Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 120; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 120

Transglomeration: How else might I recompense their benevolence, they so closely bonded to the benefit of beings, who would do anything that is good for them, who would dismember their own body and give it away, who would enter right into the deepest avīci hell, all for their sake; how, other than behaving towards all beings in the best possible way in all my actions, even when they might have inflicted the greatest harm on me.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 119 – what other way of repaying the Buddhas (who have taken beings as their own) …
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 120 … those Buddhas who have completely self-sacrificed for beings

Text: this verse seems to have four lines in the Sanskrit whereas most verses have two: is this right (or is there some fault/conjecture about this verse), if right what significance is there that Śāntideva (or the settlers of the original text … from Magadha) delivered just this verse in a slightly different format; in the meaning of the verse itself it continues the line of thinking as started in verse 112 and seems to have no significant meta-point to make (like the lengthened verse lines of chapter 4, verse 47, which is the first explicit mention of meditation of emptiness in the text) and there is no change in the type of reasoning used from previous verses; in fact the point made in this verse is just answering the rhetorical question posed in verse 119, still …

Text: line 2 (of 4, this time), this is translated along the lines of ‘if we act poorly with beings, we thereby harm the Buddhas because of their close ties to beings, but I read it as they do the rending and relinquishing of their bodies ‘for the sake of doing good’ for all beings – as in ‘to the extent of’…; probably hubris, but I’m sticking with this for a while until I’m shown otherwise … as seems to inevitably end up happening, the seemingly contrary, or even contradictory, readings are a matter of ostensible and affective readings of the same thing – outside-in and inside-out: (Sanskrit) the Buddhas work for sentient beings to the extent that they would rend their bodies and enter the deepest hell for them (outer) (because they (the Buddhas) have effectively and actually relinquished all sense of self-grasping and self-concern and entertain only (Enlightened) thoughts of concern for others) (inner); (Tibetan) because the Buddhas have perfected the exchange of self for others such there is no sense of self where the needs of others are concerned (inner) then anything done to beings (those same ‘others’) is both affectively and effectively done to the Buddhas, a precept of conduct which is wholly detrimental to oneself if one acts negatively toward them (outer); the fact that many of the translators of the Sanskrit text – even the early ones – often take (what turns out to be) the ‘Tibetan’ reading, I would venture is the ease with which that line can be read either way

Reflection: this verse explores the effects of the relationship of the Buddhas towards sentient beings, being one of having exchanged self for other – the Buddhas have no sense of self from their realisation of emptiness, but also from their response to beings who are likewise empty of intrinsic existence and yet have not realised this, and so suffer; this affectively means that they have no sense of self (they have realised that there is no self), but from sentient beings’ (and obviously oneself’s) side they would perceive that there are Buddhas because they/we are still stuck in dualistic perception projected upon the apprehension of intrinsic existence; the trichotomy (Buddhas/beings/oneself) only exists from the deluded/saṃsāric point of view, it is not an absolute trichotomy, neither is it unchangeable, but that the perception that there are Buddhas to be perceived, and that once perceived, one enters a path to understand what the implication and nature of these perceptions of Buddhas means – it is the redress of the problem (1^st Truth of Suffering, 2^nd Truth of the Cause of Suffering) by entering into relationship with the solution of the problem (3^rd Truth of there being a Cessation of suffering (look, there are Buddhas!), 4^th Truth of the Path to Enlightenment)

Practice: again, these last verses of the chapter are establishing a whole perspective regarding the practice of patience, again, moved it far beyond the mere stopping of anger and rising it to accept the full implication of the distinction of the two truths (conventional and ultimate) and their reconciliation by practising the Perfections rather than merely stopping unfortunate and unskilful actions; the Perfections are presented as the practices of giving, discipline, patience etc. with the realisation of emptiness: a clunky understanding of this renders practitioners wandering around practising their virtues with emptiness in their minds as if they were stoned out hippies saying everything is beautiful and everything is alright; it’s clunky because it simply juxtaposes the two (practice of virtue & realisation of emptiness), there is little sense of integration there, emptiness is just tagged on behind the event as if an afterthought; realising emptiness is more than just concluding ‘oh, nothing exists inherently’ otherwise it has tended towards an extreme of (a perverse) realism (i.e. that a phenomenon’s real nature is its empty nature of existence, that its real nature lies ‘behind’ its apparent nature; the two truths, thereby, have not been integrated and they need to be integrated to ‘step out’ of the double bind of conceiving something to exist or not exist in co-dependence with one’s own sense of self existing or not existing); so how do you integrate the two truths, that all is conditioned and that all is empty of intrinsic existence: you do it through engaging with all sentient beings on a non-self-personal-grasping-or-cherishing level, responding to their needs within a conditioned and cyclical world with the mind of bringing them to realisation of their own nature liberated from the prison of perceiving the world as intrinsically real or intrinsically illusory; the key to realising oneself the union of the two truths is the indispensability of engaging all sentient beings within one’s practice, anything short of engaging all sentient beings I one’s practice limits one’s integration of the two truths and by default de-limits one’s realisation of emptiness; the practice of this verse is, therefore, realising the indispensability of sentient beings in one’s practice of patience and realisation of emptiness

Advertisements

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 119; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 119

Transglomeration: And furthermore, given that (the Buddhas) have become so closely and precisely related to the needs of beings, and that they manifest such immeasurable benefit for the world, and I, having previously given up and abandoned such conciliation with beings, how otherwise might I better recompense their kindness than by giving service to beings and making them happy?

