why did you 'guess' buddhism?

[Malcolm]

You are a follower of Tibetan Buddhism aren't you? The Dalai Lama sides with me on this.

People misunderstand HHDL all the time.

[Malcolm]

Isn't it possible to rouse bodhicitta without knowing what a Buddha is?

No. Not really.

However, sometimes we term the sincere wish to liberate beings from suffering (compassion) "bodhicitta", because cultivating the former inevitably leads to the latter -- since compassion is the seed of bodhicitta. Likewise, we frequently term non-buddhists of exceptional compassion "bodhisattvas" without meaning they are full bodhisattvas in the formal Mahāyāna sense.

It is important to make a disctinction between popular usage, and techincal usage. For example, some people call certain very strong forms of Marijuana "Buddha bud".

What we here are discussing is the formal usage of terms and what they mean.

[Kyosan]

No, a non-buddhist cannot be a bodhisattva. In order to be a bodhisattva, someone must have roused bodhicitta, the wish to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentiet beings. A person who has done so, is by definition a Buddhist.


A bodhisattva however can appear as a non-Buddhist -- but they will not teach.

Isn't it possible to rouse bodhicitta without knowing what a Buddha is? Anyone who had realized the need to pursue his studies, practices and meditations as far as possible in order to benefit others would seem to qualify as a bodhisattva, and by virtue of being a lone Buddha would then be quite unconnected with the Buddha Dharma and Sangha we are familiar with. Such a one would be an enlightened non-Buddhist, not a follower of Shakyamuni, not a reader of Dharma and a member of no Sangha.

Thanks catmoon. I was going to answer that but you have answered much better than I could have.

A bodhisattva however can appear as a non-Buddhist -- but they will not teach.

Why is that? Why won't a bodhisattva appearing as a non-Buddhist teach?

[Malcolm]

A bodhisattva however can appear as a non-Buddhist -- but they will not teach.

Why is that? Why won't a bodhisattva appearing as a non-Buddhist teach?

What would they teach? They would not teach Buddhist Dharma. They might teach things non-Buddhist wish to hear. But those things do not lead to liberation. Even if a Bodhisattvas appearing as non-Buddhists teaches Dharma, the non-Buddhist will hear it as whatever teaching they are accustomed to. The limitation is not on the side of the bodhisattva, but rather on the side of his students.

N

[deepbluehum]

I'm wondering how are you supposed to help beings overcome their suffering if you don't teach dharma? How are you supposed to teach dharma if you don't realize ultimate bodhichitta? How are you supposed to realize ultimate bodhichitta if you don't receive those teachings from someone else who has? Isn't that someone else a Buddha? No Buddha ever attained Buddhahood who didn't serve countless Buddhas. Dharma is not like water. It doesn't run all over the place. It is special and precious. You have to find a rare source.

[Kyosan]

A bodhisattva however can appear as a non-Buddhist -- but they will not teach.

Why is that? Why won't a bodhisattva appearing as a non-Buddhist teach?

What would they teach? They would not teach Buddhist Dharma. They might teach things non-Buddhist wish to hear. But those things do not lead to liberation. Even if a Bodhisattvas appearing as non-Buddhists teaches Dharma, the non-Buddhist will hear it as whatever teaching they are accustomed to. The limitation is not on the side of the bodhisattva, but rather on the side of his students.

N

They could teach a lot of things:

impermanence
honestly
tolerance of others
fairness to others
helpfulness
not being angry, but keeping a level head
trying to understand others
avoiding harming others

None of these are specifically Buddhist, but all help bring people closer to liberation.

[KeithBC]

Such a person would, by definition, be a pratyekabuddha.

Even if, motivated by compassion, he taught others what he had learned? I think you are excessively pigeonholing people.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Malcolm]

None of these are specifically Buddhist, but all help bring people closer to liberation.

Not necessarilyy, such things only lead people to higher stations in samsara.

[tobes]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.

The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

It doesn't "belong" anywhere or to anyone.

To say so contradicts the very essence of that view.

[Malcolm]

It seems to me that your position contains the assumption that only Buddhists can practice the Eightfold Path.

Yes.

The eight-fold path starts with right view, and right view, the view of middle way, belongs solely to the Buddhist school.

It doesn't "belong" anywhere or to anyone.

To say so contradicts the very essence of that view.

In reply to your pointless semantic quibble:

"Belongs" as in the sense of apples belonging in an apple bin -- an apple bin is where apples go, and it is where apples are found, and when you want to put apples in their proper place, you put them in the apple bin, and not the orange bin.

[catmoon]

I'm wondering how are you supposed to help beings overcome their suffering if you don't teach dharma? How are you supposed to teach dharma if you don't realize ultimate bodhichitta? How are you supposed to realize ultimate bodhichitta if you don't receive those teachings from someone else who has? Isn't that someone else a Buddha? No Buddha ever attained Buddhahood who didn't serve countless Buddhas. Dharma is not like water. It doesn't run all over the place. It is special and precious. You have to find a rare source.

Not at all. If you'll allow me to disregard former lives, the prateyakabuddha works it all out for himself, just as Buddha did. Or, you could look at it this way: It is indeed special and precious, the sources are rare, but it occaisionally happens that the source is oneself.

