Are All Bodhisattvas Aware?

[Michael]

Do all Bodhisattvas carry awareness into this life?

[Taeguk]

Hi!

AlphaAuriage, you asked:

Do all Bodhisattvas carry awareness into this life?

That's an interesting question!

I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by "carry awareness into this life", though. Are you asking if the bodhisattva is born with an immediate awareness of their vow to liberate all sentient beings?

If that's what your asking, I honestly have no idea, Alpha! :lol:

I would guess, though, that it's possible they are born with a certain level or degree of awareness, which would increase as they grew older. But this is entirely speculative!

If you believe in other planes of existence, I would imagine that a bodhisattva born as a deva (in the Buddhist sense of the word) would probably come into existence with a higher degree of awareness than a human being, possibly even with full awareness, but this is even more speculative than before! :D

[Michael]

Perhaps we are all Bodhisattvas

[Taeguk]

Hi AlphaAuriage! :)

You wrote:

Perhaps we are all Bodhisattvas

:thumbsup:

Definitely!

[Michael]

In which case not all carry awareness into this life.

Now what was I saying? :lol:

[Trevor]

If a Boddhisattva will not enter Nirvana because he/she wants to ensure that all other sentient beings enter Nirvana and find peace then Nirvana is an impossibility until the very last sentient being comes to the point of entering Nirvana. I think that the Boddhisattvas should just go into the light!

[Taeguk]

If a Boddhisattva will not enter Nirvana because he/she wants to ensure that all other sentient beings enter Nirvana and find peace then Nirvana is an impossibility until the very last sentient being comes to the point of entering Nirvana.

I think that's why the Theravada tradition places more emphasis on the arhat instead of the bodhisattva.

I posed this question to a Buddhist monk once, who shrugged it off and said it was more of a theoretical/mathematical problem than an actual one. At the time I thought that was something of a cop out, but in retrospect I think he was probably right.

[Trevor]

How can we know that Nirvana even exists, if all who enter into it dissolve into nothingness?
Personally, I think that it is more selfish to stay, and much harder to go. I am on the Theraveda side.

[Taeguk]

How can we know that Nirvana even exists, if all who enter into it dissolve into nothingness?


Like anything else, we know it through a combination of faith, reason and experience.

Plus, "dissolve into nothingness" refers to the dissolution of the illusion of a separate self-subsisting atomic "self"----not some kind of dead nothingness, nor any kind of transcendent "place".

(Properly speaking, nirvana does not "exist"---the word exist comes from the Latin existere, "to stand out". Nirvana is not some kind of "thing" that "stands out". enlightenment involves the realization that all such "standing out" is radically contingent and radically ephemeral---the sunyata, or emptiness, of all forms.)

Dissolving into nothingness is not fundamentally incompatible with the world around us. In some sects of the Mahayana school (i.e. Chan/Zen), it's understood that "Nirvana is Samsara fully realized; Samsara is Nirvana rightly understood." Hence there are those who have "dissolved into nothingness" is a realization that occurs right here, right now, in this life. It is full and complete awareness of reality, just as it is---including what is "right in front of us". This is enlightenment, the highest stage of which is called satori in Zen.

Personally, I think that it is more selfish to stay, and much harder to go. I am on the Theraveda side.

Well, that's certainly one opinion. Personally, I think the key lies in why one is staying, or why one is going, rather than in the action itself.

I also think a Zen Buddhist might well ask just "where" it is one is expecting to "go". Many critics of the Theravada perspective allege it amounts to sheer escapism and world-denying nihilism---personally I think that's an oversimplification, but perhaps it contains a kernal of truth.

[the_aphid]

I also think a Zen Buddhist might well ask just "where" it is one is expecting to "go". Many critics of the Theravada perspective allege it amounts to sheer escapism and world-denying nihilism---personally I think that's an oversimplification, but perhaps it contains a kernal of truth.
I think there is some truth in that claim as well, however the justification is essentially that it does not matter, that 'they' will all inevitably reach it themselves one way or another, and do not require 'me' to stay and assist them. Their suffering is only temporary, a blink of existence in the awe that is forever (or nothing), and who am I to deny them of that experience. Whereas the Mahayana perhaps simply view it conversely, that I have understood what is Nirvana and am at its 'doorstep', essentially I have an eternity to step inside/outside, depending on how you look at it, and therefore why not attempt to help whoever I can before I go.

[Michael]

I believe that 'their' suffering is 'my' suffering, 'my' understanding is 'theiir' understanding. How can one go before the other? My suffering is the suffering I accept for others, theirs is what they accept for me. It is, paradoxically, when we resist this that we create suffering for ourselves and others. Thus we are all bodhistavas, though conscious at different levels and almost always ignorant of our true role.

How can I walk away? It is impossible.

[Ryker]

Conscious at different levels? Can you expound on this further? I know I've made this point a few times before, but since it applies I'll say it again. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as "going up through the grades"; half-asleep is still asleep as far as I am aware.

[Michael]

I really can't grasp where you are on this one, Ryker.

On one hand you say there is no such thing as "going up through the grades" - who are you quoting here? Certainly not me.