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 118 – beings = part and condition of generating virtues \ worthy of recognition and veneration
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 119 – … and besides, what other way of repaying the Buddhas (who have taken beings as their own)

Elements: (Buddhas) = closely bonded to all beings, give immeasurable benefit; ourselves (having abandoned those beings), how else to reconcile (with Buddhas) than through (giving) close bonds and benefit; a rhetorical verse: in acting adversely with beings we create an infraction with the Buddhas because they are so closely tied to beings – the have completely exchanged self for other; the only way to rectify that infraction is to proffer that same bond and benefit back to beings

Reflection: (related to the trichotomy of Buddhas/all beings/oneself): just as the Buddhas have dissolved all trace of self-concern/care into care for all beings (such there is no ‘them’ but the care they have for others, the perfection of love (for others’ happiness) and compassion (for others’ suffering), such that there is no thought in their minds of their need over and above others’, a complete selflessness that doesn’t even conceive an ‘I’, let alone its needs, such that there is only the needs of others), then we (‘ourselves’) need to do likewise in order to complete the mutual-dissolution – there’s no other way; this trichotomy is a dynamic: when the elements are distinct, there is no dynamic, only a stasis, stuck within a mutual incompatibility, which, at best is a personal Nirvāṇa, but mostly is suffering and blind conditionality – conventional and ultimate natures have not been reconciled; when the elements are dynamic, then the path (to reconciling the two truths) is being worked to the benefit of all and no one

Embroidery: it recurs – up to verse 111 is the whole treatment of the problem of anger and the means to control and stop it; from verse 112 onwards is the treatment of taking it a step further towards recognising what is going on here from an overview: patience is more than just stopping oneself getting angry, it is actually following through with the recognition that all beings, things, and, of course, ourselves, are all wholly and inescapably conditioned within an infinitely intricate web of cause and effect; this recognition is used to deconstruct for us that there is really nothing substantial ‘out there’ for us to get angry with, so we use this realisation in order to curb our anger; but additionally, let’s step back from just ourselves, and reflect what this means:

• the Buddhas have completely realised and understand the intricacy of cause and conditionality
• their response to this realisation is to become – by default – infinitely loving and infinitely compassionate towards the infinite frustration and suffering that sentient beings experience because they don’t realise this interdependency
• they have become extremely close to sentient beings – far closer than sentient beings can become to each other, dogged as they are in self-grasping and self-cherishing – not close to the extent that they can’t tell the difference between sentient beings and themselves (i.e. they have ‘lost’ themselves in ‘others’), but to the extent that they have realised both their own selflessness and so too the selflessness of others
• and yet sentient beings remain limited by their own sentience, hence the infinite love and compassion, and hence the Vow that all sentient beings become Enlightened
• of course, ‘ourself’ (the reader of the text, the practitioner, the aspiring Bodhisattva) is one of the ‘sentient beings’, but the fact that ‘I’ am reading and studying and trying to practise this text – that I am trying to ‘bridge’ between being a sentient being and an Enlightened Being – creates the perspective from which I need to practise:
• up to verse 111 Śāntideva has been exploring that we need adversaries in order to practise patience, but we don’t just use sentient beings as a ‘springboard’ for our development, we take the condition of sentient beings to train ourselves – yes – but also to complete the process (the recognition of, and rectification of conditionality) by getting all sentient beings to recognise their own conditionality; if you only strived in the ‘field’ of the Buddhas only you would end up only sorting yourself out gaining a personal Nirvāṇa, you would have achieved neither your own full benefit (by not becoming fully Enlightened, a Buddha) or others’ benefit (by liberating them, you’ll just have escaped from where they are)
• this is why aspiring Bodhichitta is so important; of having the macro perspective from the beginning, even before you have made any gains at all, so that one’s practise of Dharma doesn’t become some limited personal project

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 118; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 117

­Transglomeration: And, since a factor in the generation of these best of Buddha Qualities is readily found within all sentient beings, surely it is clearly understood that all sentient beings should be given due recognition and honour in accordance with just that.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 117 – because a fraction of that virtue is immeasurable
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 118 – and beings = part and condition of generating those virtues ∴ worthy of recognition and veneration

↓ {conclusion of 114-117} ↓

Stitching: all beings are to be venerated

Overstitching: since the smallest part of ‘Essence of All Virtue’ [condition of Path to Enlightenment] is present in all sentient beings [by virtue of their being infinite (-ly proliferating) and suffering] = correct to venerate them

Reflection: but if a tiny share of being the cause to realise these qualities exists in each and every sentient being, then every sentient being is due due honour and esteem because of this (and Tuffley mentions that each sentient being has the Buddha-nature in them, is this in the text?)

