Before I discovered Hinduism, I thought that it was the Buddha who introduced the ideas of karma and reincarnation. However, he actually took them from Hinduism. The Buddha himself contributed his own insights – that the root of suffering lies in desires, and by escaping from desires, one becomes happy. But here’s my question: is that even possible through an act of will? I mean, if you try to force yourself to “stop wanting,” aren’t you just suppressing that energy and ending up wanting it even more?
So the ideas of reincarnation and karma are eternal… they have existed and will continue to exist for as long as humanity itself exists, while the ancient teachings are merely the written records that have survived to our time.
And Buddhists and Hindus do think about monotheism. And monotheists think about reincarnation and karma.
What I mean is that we need to separate the eternal Dhamma (reincarnation and karma), which is universal, and the ideas introduced by the Buddha, which are essentially his personal vision.
The analogy with reincarnations as dominoes is interesting – when they are lined up in a row and the first domino falls on the second, and so on – that is samsara. And no questions arise when it is a closed circle, i.e., if the end is the beginning.
But if the circle is broken by Nirvana (Moksha), then a question immediately arises – one that the Buddha refused to answer: if someone who has completely paid off their karma has no more bad karma and has attained Nirvana (timelessness), then what initiates a new cycle of samsara? Where does the karma for a new life come from?
Studying religions I realized there are no human-made perfect systems, only divine system is perfect. I believe in science not in religions, but I dont exclude Divine cos of unexplainable power of deaths and rebirths… I have own connection with God without any religion, Buddhism so far is the closest understanding of the system I found and its atheistic cos the role of God plays Karma Law. I also believe that faith in God is humans natural purpose and its nice to put service to God first to kill ego and be more effective in everyday life. So I believe I’m agnostic – I believe in God but not in that God can be explained. I like Buddhism also.
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.
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 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.