Secondly you say, "half-asleep is still asleep as far as I am aware."

Surely there is a gradient, however steeeeep(stet), between the two? From that I gather that you perceive the one who is half asleep to be inferior to the one who is awake?

Is the bud superior to the flower? Is the sun at dawn superior to the sun at noon?

I said 'conscious at different levels', by this I meant that we exist at levels, in dimensions, in states of sentience of which we have no awareness or only sparodic awareness on this plane. It is to this multiplicity of our being to which I was refering.

To give a simple, immediate and tangible example. You, Ryker, are a state or level of my being of which I am only most dimly and flickeringly aware. As I am in relation to you. And this example hardly touches the envelope.

I apologise if I come across as being smartass. I'm not. Believe me, I'm just as confused, human, faulty as anyone else. What I am trying to do is bring into awareness what I can perceive. I hope it is of some purpose.

[Trevor]

Is the bud superior to the flower? Is the sun at dawn superior to the sun at noon?


It's like the Lotus slowly opening.

[Michael]

That would depend on what you, Trevor, understand the lotus to be.

When I refered to the flower and the sun I was using them as analogies to bring out the pre-supposition of superiority in the idea of half-asleep and awake.

In the larger context the lotus is a beautiful metaphor for all creation. However the idea of slowly opening contains the concept of time. I believe that to see the lotus you must understand it to be a metaphor of great simplicity for a creation that is complex beyond comprehension and is not at all points subject to time.

I note your response has avoided the purpose of my response, and not addressed the question I put to you.

[Ryker]

On one hand you say there is no such thing as "going up through the grades" - who are you quoting here? Certainly not me.I'm quoting the Sutra of Forty-Two Chapters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sutra_of_Forty-Two_Sections), or rather I'm quoting The Buddha himself. I was referencing it to the fact that you said "conscious at different levels". I'll quote the text for you here.

The Buddha said:The homeless Çramana cuts off the passions, frees himself of attachments, understands the source of his own mind, penetrates the deepest doctrine of Buddha and comprehends the Dharma which is immaterial. He has no prejudice in his heart, he has nothing to hanker after. He is not hampered by the thought of the Way, nor is he entangled in karma. No prejudice, no compulsion, no discipline, no enlightenment, and no going up through the grades, and yet in possession of all honors in itself -- this is called the Way.
Secondly you say, "half-asleep is still asleep as far as I am aware."

Surely there is a gradient, however steeeeep(stet), between the two? From that I gather that you perceive the one who is half asleep to be inferior to the one who is awake?

Is the bud superior to the flower? Is the sun at dawn superior to the sun at noon?When did I say that I "perceive the one who is half asleep to be inferior to the one who is awake?" I never said that. I emboldened the phrase "he has no prejudice in his heart" in the above quotation because that is what I am referring to when I say that there is no "going up through the grades". Believing that "I have not yet attained, but I am very far" is a prejudice held in one's heart- it is an obstruction.

I said 'conscious at different levels', by this I meant that we exist at levels, in dimensions, in states of sentience of which we have no awareness or only sparodic awareness on this plane. It is to this multiplicity of our being to which I was refering.

To give a simple, immediate and tangible example. You, Ryker, are a state or level of my being of which I am only most dimly and flickeringly aware. As I am in relation to you. And this example hardly touches the envelope.Ahh, I see what it is that you're trying to say; it was the wording that was escaping me.

However, the way that I interpret it "I" cannot relate. The aloneness of "I" is eternal. All phenomenon are temporal; nothing is permanent - everything is continuously fluctuating & "we" chase the shadows. If interconnectedness rings true, then we are truly one & the belief in separation created "you" & "I" - or as you said "layers" of OUR being.

I apologise if I come across as being smartass. I'm not. Believe me, I'm just as confused, human, faulty as anyone else. What I am trying to do is bring into awareness what I can perceive. I hope it is of some purpose.I certainly didn't believe you to have come across as being a smartass. Did I respond as if I thought you were? If so, I apologize. :)

And I wouldn't say "faulty" per se. I've always liked the adage: "I have not failed, I have just found a million ways that do not work."

[the_aphid]

The Buddha said:The homeless Çramana cuts off the passions, frees himself of attachments, understands the source of his own mind, penetrates the deepest doctrine of Buddha and comprehends the Dharma which is immaterial. He has no prejudice in his heart, he has nothing to hanker after. He is not hampered by the thought of the Way, nor is he entangled in karma. No prejudice, no compulsion, no discipline, no enlightenment, and no going up through the grades, and yet in possession of all honors in itself -- this is called the Way.Why is no enlightenment in that sentence I wonder? Also, not to bring up the concepts of 'grades' or 'proximity to enlightenment' yet again, but do you agree that people can progress toward or away from enlightenment? Would you agree that someone can be further from the awareness than another, at any given point in time. Do you also feel that it is possible that you can 'stumble across' this awareness? Become aware in an instant without having been looking for 'it' at all? Perhaps an analogy...