Reflection: these verses start to break down the absolute distinction between sentient beings and Enlightened Beings; yes, there is a distinction between Enlightened and not-Enlightened – Enlightened Beings have gone beyond all limitation and distinction, but they were once limited sentient beings themselves – but the distinction is not absolute, it is bridge-able (although the bridge (the raft) needs to be left at the shore; in fact from verse 112 onwards is a whole exploration of oneself <> sentient beings <> Enlightened Beings …

Determination: to respect all sentient beings as I would the Three Jewels because they give rise and condition to realisation

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 117; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 117

Transglomeration: Out of that Whole Repository of Realisation of the Essence of All Virtue, even if the merest fragment of a virtue were to be found in any being, then actually offering the three worlds and all of their worship over and again would be insufficient in recognition of such a person.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 116 – beings = Buddhas as causes of Enlightenment, not in virtue
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 117 – because a fraction of that virtue is immeasurable

↓ {expansion of qualification/distinction/discernment from 116} ↓

Stitching: Buddhas = All Virtue ∴ any virtue = venerable

Overstitching: Buddhas = ‘Oceans of Virtue’ because = ‘Essence of All Virtue’ (again, greatness (of realisation), māhātmya – great being-ness) [because they have transcended all duality and are therefore Enlightened – Truth of Cessation and Truth of the Path to Cessation] … of which the smallest part (↓) within a sentient being ≠ worshipful (measurable) by the three realms [i.e. the whole of the dualistic universe]

Reflection: the Enlightened qualities of the Buddhas far, far exceed the world (…they are beyond all comparison because their realisation swims in emptiness, beyond all comparable duality); the force of this verse is to quantify the difference between the small part of friendship that a sentient being may have developed and the Enlightenment depicted in the previous verse as being similar in effect, but that they are not similar in actual realisation; this regurgitates that the route of sentient being – stuck in dualistic mentation based obsessively around an imputed sense of self – is not one of being a good boy/girl sentient being in a linear progression until they become a Buddha, the discernment between sentient being and Enlightened Being is one of transcendence – a quantum ‘route’ – that sheds the (enslavement to the) sense of self; when a sentient being has developed a ‘smallest part’ of a virtue (and not just slapped some virtue on themselves and worn it like a frock, a selfless virtue) what they have done is found a part of their true self, a virtue which is a glimmer of the realisation of selflessness of which the Buddha is the full realisation

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 116; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 116

Transglomeration: Thereby in the establishing and realisation of (albeit) just a fraction of the qualities of the Buddha Dharma, ordinary beings are asserted to be equal to the Conquerors, but none of them are the equals of the Buddhas who are unbounded repositories of unlimited realisations of every good quality like an Ocean.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 115 – greatness of number of beings; greatness of realisation of Buddhas
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 116 – beings = Buddhas as causes of Enlightenment, not in virtue

↓ {qualification/distinction/discernment from 115} ↓

Stitching: sentient beings ≠ great (but are conditions of Enlightenment)   —/—   Buddhas = Great (because Enlightened)

Overstitching: sentient beings are not great in themselves (cf. v. 114) [because they endlessly self-proliferate in a dualistic universe and suffer thereby – the Truth of Suffering & the Truth of the Cause of Suffering], but they are conditions of the path to full Awakening/Enlightenment   —/—   Buddhas are (↓) great (‘Oceans of Virtue’ (↓)) in themselves [because they have transcended all duality and are (↓) therefore Enlightened – the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path to Cessation]

Reflection: this qualifies the assertion made in verse 115 (that there is a ‘greatness’ in both sentient beings and Buddhas), and builds on top of the qualification already established in verse 114 (that sentient beings are great in terms of the fruits/outcomes that they can be part of for a person on the path to Awakening), by having it that the part established by relying on sentient beings is definitely a significant part of achieving Awakening, but it is, nevertheless, only a part, it is not the whole ‘ocean’ of virtues; sentient beings are equal to the Buddhas in enabling the realisation of enlightened qualities; the factor of even a minute particle of friendliness within any being, high or low, is of immense power from the perspective of the bigger picture (i.e. will lead to Enlightenment in the long run) and therefore in this way there is a similarity with Enlightened Beings, a likeness; having friendliness is, after all, an expression of one’s true nature, one’s Buddha-nature, Buddhas are beings who have fully realised their nature, so there is a natural affinity between friendliness and Awakening … in terms of the effect; this is not a meritocracy, so much, as organic; it would seem that the greatness of sentient beings is as an object on which to rely and through which to develop the faculty of love and compassion which is essential for the realisation of Awakening, for the practitioner, i.e. ‘oneself’ in the Buddha/sentient beings/oneself trichotomy, there’s no other object that could be used to develop love and compassion, so the ‘greatness’ of sentient beings is, again, not innate, but in the sense of being indispensable, sentient beings are great in effect, not in kind (with the Buddhas); but sentient beings are not just a ‘stepping stone’ to get to Awakening – to be unwrapped and discarded when used – because the Bodhichita motivation galvanises the development of love/compassion far beyond just ‘sympathy’, it completes the care generated towards sentient beings by being able to do something about it – the development of love/compassion is not an end in itself; the Bodhisattva doesn’t stand on the banks wringing hands and wailing about the child drowning, they jump right in and get them out

