Who Are You, Really?

alikimr

Here's an excerpt:

**************

In the Jataka tales, we read stories of the Buddha in his previous lives as a Bodhisattva, an individual destined for enlightenment and Buddhahood. ('Bodhi' means 'enlightenment' or 'wisdom' and 'sattva' means 'being' or 'essence'). As Mahayana Buddhism developed, the idea of the Bodhisattva became imbued with increasing significance. Whereas Theravada Buddhism appeared to focus on sainthood and the individual's solo quest for enlightenment, Mahayana Buddhism emphasized the role of the Bodhisattva as a supremely compassionate individual who is motivated to win enlightenment not for himself but for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Bodhicitta

The process of becoming a Bodhisattva starts with Bodhicitta, the selfless aspiration to win enlightenment for the benefit of others. Subsequent to this is the Bodhisattva vow, where a conscious commitment is to save all beings from the vicissitudes and dissatisfaction of samsara. Along the Bodhisattva path, there are six perfections to be acquired. These are: giving (dana), morality (sila), patience (ksanti), vigor (virya), meditation (dhyana) and wisdom (prajna). On acquiring the sixth perfection, the Bodhisattva could enter nirvana but decides to postpone this so that he can be of help to other beings. There are said to be ten stages (bhumi) through which a Bodhisattva progresses, culminating in Buddhahood.

Putting Others First

But what is significant about this emphasis on the Bodhisattva and his or her desire to postpone enlightenment for the sake of others? At its core is the conception of Buddhism as a deeply compassionate religion in which true wisdom derives from putting others first, no matter what the cost to oneself. Santideva, the eighth century Indian sage, wrote: "Whosoever longs to rescue quickly both himself and others should practice the supreme mystery: exchange of self and other". He continues, "All those who suffer in this world do so because of their desire for their own happiness. All those happy in the world are so because of their desire for the happiness of others".

Avalokiteshvara

It is no surprise that one of the most revered Bodhisattva figures is Avalokiteshvara, Bodhisattva of Compassion. In Tibetan Buddhism, he takes the form of Chenrezi and in China he is embodied in the female form known as Kwan-Yin . Translated literally, 'Avalokiteshvara' means 'the one who sees', in the sense that he perceives the suffering of others he looks down on. The many eyes of Avalokiteshvara depicted in Buddhist iconography reflect this. The many hands that are also seen in some depictions of Avalokitesvara are also symbolic of the help he is ready to give to those who need it.

The Bodhisattva Vow

One translation of the Bodhisattva vow goes like this:

However innumerable sentient beings there are, I vow to save them
However inexhaustible the defilements are, I vow to extinguish them
However immeasurable the truth is, I vow to expound it
However incomparable enlightenment is, I vow to attain it!

The Bodhisattva ideal is a high ideal. Nevertheless, many Buddhists who have engendered Bodhicitta and taken the Bodhisattva vow have begun so in the knowledge that this is a process which will take many lifetimes. However, the short term benefits - the development of generosity, patience, vigor and so on - will be of immediate benefit to others right now!

************

http://buddhism.about.com/library/weekly/aa091802a.htm

Like Twyvel, I am not "a Buddhist". Strictly speaking, I am nothing (hence my aka, JLNobody). In the zen tradition (which I follow as a lay person), one must not be attached to any beliefs, rituals, practices, etc. Nevertheless, I do meditate and even chant after sessions of meditation with others. Then we go to coffee (every Saturday morning) and usually do not talk about zen or Buddhism. We could, but to feel obliged to do so would be attaching ourselves to Zen Buddhism. To be attached (not the same thing as indifferent "DEtachment") is to CHOOSE something as opposed to its opposite--the problem of dualism. There's a famous zen prescription: "If you encounter the Buddha, kill him." This must be understood in the context of the problem of attachment.

JLNobody : If there is one thing that we are in total agreement about it is that we can argue over philosophy, religion, aesthetics, etc. etc., but in the
end, ultimately, it is just noise.We care deeply about such things, knowing all the time that it does not matter. However, I find it disappointing that you say that our human means of communication, the use of language, can NOT communicate the obviously vital dualism of our existence. Did you ever try thinking, and communicating dialectically?

No, I did not say that we cannot communicate dualistically. That's the only way we can; we cannot communicate non-dualistically. But the dialectical approach to analysis, in which we see things as unified in a kind of mutual causation, at least approaches a form of dynamic monism.

JLNobody;
Why do you say you are not a Buddhist ? And your friend twyvel?
And if we keep this up we will negate our original thesis and come up with a synthesis
as to who we reallyare, dialectically speaking.

I don't think that we will, on the track we are taking, dialectically converge. Instead, I suspect we will grow father apart (schizmogenesis, the opposite of synthesis). When I said I am not a Buddhist it was, I grant, a buddhist gesture. Nevertheless, to understand my meaning there you have to intuit what's between the lines.