What if awareness were the pockets on a billiard table, and we the balls upon the table. At any given point the 8 ball might be 'very close' to awareness in the corner pocket, yet 'very far' from the opposing corner pocket. Meanwhile the 9, 1, and 3 ball might be side by side, all directly in line with the side pocket, perhaps making them equidistant from awareness in all the corner pockets, but relatively closer to the opposing side pocket, however respectively they would be closer in reverse order, 3,1 then 9. Now, when the ball gains momentum, and begins bouncing around the table, in our analogy is their path decided by fate, predestined by their momentum, or is their fate 'flexible' in that they can slightly redirect themselves to attain this awareness in any particular pocket.

Problems with the analogy? Is there only one pocket? Are we really different numbered balls? Do we have control or not? Don't we always have momentum? Can a sense of static really be obtained in thought?

Maybe we are destined to bounce around the table until we are say...mathematically liberated into a pocket, and perhaps this is the frustration and suffering of existence...

:think:

[Trevor]

That would depend on what you, Trevor, understand the lotus to be.
I note your response has avoided the purpose of my response, and not addressed the question I put to you.
I wrote the lotus because in books that I've read, there is usually a reference to the lotus and the process of an individual's enlightenment, not necessarily a metaphor for all of creation. I may have incorrectly made a comparrison with what you were writing, and I guess you've just corrected me.
What question in particular, Michael? I have reread your last few posts, but I cannot see any question that was specifically directed towards myself.

[Trevor]

Can a sense of static really be obtained in thought?

Maybe the static is a quality of thinking: I have a thought, and I recognize the thought as being consistant with previous thoughts that I've had, giving me the illusion of "I".

[Michael]

STOP!

:rofl:


Trevor, my question was

"From that I gather that you perceive the one who is half asleep to be inferior to the one who is awake?"


Ryker, no enlightenment is just that.

[Trevor]

STOP!

:rofl:


Trevor, my question was

"From that I gather that you perceive the one who is half asleep to be inferior to the one who is awake?"


Ryker, no enlightenment is just that.

No, Michael. I personally believe that all of us are enlightened at this precise moment in time, fully and inherently. I think some people just choose to deny this, for whatever reason. All of us are the SAME whether we choose to realize this, or not. The lotus symbollism, to me, refers to the AWARENESS of this enlightenment, not the idea that some are on level 1 and others are fully enlightened.

[Trevor]

Plus, "dissolve into nothingness" refers to the dissolution of the illusion of a separate self-subsisting atomic "self"----not some kind of dead nothingness, nor any kind of transcendent "place".
I've felt like this a few times in my brief life, and I find that after awhile it wears off, or I cannot contain it because of the fear of dying, and then I have a panic attack.:tremble:

[Taeguk]

I've felt like this a few times in my brief life, and I find that after awhile it wears off, or I cannot contain it because of the fear of dying, and then I have a panic attack.

I think perhaps you're speaking a different kind of experience? Kensho shouldn't be horrifying.

[Ryker]

Perhaps, in a way, if one were to touch upon Nothingness - from the perspective of the ego, this could be horrifying. For the ego, perhaps it is likened to a floor caving from beneath a person's feet.

[Taeguk]

Yes....Trevor, I may have misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize. My point above is that there's more than one way of "losing oneself." Some are horrifying, others are blissful, others are a combination of bliss and horror.

[Trevor]

Yes....Trevor, I may have misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize. My point above is that there's more than one way of "losing oneself." Some are horrifying, others are blissful, others are a combination of bliss and horror.
Thanks, but you don't need to apologize. When I read post #23, I took it at face value. I guess when I said panic attack, what I actually meant was because I had no frame of reference for "losing myself", it felt as if I never existed, and would never exist again. It was a threshold experience that happend in my twenties, and since then I have come to recognize the feeling, and have learned to release and flow into it.

[Taeguk]

Something to chew on, re: bodhisattvas:

The Buddha: “Subhūti, what do you think? You should not say that the Tathāgata has this thought: ‘I should liberate living beings.’ Subhūti, you should not think so. Why? Because there are really no living beings whom the Tathāgata can liberate. If there were, the Tathāgata would hold (the concept of) an ego, a personality, a being and a life. Subhūti, (when) the Tathāgata speaks of an ego, there is in reality no ego, although common men think so. Subhūti, the Tathāgata says common men are not, but are (expediently) called, common men.

(Diamond Sutra)

[Michael]

No, Michael. I personally believe that all of us are enlightened at this precise moment in time, fully and inherently. I think some people just choose to deny this, for whatever reason. All of us are the SAME whether we choose to realize this, or not. The lotus symbollism, to me, refers to the AWARENESS of this enlightenment, not the idea that some are on level 1 and others are fully enlightened.

I agree with you,
Trevor. We all are enlightened at this moment, or an aspect of us is. I suspect that our task is to integrate that enlightenment across all our levels of awareness.

We are just looking at th lotus in different ways. I have a tendency to complicate things.

I believe your reference to dying is very important. And I can understand the feelings that arise around the surrender of the self. That is death to the ego. That is what we hide from in words, in ideas. drugs, faith, knowledge, what have you. I speak as an expert in hiding. Frightens the heck out of me . But I can't let it go, or it won't let me go. This is talking gut emotion. I often think that if we were more honest about ourselves it would be easier for others.