Buddha/Sentient Beings/Oneself Trichotomy: taking all beings as a whole, they are either Enlightened, or not; but further differentiating ‘oneself’ from ‘sentient beings’ enables the dynamic of cultivating Awakening, of transforming one’s sentient being-ness to Enlightened-Being; the distinction (of ‘self’ and ‘other’) is already deeply there in us – our self-grasping from the start, our self-cherishing making it stronger – and it is only oneself that can make that transformation happen (we can’t make others Enlightened, and neither can Buddhas make others Enlightened), and if it is not oneself that cultivates Awakening, then the gulf between Enlightened and not-Enlightened is unbridgeable; so ‘oneself’ in the trichotomy is essential for that link between non-Enlightened/Enlightened to be made; furthermore, ‘oneself’ is not just escaping from sentient being to Enlightened Being, that would be far too extreme a result (Nirvāṇa despite saṃsāra – clever as this achievement would be), rather one is predisposed to finish the job because the whole distinction of Enlightened/not-Enlightened (oneself included) is an illusory – and rather painful illusion at that – distinction; more-so and actually, you can’t just keep the analysis of Enlightened/not-Enlightened beings ‘out there’, taking a grand macro-view of the whole situation as if you were doing a bit of metaphysical philosophy because, oneself is one of those non-Enlightened beings which is doing the analysis in the first place, one is part of the problem (one is the whole of the problem from one’s own point of view): in working to break down the self-grasping and the self-cherishing, the distinction between ‘self’ and ‘other’ breaks down, the distinction between ‘inner’ (i.e. the inner ‘me’) and ‘outer’ (the outer world) also breaks down, one is not making ‘oneself’ enlightened so much as enlighten-ing; the absolute differentiation of Enlightened and non-Enlightened has since become a-referential (that grey but perfectly defined smudge between inner cause and outer effect in the diagram … dissipate), the relative differentiation has become the ongoing practice of loving and compassionate activity …

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 115; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 115

Transglomeration: It is the greatness of beings that someone who builds-up and develops care and love for them is so worthy of honour and worship; furthermore, it is the greatness of the Buddhas that so much merit accrues from someone who esteems and worships them.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 114 – beings equally cause Buddhahood
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 115 – greatness of (concern regarding the) number of beings; greatness of (innate) realisation of Buddhas

↓ {iteration from V. 114} ↓

Stitching: virtue of love/compassion = greatness of beings; virtue of faith = greatness of Buddhas

Overstitching: the effect (virtue) of venerating (one with love/compassion for sentient beings) = (the quality of) greatness (↓) (māhātmya – great being-ness) of sentient beings   //   the effect (merit) of faith in Buddhas = (quality of) greatness (↓) (māhātmya – great being-ness) of the Buddhas

Reflection: this verse breaks down what was said in verse 114: it is through respecting/venerating someone who has love/compassion for all sentient beings that one taps into that virtue/merit-enough to be able to enter the Great Way (the Mahāyāna) oneself; this is the inauguration – you don’t just go straight from center-of-the-universe-self-cherishing to universal love/compassion (well, you could try, but you’d probably end up with some fabricated and pretentious love compassion which you might call universal, and which would use the words ‘universal’ and ‘all sentient beings’, but would end up, still, being some pumped-up, megalomaniacal feeling of referencing all beings in some sort of perverse recognition of oneself as a great messiah-figure … are you listening, Mark), you do it in steps, you develop the aspiration to develop love/compassion (cf. the benefits of Bodhichitta in chapter 1), then you build up the power and determination to do so (cf. chapters 2 & 3), and you train yourself in modifying your behaviour, speech and thought in sympathy with this aspiration (chapters 4-8i) so that you have the energy to generate it through meditation (chapter 8ii) and then bring it to full fruition (chapter 9); love and compassion are characterised as the ‘gateway’ to the Mahāyāna, and the development of love/compassion can only be developed observing all sentient beings; therefore sentient beings are ‘great’ because they are the entry to the Way to/of Greatness (the Mahāyāna); it is also because all sentient beings are infinite in number (and need) that they are referred to as ‘great’; in the Sanskrit root text the word ‘māhātmya’ is used suggesting more than just (comparative) big/great (‘māhā’) but also existing and functioning within great-ness, great being-ness; in the Tibetan text is given ‘yon tan’ which denotes (Enlightened) ‘qualities’ which, as appears to be a pattern with the Tibetan translation, that where the translated references might seem to differ, or even conflict, the difficulty is resolved by understanding the Tibetan text as taking the meaning as the result, whereas the Sanskrit will tend to take the meaning causally (training, engaging in the way of the Bodhisattva, the ‘caryā’ part of the title; whereas the Tibetan would understand from the perspective of the ‘bodhi’ part of the title)   //   there is a parallel with the effect of making worship and devotion to the Buddhas through faith: in making worship/devotion to the Buddhas one is not doing it for show (showing how pious we are – a self-centered motivation), or to benefit the Buddhas (as in pleasing a god in hope of some return of patronage or favour – a self-advancing motivation based on a faulty understanding of the nature of a Buddha), but one is doing it in recognition of the nature of the Buddha (one who has stopped all kleśas and gone beyond all self/other duality) in order to find the way to exist in that very same nature oneself (a nature which is neither the Buddha’s or one’s self’s (sic)): this is often translated as ‘merit’, but maybe ‘virtue’ or even ‘wisdom’ and certainly ‘being’ should be understood within this word; therefore, worshipping the Buddha enters one into a way of being which is far greater than the limitations of self-grasping and self-cherishing (thereby fulfilling the Great Vow for both oneself and (by and through) others) – going for Refuge (in greatness-being) for the sake of all beings (great/infinite in number)