JLNobody: Why do Buddhists consistently depend on intuition in order to consumate a Zen communication....and in this case, a "between-the-lines" intuit at that!
I agree with you that we will never converge ,and mainly because you are taking great liberties with the dialectic regimen . But then ,Buddhism does have that compulsion to ignore all distinctions, dualistic or otherwise, which is anathema to dialectic thought

Alikimr, it is dawning on me that we do not mean the same thing by "dialecticism." What is your meaning? I don't mean mere dialog; I refer to a process in which the conflict between thesis and antithesis is resolved (disolved) in synthesis.

JLNobody: By dialectics I am referring to the classical Hegelian approach to the thinkung process which features the negation of the original thesis, i.e. the antithesis, which refines the thesis into a synthesis......which ofcourse now becomes a new thesis subject to further refinement. Unless a thesis is intensely scrutinized by the negation approachm it obviously can and usually does become a dogma.
I believe we mean the same thing.
Perhaps our difference is that I keep refining the
dualistic elements, (like true vs. false, good vs. bad), before arriving at a final synthesis....even, as
we agreed , its just a lot of noise and in the end it
doesn't matter anyway. But ,heh!...we will at least have a "synthesis".

To me, the "synthesis" exists from the beginning to the end. It is equivalent to the pre-reflective, and non-problematical reality. Thesis and anti-thesis are the products of our desires, interests, biases, needs, etc. That is to say, there is no metaphysical problem from the beginning, only the conceptual problems we make for ourselves. I don't think we can refrain from making such problems; it's part of our nature. But we can "transcend" them and see them for what they are. This includes seeing our nature, the nature that generates them.

I wonder at your "broad brush" view of our problems which you say are generated by our nature, and how we can see them as self-induced problems by your ability to" trasnscend"
them. I presume that I can conclude from this
that ,as a result, you are in a position to "handle"
them.
Its a lot easier to do so if you don't have to worry about the disharmony of "good or bad" , or "true or false.,would you not agree?

I admit my brush is very broad, but we are only trying to sketch the most general features of our philosophy, are we not? By recognizing the nature of the problems we create I have in effect "transcended" them. To me most of the problems people deal with in their metaphysical moments are merely academic. I ignore questions of the classical false dichotomies such as free-will vs. determinism, supernaturalism vs. naturalism, theism vs. atheism (humanism), absolutism vs. relativism, even dualism vs. non-dualism, and the metaphysical nature of Truth and the Good, etc., in favor of the practical problems of everyday life. But I do engage in debates about them here on A2K because of the social pleasure of doing so. I don't have to "handle" false problems--thank God (oops!, there's another false problem)

JLNobody: I know a man who does not want to be understood byany but his own disciples.. Although he knows that obscurantism is a conceit ,
he also knows that it is an old technique which has been practiced by every new religion throughout
history. After all, the greatest clarity is a contradiction, he says, knowing full well that they
are not lies, only nonsense and unreason Arcane,
convoluted,clubfooted language is the most trusted
and effective communicator of his philosophy.
Do you know of such a man?

Alikimr, I suspect you are referring to me. But I assure you my "confession" that I was trying to "express" rather than "communicate" some notions to you merely reflects an honest attempt to communicate to myself certain ideas that even hard to think up. I, Fresco, and Tywvel have spent many hours trying to communicate (for purposes of persuasion and edification) the "mystical" perspective of non-dualism to a number of very bright A2Kers, without success. You can find the relevant threads here in the Philosophy Forum. I ended up somewhat punchy from the effort. So I was not about to repeat the process with you (or anyone). But I did want to articulate for myself this non-dualistic perspective which is almost ineffable, given language's inherent dualism. So please do not think I am trying to sound "profound" by means of obscurantism--even though I was imprecise, due to laziness, in some places. I don't think anyone will accuse me of that when I am discussing "normal" topics dualistically. I usually edit my statements with the intention of making them readable.

JLN, your amazing honesty in matters dualistic, when you are so intellectually immersed in the non-dualistic perspective is something I can only wonder at, and for what it is worth,commend you for it.
My unrefined materialist-realist approach to
the violence of reality on this planet does not permit my 'mind's eye' such an intellectual consolation.

Thanks, Alikimr. Don't get me wrong, though. I do not live in a non-dualistic stratosphere above the material violence of everyday dualistic experience. The non-dualistic perspective is merely an occasional break from the other--and an ultimate consolation.

Oops, socratus, just so you know, links to personal sites are not allowed. It will probably be removed.

JLN, you did not fail to communicate, you failed to persuade.

Joe, we did not persuade because we did not communicate. At least I never got a sense that you understood our perspective. I know: you are going to say that we confuse understanding with persuasion. That was Craven's position. I understand that, but deny it.
BTW, what was the name of that thread? Anybody?

So you understood him and were not persuaded, yet you cannot accept that I understood you and was not persuaded? Really, JLN, you can at least understand irony, can't you?