Redefining Bodhisattvas

Redefining Bodhisattvas

A few years ago I read the following quote from Yasutani Hakuun Roshi, a famous Japanese zen buddhist master of the 20^th century:

”In the deepest sense, even the Bodhisattva Kannon (Avalokiteshvara) might be said to be attached to compassion, otherwise he would be a buddha, free of all attachments.*”

*quote from The Three Pillars of Zen, Philip Kapleau

Wikipedia gives the following definition of bodhisattva plus categorises three kinds of them:

”In Buddhism, bodhisattva is the Sanskrit term for anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish and a compassionate mind to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.”

1. king-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to become buddha as soon as possible and then help sentient beings in full fledge;
   
2. boatman-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to achieve buddhahood along with other sentient beings;
   
3. shepherd-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteśvara and Śāntideva are believed to fall in this category.
   

Bodhisattvas going up the hill

By bodhisattvas who are on their way towards the top of the hill, I mean samsaric beings who are still bound by their dualistic vision but who have the motivation and make efforts to become fully realised buddhas for the benefit of all beings, in this, past or future lives.

Bodhisattvas coming down the hill

As Yasutani Roshi and the third category of mahayana bodhisattvas in the Wikipedia article describe, some bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara are said to not have attained buddhahood but are still making their way up the hill towards it while simultaneously answering to the cries of those who suffer below them. This would mean that bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Mahasthamaprapta, Akasagarbha, Ksitigarbha and so on, are still subtly deluded with an impaired vision,. This would make them samsaric beings.

It has always made sense to me to turn for example towards Avalokiteshvara, the embodiment of compassion, to receive his blessings and assiatance but it never made sense to me that he would still be a deluded being, more or less like me. At some point I started feeling that there must be some misunderstandings in this view. I would never take refuge in samsaric beings, regardless how subtle their delusion was. Neither would I recommend it to anyone.

One of my criticisms towards Tibetan buddhism and it's high lamas, who extremely rarely actually are living buddhas, is that their followers should not take refuge to lamas who aren't buddhas for certain. Doing this keeps the wheel of samsara spinning and is an impediment for actualisation of the buddhist teaching. If we don't know whether or not one's guru is a buddha or not, we need to find out to be sure. If we don't have ways of finding out, we have to start from the beginning and start thinking about it constructively. This matter cannot be left on faith. I encourage people to study the dharma and to revere and respect their teachers but not taking refuge in samsaric beings. The Open Heart Bhumi Model and it's analytical application reveals what the actual level of anyone's attainment is.

If bodhisattvas were buddhas in the making, they would also have to take refuge in buddhas and mahasiddha gurus, just like us ordinary samsaric beings. This doesn't make much sense.

My understanding is that sambhogakaya bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas of the energetic realms (deities), are fully enlightened buddhas who have gone up the hill to the top and then returned back down to reside on certain areas of the mind (ref. to Bodhisattva Bhumis) to help those who are trapped in the wheel of confusion and ignorance. For this reason bodhisattva deities are actually buddhas who have chosen to do their work from the bodhisattva bhumis (1-10), relating to the vast range of energy centers, that is, the mind of man (sem) and the various realms that can be accessed from each of these centers.

Thank you for reading.

Bows to the Five Jewels.

- Kim, 8.6.2017

Advaita Enlightenment And Dzogchen Enlightenment

Advaita Enlightenment And

Dzogchen Enlightenment

The next story, told by Sam Harris, demonstrates how the view and experience of enlightenment differ between two teachers: Papaji (H.W.L. Poonja, a well known advaita vedanta guru, disciple of Ramana Maharishi) and Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, a well known Tibetan vajrayana buddhism and dzogchen master.

I have linked two demonstrative videos where the mentioned teachers meditate. From them one can see how different their states are. The other one being quite confused and unclear and the other one being matured, clear and open.

- Kim Katami, 14.2.2016.

From Sam Harris' book Waking up, ch. 4:

”Poonja-ji’s influence on me was profound, especially because it came as a corrective to all the strenuous and unsatisfying efforts I had been making in meditation up to that point. But the dangers inherent in his approach soon became obvious. The all-or-nothing quality of Poonjaji’s teaching obliged him to acknowledge the full enlightenment of any person who was grandiose or manic enough to claim it. Thus, I repeatedly witnessed fellow students declare their complete and undying freedom, all the while appearing quite ordinary—or worse. In certain cases, these people had clearly had some sort of breakthrough, but Poonja-ji’s insistence upon the finality of every legitimate insight led many of them to delude themselves about their spiritual attainments. Some left India and became gurus. From what I could tell, Poonja-ji gave everyone his blessing to spread his teachings in this way. He once suggested that I do it, and yet it was clear to me that I was not qualified to be anyone’s guru. Nearly twenty years have passed, and I’m still not. Of course, from Poonja-ji’s point of view, this is an illusion. And yet there simply is a difference between a person like myself, who is generally distracted by thought, and one who isn’t and cannot be. I don’t know where to place Poonja-ji on this continuum of wisdom, but he appeared to be a lot farther along than his students. Whether Poonja-ji was capable of seeing the difference between himself and other people, I do not know. But his insistence that no difference existed began to seem either dogmatic or delusional.