Reflection: [continuing…] māhātmya: the ‘greatness’, ‘eminence’ of an Enlightened Being towards whom we make ‘offerings’ in devotion is actually an effect of them having developed love & compassion through contemplating the equality and suffering of sentient beings (… chapter 8ii); through making offerings to these eminent Buddhas we are generating merit regarding these same Buddhas who have developed the qualities we worship based on their development of love and compassion for sentient beings; there is a triangular relationship going on here which interweaves cause and effect and … (Enlightening) being:

• oneself
  • and the Buddhas:
    • outer effect/relationship: offering to/worshipping the Buddhas (Skt. 115aa; Tib. 115a, ‘worship’)
    • inner causal/practice: in order to accrue merit (Skt. 115ba; Tib. 115c, ‘merit’) because they are Enlightened (Skt. 115bb; Tib. 115d, ‘greatness of the Buddhas’)
  • and sentient beings:
    • outer effect/relationship: acting in the ‘field’ of sentient beings (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’)
    • inner causal/practice: to develop patience/love/compassion to become Enlightened oneself … for the sake of all beings: Bodhichitta motivation (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’)
• the Buddhas
  • • and sentient beings:
      • outer effect/relationship: Buddhas are Enlightened (Skt. 115bb; Tib. 115d, ‘greatness of the Buddhas’)
      • inner causal/practice: because they developed love & compassion for all sentient beings …) (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’)
    • and oneself:
      • outer effect/relationship: Buddhas have love/compassion for oneself (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’) …
      • inner causal/practice: … by acting as the object of worship/offering to lead one to Enlightenment (Skt. 115bb; Tib. 115d, ‘greatness of the Buddhas’)
• all sentient beings
  • • and oneself:
      • outer effect/relationship: we are all sentient beings > ‘they’ are the condition/field for developing love and compassion (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’)
      • inner causal/practice: the development/field of love/compassion that enables one on the path to Enlightenment (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’)
    • and the Buddhas:
      • outer effect/relationship: the cause/field for developing love and compassion (Skt. 115ab; Tib. 115b, ‘greatness of sentient beings’)
      • inner causal/practice: that results in the Buddhas becoming Enlightenment (Skt. 115bb; Tib. 115d, ‘greatness of the Buddhas’)

the ‘greatness’ of sentient beings is that there are so many of them (but also, I suppose, that each one of them has such potential – their ultimately empty nature); the ‘greatness’ of the Buddhas (referred to as Conquerors, here, emphasising that they have ‘conquered’ all kleśas which obscured their true nature) is that they have ‘conquered’ all delusions and ‘gone beyond’ all duality (of self/others and the whole plethora of etc. that that entails); these two greatnesses produce respective great results when worshipped or honoured, and in doing so one begins the journey from sentient being to Enlightened Being; the Sanskrit seems to hold that the greatness of sentient beings is in them having ‘friendliness’ within them (as if this is so rare to find in a sentient being), the Tibetan brings out that it is the friendliness for others (i.e. sentient beings, of which there are a lot), again, not contradictory, but the Tibetan brings the meaning inside-out

Reflection: this verse is a whole metaphysics which, cunningly, turns itself inside out (metaphysics is, after all, the whole schema of the world ‘out there’ – outside one’s self-grasping – which, from a Buddhist point of view, is one of the root effects of the condition of saṃsāra in the first place); this trichotomy of Buddhas, sentient beings and oneself is a condition which includes all beings – those who are conditioned by self-grasping and the world of not-self to which they are subject (all sentient beings, including, obviously, oneself), and those who have escaped/transcended that conditioning (the Buddhas, who are Enlightened beings) – sentience is the root of the world (both saṃsāric and enlightened), not matter/energy or whatever, therefore the work of making sense of the world, life and everything is through training that sentience to see the world enlightened rather than adverse to a dubious self; in pursuing this training, the grasping at a sense of self and identity is dismantled and consequently the distinction between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ (‘self’-grasping/cherishing and ‘not-self’-defending/identifying-with) is broken down as the frustrating and fruitless illusion that it is; it is dismantled, firstly, by turning self-cherishing inside out by developing love and compassion, and which other beings can you develop love and compassion on/with – certainly not the Buddhas, they’re enlightened – but all unenlightened beings, all infinity of them; having turned one’s self-cherishing inside out, one has the power and discernment to be able to see right through the illusion of self-grasping at the root such that ‘self’ and ‘not-self’/’other’ become nonsensical and unnecessarily limiting at which point one is enlightened – a Buddha: nothing to ‘do’ at all (‘one’ is just (and all-) being at this point, great being – māhātmya) but to dispel the illusion that the rest of all-sentient-beings-including-oneself labour under; and they do this because they cannot but respond to suffering and illusion – there is no self-center from which they could choose or not-choose to ‘act’ the same as space can’t choose to pervade or not-pervade

 

you might need to click this to read the infill

 

Verse: this verse has ‘zoomed out’ from verse 112 to give the overview of what’s going on here in this business of becoming enlightened, and in doing so is establishing that the whole ‘field’ of endeavour is not one of excluding (‘other’ against ‘self’, ‘unenlightened’ against ‘enlightened’, ‘matter’ against ‘sentience’ etc.) but one which dissolves the illusory discernment from the root; (philosophically, not theistically, obviously, this is a monist overview, which is one way in which Mahāyāna distinguishes in extent with Hināyāna, and in which Vajrayāna wholly lives and operates); you don’t get out of being a sentient being to becoming an enlightened being, you stop being limited to being

