not useful for practice, and the second one is beyond human understanding of beginning and end – like a singularity outside time.
Because of this, it doesn’t really work to say that nirvana is the beginning of samsara. It’s unclear how a perfectly enlightened being, who has reached nirvana, could suddenly produce initial karma that starts samsara (the wheel of rebirth).
Also, the word “eternal” feels strange. “Forever” doesn’t really exist – never forever, keep the beat.
About the guilt imposed by Christianity through original sin, where the blame falls on the woman who disobeyed God. If you are a Christian, you are innocently guilty, and your sin can only be payed out through faith in Christianity. It seems that theists use original sin to explain the difficulties, sorrows, and problems that people experience from birth.
Comparing this with Buddhist karma, one can conclude that the Buddhist explanation is much more logical and balanced, where a person is responsible for his own bad karma, inherited from previous life.
A logical question might arise: where did the first person come from according to the theory of karma? But here we again encounter the dichotomy/singularity (superposition) of the question with no answer who was first – a chicken or an egg.
P.S. Also, take into account the primitive magic of sacrificing Jesus to achieve something, like a ritual killing of a sheep to please god… this is just ordinary, third-rate magic.
Living beings are countless – I swear to free them all. Mental aberrations are endless – I swear to end them all. Teachings are limitless – I swear to understand them all. The Buddha’s path is the highest – I swear to realize it.
It is like saying: “I live as if there are no limits.”
For example: “To free all beings” does not mean literally saving everyone. It means: I do not exclude anyone from my compassion, even difficult people, unpleasant people, or guilty people.
Why a bodhisattva is NOT altruism (this is very important).
Ordinary altruism: There is me who helps others. I sacrifice myself. I am good; you receive help.
Even in the best case, there is still: hidden hierarchy, moral superiority, expectation of gratitude (even unconsciously).
The bodhisattva path is different. A bodhisattva acts from the understanding that: the boundary between “me” and “others” is conditional, another person’s suffering is not really “someone else’s but also mine”.
So: the bodhisattva does not “sacrifice himself”, he removes suffering where it exists.
A good formula: a bodhisattva is not kind, a bodhisattva is clear-seeing.
He does not help out of duty. He simply cannot ignore suffering – just like you cannot ignore pain in your own hand.
Why is this hard to accept? Because our mind is built on “me/mine/not mine”. The bodhisattva acts after this structure begins to fall apart.
Why the bodhisattva path is psychologically very difficult:
3.1. Because there is no final “exit”. In Hinayana/Theravada there is an idea: “I will be liberated — and then it ends.” In Mahayana: there is no final ending, no point where you can say: “I did enough.”
This is hard because: the ego wants completion and reward.
3.2. Because you cannot hide in purity
A bodhisattva: stays in the world, works with conflict, aggression, ignorance,is constantly in contact with suffering.
At the same time: he cannot allow hatred, he cannot say: “This is not my problem.” This requires great inner stability.
3.3. Because compassion without wisdom breaks a person. This is very important and rarely said.
If there is compassion, but no understanding of emptiness, then a person burns out, becomes a rescuer, a martyr, or a cynic.
That is why Mahayana always says: compassion + emptiness, not just “be a good person”.
3.4. Because the image “I am a good person” keeps collapsing.
The bodhisattva path constantly uncovers: hidden egoism, pride, the desire to be important.
Again and again you see: “I helped, but not purely,” “I wanted recognition,” “I felt anger.”
This is unpleasant. And you cannot simply walk away from it without abandoning the path.
One simple summary
Bodhisattva vows are not promises, but direction. A bodhisattva is not an altruist, because there is no “other”. The difficulty of the path is the lack of final comfort and ego reward.
Said honestly and directly:
The bodhisattva path is a life without spiritual illusions – even without the illusion of one’s own spiritual growth and perfection.
The main difference between Mahayana and Hinayana:
The icon in Mahayana practice is the bodhisattva, not the “individual saint.”
A bodhisattva strives for awakening for the sake of all beings, not just for their own liberation.
Compassion and wisdom are equal in importance.
Hinayana asks: “How can I end my suffering?”
Mahayana asks: “How can there be liberation if someone else is still suffering?”
P.S. A bodhisattva is not necessarily a deity or a rebirthed; one can follow the bodhisattva path as a monk or an average person.
I want to add that bodhisattva way of thinking can be applied to all the aspects of life, to business as well. When you start business not for own prosperity but for the progress and well-being of others as well. the accent in this case shifts towards altruism and charity, not ego. Dont do business to become rich, but gain main target to help as many ppl as it is possible via money you get from business staying sustainable.
The Dalai Lama tradition is Tibetan, not what all Buddhists follow. Buddha himself never talked about it.
It started over 1,500 years after Buddha as a political tool in Tibet.
The Goal: To solve who gets to be the next ruler by making the leader both a religious and a political figure.
The Method: Saying the new leader is the old leader reborn. This made his rule unquestionable.
How Politics Got Involved: The title “Dalai Lama” was given by a Mongol ruler in the 1500s to make a business deal: his army would protect Tibet, and the Dalai Lama would give him religious blessing.
Why Only Tibetan Men: Because Tibetan society was run by men, and keeping the leadership within their own group was a way for the ruling class to stay in power. Choosing a European or Chinese person would have destroyed their authority.
In short: This isn’t Buddha’s original teaching. It’s a Tibetan management system that worked for centuries. The Dalai Lama became the heart of Tibetan identity. Finding him was always kept inside Tibet to maintain control.
I’m studying a social psychology course now, the psychology of groups… it says that group members tend to rate members of their own group higher than members of other groups.
I think the secret to success might be in rating yourself lower, not higher.
After studying religions of the world, Buddhism seems much more advanced than the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). The only thing I can’t understand is the Dalai Lama’s rebirths. For some unclear reason, it’s only men (never women), and they are born in one specific region, not all over the Earth… seems like nonsense.
Also, it’s unclear why the Buddha did not accept the immortality of the soul (with built-in memory for working off karma in the next life), but instead said the soul is like a flame passed from one candle to another. I don’t really get that – how does the memory from previous life preserve to the next one?
Christianity says: repent and you will enter Heaven. This applies even to Hitler. Meanwhile, non-Christians will not enter Heaven, such as the murdered Jewish girl, Anne Frank.
The basic question lies in the moral framework itself, which prioritizes correct belief over actual conduct. This reframes morality as loyalty to doctrine rather than as a measure of goodness or compassion.
By this logic, obedience is valued above kindness, submission above fairness, and fear above empathy. So, people who follow such a system have no right to teach non-believers about right and wrong. If a god’s “justice” looks the same as injustice, then the teaching might be wrong – not the people who doubt it.