On one occasion, events conspired to perfectly illuminate the flaw in Poonja-ji’s teaching. A small group of experienced practitioners (among us several teachers of meditation) had organized a trip to India and Nepal to spend ten days with Poonja-ji in Lucknow, followed by ten days in Kathmandu, to receive teachings on the Tibetan Buddhist practice of Dzogchen. As it happened, during our time in Lucknow, a woman from Switzerland became “enlightened” in Poonja-ji’s presence. For the better part of a week, she was celebrated as something akin to the next Buddha. Poonja-ji repeatedly put her forward as evidence of how fully the truth could be realized without making any effort at all in meditation, and we had the pleasure of seeing this woman sit beside Poonja-ji on a raised platform expounding upon how blissful it now was in her corner of the universe. She was, in fact, radiantly happy, and it was by no means clear that Poonja-ji had made a mistake in recognizing her. She would say things like “There is nothing but consciousness, and there is no difference between it and reality itself.” Coming from such a nice, guileless person, there was little reason to doubt the profundity of her experience.

When it came time for our group to leave India for Nepal, this woman asked if she could join us. Because she was such good company, we encouraged her to come along. A few of us were also curious to see how her realization would appear in another context. And so it came to pass that a woman whose enlightenment had just been confirmed by one of the greatest living exponents of Advaita Vedanta was in the room when we received our first teachings from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, who was generally thought to be one of the greatest living Dzogchen masters. Of all the Buddhist teachings, those of Dzogchen most closely resemble the teachings of Advaita. The two traditions seek to provoke the same insight into the nonduality of consciousness, but, generally speaking, only Dzogchen makes it absolutely clear that one must practice this insight to the point of stability and that one can do so without succumbing to the dualistic striving that haunts most other paths.

At a certain point in our discussions with Tulku Urgyen, our Swiss prodigy declared her boundless freedom in terms similar to those she had used to such great effect with Poonja-ji. After a few highly amusing exchanges, during which we watched Tulku Urgyen struggle to understand what our translator was telling him, he gave a short laugh and looked the woman over with renewed interest.

“How long has it been since you were last lost in thought?” he asked.
“I haven’t had any thoughts for over a week,” the woman replied.
Tulku Urgyen smiled.
“A week?”
“Yes.”
“No thoughts?”
“No, my mind is completely still. It’s just pure consciousness.”
“That’s very interesting. Okay, so this is what is going to happen now: We are all going to wait for you to have your next thought. There’s no hurry. We are all very patient people. We are just going to sit here and wait. Please tell us when you notice a thought arise in your mind.”

It is difficult to convey what a brilliant and subtle intervention this was. It may have been the most inspired moment of teaching I have ever witnessed. After a few moments, a look of doubt appeared on our friend’s face.

“Okay... Wait a minute... Oh... That could have been a thought there... Okay...”

Over the next thirty seconds, we watched this woman’s enlightenment completely unravel. It became clear that she had been merely thinking about how expansive her experience of consciousness had become—how it was perfectly free of thought, immaculate, just like space—without noticing that she was thinking incessantly. She had been telling herself the story of her enlightenment—and she had been getting away with it because she happened to be an extraordinarily happy person for whom everything was going very well for the time being.

This was the danger of nondual teachings of the sort that Poonja-ji was handing out to all comers. It was easy to delude oneself into thinking that one had achieved a permanent breakthrough, especially because he insisted that all breakthroughs must be permanent. What the Dzogchen teachings make clear, however, is that thinking about what is beyond thought is still thinking, and a glimpse of selflessness is generally only the beginning of a process that must reach fruition. Being able to stand perfectly free of the feeling of self is the start of one’s spiritual journey, not its end.”

Links

1. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche meditates-video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5BA7v7HPXE&list=PLqTm9fV9DGhs_5dnFU0bh8S8ZKaSof_px&index=16
2. Papaji meditates-video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1T2KhLPUsM