Practice: this verse should be opening something deep in the back of one’s head that makes sense of all endeavour and practice; there is nothing to do or practice in this verse, so much, as to map (to the ‘other shore’, at which ‘you’ will never arrive but at which you will nevertheless be)

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 114; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 114

Transglomeration: But note, that stock – that field – of greatness of sentient beings is not an innate quality in and of itself, but only equal in the karmic fruits that it achieves, so it is in this respect that the quality of greatness of sentient beings as a whole is thereby alike to the Conquerors.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 112b/cd-113 Enlightenment is attained through both, therefore why value one and not the other?
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 114 – beings equally cause Buddhahood

Stitching: @ effect (↓) (greatness sentient beings = greatness Buddhas)

Overstitching: it is in the effects (↓) (not in itself) that the greatness (māhātmya – great being-ness) of sentient beings is equal to the Buddhas

Reflection: this is qualifying the conclusion of verse 113 (‘how is it that I would not have the same respect towards sentient beings as I do towards the Conquerors?’): that we do not respect sentient beings because of their qualities but because of the effects of allowing all sentient beings into our concern and care; we allow sentient beings into our concern and care by developing love for their state of well-being and compassion for their suffering; in developing our love and compassion, we rid ourselves of the self-cherishing I-first, I-first, I-first; because they are infinite, our concern and care for their well-being and suffering is also infinite, and because we have generated infinite love and compassion, we have entered into a state of being far beyond our usual state of being of local, parochial self-concern-only and far into māhātmya (great being-ness, rather than small, or self, being-ness); in this way we have progressed far towards becoming Enlightened ourselves and thereby fulfilling our Vow to ultimately benefit all beings; so the effect of (developing love and compassion for all sentient beings) has been that one has been brought so much more closer to realising one’s own Buddha-nature – the ultimate in great being-ness ; therefore the effect of developing love/compassion for all sentient beings brings one to the māhātmya (the infinity of beings in a state of suffering – saṃsāra) of sentient beings and therefore closer to the māhātmya of Buddhahood (being released from saṃsāra), so the māhātmya of sentient beings leads to the māhātmya of Buddhahood

Practice: like those lenses that opticians slip into the testing frames to determine your prescription, when the right one falls in, you can see everything clearly – that’s the one: this verse puts the lens of seeing sentient beings in a whole new light, not because they are in themselves great, but because they are the means to making great realisations ; and they’re not just any-old-means-will do, they are the only means to make this realisation great, rather than just a personal liberation ; they really are the field within which one operates.

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verses … 112-113; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verses …112-113

Transglomeration: [S112b; T112cd] … and there are plenty who thereby journey towards, or have landed, the further shore of Supreme Perfection both by working for the happiness of the one and by honouring and relying on the other.   [113] And so, since the attributes of the Buddha-Dharma are found and realised both by virtue of all sentient beings and in reliance on the Conquerors, how is it that I would not have the same respect towards sentient beings as I do towards the Conquerors?

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 112a/ab there are two fields within which to cultivate virtue
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 112b/cd-113 Enlightenment is attained through both, therefore why value one and not the other?

Reflection: [112b/cd] those who have pleased other beings have attained perfection; this ‘pleasing’ will be the whole hog – happiness that does not wear out, freedom that is not compromised – it’s not just any old bit of happiness you have given to others; this is a ‘path’, a way of life, spent on the sort of giving to others that is focussed on their striving for happiness and wanting to avoid suffering (which is exactly the same as my striving for happiness and wanting to avoid suffering, of course, but which leaves out the ‘my’ bit of it, making the striving more universal, rather than despite), a Mahāyāna path which recognises, and takes one’s responsibility within, the whole of the world of interdependent causation, so that any success one has is not ‘one’s but ‘everyone’s, and therefore organically true

Determination: [113] sentient beings are equally due veneration as causes of realisations; ‘realisations’ is mostly translated as ‘Buddha qualities’ although both the Sanskrit and Tibetan refer to ‘Buddha-Dharma’, nevertheless the qualities implied are the ‘realisations’ of the Buddha-Dharma, not the teachings, so much, but the realisation of completeness, wisdom; as verse 114 will go on to qualify, you don’t get the full-blown qualities of the Buddha as soon as you’re nice to someone, rather you (begin to) share in the Buddha qualities which, after all, are innate within one anyway: when benefitting beings you are starting to find and develop and realise that quality within you which is beginning to open to Enlightenment, you are beginning to accord with that quality, you are beginning to tune in to that quality, that quality is beginning to resonate; you don’t get gifted these qualities – they are not a reward for good behaviour – you assume these qualities; certainly both the Sanskrit and Tibetan have ‘Buddha Dharma’, referring, presumably, to Dharma-realisation in particular, rather than the Teachings; certainly, also, the Dalai Lama makes the point: (A Flash of Lightning in the Dark of Night) “Without beings we cannot have compassion, and without compassion we cannot achieve Supreme Enlightenment but will rather fall into the extreme of Nirvāṇa”; now, Nirvāṇa is all well and good, it is, after all, a complete cessation of all suffering and self-grasping, but it is described as an extreme, it is not the completion of the practice (of patience), it is isolating, it isn’t taking full recognition of, or responsibility for, interdependent-origination; HH also says elsewhere (My Spiritual Autobiography, HH Dalai Lama (pg. 107)): “Nonviolence is not limited to an absence of violence, for it is a matter of an active attitude, motivated by the wish to do others good” (my italics); again, Mahāyāna

Commentary: at the beginning of day four of HH Dalai Lama’s teaching on patience (Healing Anger) he prefaces the commentary with a slightly lengthy exploration of the lack of intrinsic nature as understood through interdependent conditionality and the understanding of karma through which it operates and concluding with Maitreya’s assertion that all beings have intrinsic Buddha-nature … as the sketch for why the practice of patience is so essential or fundamental to shifting one’s spiritual practice up a gear from karmically effective spiritual self-improvement to a practice which has both universal implication and effectiveness; the point is implicit (but nonetheless there) in the first two perfections – you can’t perfect giving without others to give to, you can’t perfect behaviour without anyone to behave toward – but is wholly brought out regarding the practice of patience …

Practice: rather, again, a location, a field, in which to practise…

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verse 112 …; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verse 112…

Transglomeration: For this reason the Skilful One has specifically talked about both the field (of endeavour) of sentient beings as well as the field (of merit) of the Conquerors,

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 109-111 … even though the enemy has no intention for us to practice patience but does intend to harm, they are essential to our practice
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 112… …so there are two fields within which to cultivate virtue

Reflection: this verse inaugurates the climax of the practice of patience: in the simple statement that ’Buddha talked about the two fields’ (in relation to becoming Enlightened, this Bodhichitta motivation, remember) – i.e. both of them, not just the field of Buddhas, which is obvious – is emphasising that there is much more to the practice of patience in order to make it a perfection rather than just a personal practice; patience is so much more than just not-getting-angry; a fundamental aspect of developing and cultivating patience is the recognition of the multifarious cause and effect world in which we live, appreciation of which nullifies the tendency to anger we can develop when we try living and striving (in this cause and effect world) through proposing, then grasping and then building up and then defending, our sense of self; the cause and effect world is fluid, nothing remains as it is for a moment – in ignorantly proposing a sense of self into this fluid world and building this sense of self up and defending it despite this fluid world, we are creating ourselves adverse to existence; we are inevitably unsuccessful in both the short and long terms, but the grasping to our self is so strong that we don’t recognise this as unsuccessful and use these disappointments/hardships/sufferings to dig ourselves even further into adversity by trying to ‘show them’, by trying to win, by proving oneself, and thereby we cultivate our habits of denial and anger in all the effluence of our creative skill; the practice of patience is a simple reversal of this process: by recognising that the world does operate fluidly through cause and effect, our adverse sense of self necessarily lets-go and dissipates; fine, problem solved (although this ‘letting go’ ain’t as easy as eating a smooth fruity yogurt on a hot day); but there’s more: having dissimulated ourself through living with, and in, cause and effect, still we notice that there are others out there, millions of them, billions …, all just bumping into each other, some of them still bumping into me (‘leave me alone, I’m trying to dissipate’); what about them; so this verse makes explicit, now, and really starts to lean into the Mahāyāna motivation – you can’t just leave them bumping around into each other the same as you can’t just let the fly keep buzzing against the clear glass right next to the open window (well you could, but there you’d go building up that sense of isolated and unconnected self again); the end point isn’t just the dissipation of one’s own sense of self because if you did stop there, there would still be a sense of duality – you not angry anymore, the rest of the world still bumping around into itself – and if there were satisfaction and relief that you were not angry anymore – phew! – then there would be some sense of ‘tough luck, suckers, I’m out of here’ … the job wouldn’t be finished yet, you were still not dissipated, you hadn’t fully grasped the implication of what happened, there, when you loosened yourself from the constraints of self-assertion: it isn’t, and never was, all about you; patience, this verse culminates, is the full embrace of cause and effect, far beyond the dissipation of one’s own sense of self, but working to the dissipation of any sense of self; you can’t just personally stop playing the ‘self game’ and call yourself Enlightened, you’ve only released the thread, you haven’t untied the knot; the practice of patience inaugurates the embracing of the whole picture, the whole problem of existence-despite-cause-and-effect; it’s not that you’re just being nice by looking after all the rest still stuck in self-identification, it’s just following through with the process that loosed you in the first place: you don’t just hold the spoon of yogurt there, in your mouth open and salivating, thinking ‘I am satisfied’ … lips closed, scoop the spoon clean, squeeze the cream through the mouth, burst the fruit with the teeth, swallow, eyes closed; patience is never an endpoint …

Reflection: the translations from Sanskrit seem to be saying that the two fields are one and the same, the Tibetan that they are ‘like’ one another; I would read these emphases as effective (… resulting in Buddhahood) in the case of Sanskrit and causal (… of attaining Buddhahood) in the case of Tibetan; also the translations range from ‘declaring’ to ‘talk about’ these two fields: did the Buddha ‘declare’ that the two fields are the same (or similar) as a specific point, or that Buddha talked about there being two fields (of endeavour in which one can practice of virtue); the Dharmasangiti has “The Field of Sentient Beings is a Buddha-field because it is from that Buddha-field that the qualities of Buddha are attained” and the Sūtra of Perfectly Pure Aspiration has “Formerly upon the field of beings and on the field of Buddhas did I base myself.   ‘Tis thus that I have harvested the endless qualities of Buddhahood”; so certainly they are related because working in the field of sentient beings produces the result of Buddhahood, so there is a causal explanation for their identification but also a resultant understanding that they are identical in the end – ultimately – ‘empty-ly’ – there is no difference between the two fields, there is only nominal difference conventionally, and there is suffering incompatibility samsārically where the self is postulated and lived to within an inch of its very life

Perspective: both the location and the orientation of practice: kṣetra: ‘field’ of endeavour, of situation/location, Matics, ‘opportunity’, Barnett, ‘domain’; truly a Mahāyāna perspective which includes the ‘field’ in the endeavour for Enlightenment rather than simply wanting to escape from it; this is non-reclusive, in the sense of non-isolating from, even if one is in retreat, one is by no means isolated from the concern of all living beings because one cannot be in any way isolated … and be in any way Enlightened; what power!

Bodhisattvacharayvatara: Chapter VI, Patience – verses 109-111; reflectionary

Bodhisattvacharayvatara by Acharya Śāntideva

Chapter VI– verses 109-111

Transglomeration: [109] Suppose you were to object that since, in crossing me, an adversary has no intention for me to abide in patience that they merit no respect, then how is it right to offer worship to the Sacred Dharma? It, likewise, has no intention to benefit but is the affective cause for the accomplishment of virtue. [110] And suppose you then object that my adversary is not to be respected because the intention behind their actions is to hurt me; but then, how else could I exercise, let alone develop, patience if others, like doctors and nurses, were absorbed in my benefit and well-being with their actions? [111] Consequently, since patience comes about because of the enemy’s intent, and is dependent upon one with an abusive and hostile mind, in reality it is actually only my adversary that is the true cause of my forbearance, and therefore merits my respect and gratitude as equally as does the Sacred Dharma.

~~~ “BCA” ~~~

V. 106-108 adversaries are as rare as treasure found in the house: the immediate cause of practising ‘no austerity like patience’ …
↑ Stitch ↓
V. 109-111 … even though the enemy has no intention for us to practice patience but does intend to harm, they are essential to our practice

Text: verses 109 and 110 both start with similar word-constructs involving ‘śayo’ in Sanskrit (the first lines of both verses also comprise objections to ‘treasuring’ or ‘worshipping’ the enemy (as a cause conducive to generating patience); ‘śayo’ seems to have the sense of ‘making’, ‘doing’ (109 achieving patience, 110 trapping/emprisoning me)), the ‘objector’ (the mind resisting treasuring enemies) trying to be clever by countering exhortations to treasure the enemy with ‘common sense’ prefaces along the lines of: ‘treasure the enemy? rather the enemy is …’ attacking me in some way …; the objector is being rather sitting-in-the-pub-like making ‘use yer common sense’ statements to right the world, the archetypal ‘political correctness gone mad/taken too far’

Text: these verses follow on from the conclusion found in verse 108, that the very first fruits should be offered/dedicated towards those who are our enemies because they have occasioned our practice of patience; the objections raised in verses 109 & 110 are in response to this conclusion

Reflection: [109] but the enemy didn’t have the intention to benefit, but the opportunity is to do with condition, not intention; example: the Dharma is the condition for practising virtue, but it does not have the intention that you practise; cf. also, a car is suitable and useful as a means of travelling but doesn’t have the intention (in itself – it is not sentient) to enable travel (alright, I wouldn’t ‘honour’ it, but I might admire the way in which it does its transporting too); Healing Anger, HH Dalai Lama: “… what is important here is the effect, not so much the intention on the part of the other”; determination: have patience, not reaction (to the enemy’s attack)

Reflection: [110] but the enemy intends to cause me harm, yes, and in this way the enemy becomes the condition for my developing patience, the enemy is the dependent-arising necessary for me to exercise patience, without an enemy, small or great, I would have no opportunity to practise patience at all

Reflection: these verses are an exploration of what makes something or someone ‘worthy’ of respect or veneration or gratitude or admiration, is the worthiness within the object itself (in these cases the adversary, the Dharma, the physician) or in the effect that these objects make upon oneself; Śāntideva is definitely promoting that it is the effectiveness of something that makes the grounds for its worthiness

Determination: have consideration for the (opportunity of the) enemy, not just self-protection; Wallace, ‘then for what other reason would I have patience toward him, if he is like a physician …’; this is really turning around how we usually see the enemy/adversary: normally we want to get away from the enemy, or want to get even, or obsess with how wrong or bad they are, or try to turn others against them (or with you against them), but we certainly don’t want to honour, or venerate, or be grateful to, or admire the opportunity they have brought to us … really?; this is bringing the adversary to the centre of the practice, to the centre of our lives: our problems are created in relation to those we dislike or resent or disrespect, therefore the solution to those problems will be those same people we dislike or resent or disrespect, but by liking them, by being grateful to them, by honouring them; we can’t just develop patience on our own – that would be like having a meaningful conversation with someone by talking to ourself alone in a quiet room – we need to develop patience (… love) with people, in relation to people, even those people who push our buttons; we need to not shy away from it, but we need to do this gently, building up the familiarity with the attitude …

Determination: [111] therefore the enemy is to be honoured as a true catalyst for generating patience as the Dharma is for other realisations, as those in need generate giving …