[Malcolm]

I'm wondering how are you supposed to help beings overcome their suffering if you don't teach dharma? How are you supposed to teach dharma if you don't realize ultimate bodhichitta? How are you supposed to realize ultimate bodhichitta if you don't receive those teachings from someone else who has? Isn't that someone else a Buddha? No Buddha ever attained Buddhahood who didn't serve countless Buddhas. Dharma is not like water. It doesn't run all over the place. It is special and precious. You have to find a rare source.

Not at all. If you'll allow me to disregard former lives, the prateyakabuddha works it all out for himself, just as Buddha did. Or, you could look at it this way: It is indeed special and precious, the sources are rare, but it occaisionally happens that the source is oneself.

Pratyekabuddha recall the teachings they received from past buddhas, and then apply them, just as Śakyamuni did. It is not the case that any person ever awakens by figuring things out on their own.

N

[catmoon]

I'm wondering how are you supposed to help beings overcome their suffering if you don't teach dharma? How are you supposed to teach dharma if you don't realize ultimate bodhichitta? How are you supposed to realize ultimate bodhichitta if you don't receive those teachings from someone else who has? Isn't that someone else a Buddha? No Buddha ever attained Buddhahood who didn't serve countless Buddhas. Dharma is not like water. It doesn't run all over the place. It is special and precious. You have to find a rare source.

Not at all. If you'll allow me to disregard former lives, the prateyakabuddha works it all out for himself, just as Buddha did. Or, you could look at it this way: It is indeed special and precious, the sources are rare, but it occaisionally happens that the source is oneself.

Pratyekabuddha recall the teachings they received from past buddhas, and then apply them, just as Śakyamuni did. It is not the case that any person ever awakens by figuring things out on their own.

N

In order recall those past life teachings you have to be practically a Buddha already, which raises the question of how they got that far on their own. For that matter one might ask how Buddha himself progressed from spoiled brat rich kid (and a religious ignoramus) to being able to recall past lives. One that attainment is manifesting, it's all downhill from there. Ez Pz.

If your idea above were correct, then any beginner should swiftly attain enlightenment by simply recalling past lives. It just doesn't hang together.

[deepbluehum]

Not at all. If you'll allow me to disregard former lives, the prateyakabuddha works it all out for himself, just as Buddha did. Or, you could look at it this way: It is indeed special and precious, the sources are rare, but it occaisionally happens that the source is oneself.

Pratyekabuddha recall the teachings they received from past buddhas, and then apply them, just as Śakyamuni did. It is not the case that any person ever awakens by figuring things out on their own.

N

In order recall those past life teachings you have to be practically a Buddha already, which raises the question of how they got that far on their own. For that matter one might ask how Buddha himself progressed from spoiled brat rich kid (and a religious ignoramus) to being able to recall past lives. One that attainment is manifesting, it's all downhill from there. Ez Pz.

If your idea above were correct, then any beginner should swiftly attain enlightenment by simply recalling past lives. It just doesn't hang together.

It's cause and effect. It's more like continues the habits learned in past lives, and those lead to awakening. For example, the Buddha always could tell that some practice someone gave him didn't lead to nirvana. How could he have known that intuitively? It is only possible because he served past Buddhas, received their teachings and had some experience with those in previous lives. Whatever experience of the path you have in this life will not be lost in future lives, because of the truth of karma.

[Virgo]

It's cause and effect. It's more like continues the habits learned in past lives, and those lead to awakening. For example, the Buddha always could tell that some practice someone gave him didn't lead to nirvana. How could he have known that intuitively? It is only possible because he served past Buddhas, received their teachings and had some experience with those in previous lives. Whatever experience of the path you have in this life will not be lost in future lives, because of the truth of karma.

It's a result of the perfections. They are lead by wisdom but act together as a whole. An activity is not a perfection unless it is lead by wisdom. The higher the wisdom, the more the other perfections are naturally practiced. The more they are practiced, the more they reinforce and help wisdom develop.
The wisdom is accumulated in the mindstream. The karmic conditions and the merit for it happening finally, are all produced by the practice of the perfections, so too are the opportunities to gain more wisdom along the way, and so on.

To become a Pratyekabuddha, the 10 or 6 perfection are the vehicle. They would have studied under previous Buddhas in the distant past, or at least in their dispensations, probably many, many times.

Kevin

[Malcolm]

If your idea above were correct, then any beginner should swiftly attain enlightenment by simply recalling past lives. It just doesn't hang together.

Actually, this is what that Buddha himself describes.

Now, in order to recall past lives, one has to become an excellent meditator. The recall of past lives is one of the five mundane abhijñās (mundane because you do not need to be an awakened person to possess them) that arise because of developing skill in dhyana.

Of course, this suggests that a person has received teachings from a buddha in the past. Lacking that, one will never figure out the Dharma on one's own. Why? Because one cannot pull oneself out of samsara by one's bootstraps, as it were.

All Buddhas of the past had gurus. All buddhas of the future will have had gurus. All buddhas of the present had gurus.

N

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

This makes sense from wisdom view. But before wisdom view it seems you would need compassion view to create the causes and conditions for wisdom view to arise. Otherwise why bother with practices like calling lama from afar, six perfections, etc. And what some people seem to be saying is that compassion view in a general sense is not exclusive to Buddhism. In fact I have heard teachers say so. The top floors of all the houses are the realization of emptiness but the foundations of the houses can be from all backgrounds and traditions. Does this make any sense?

[tobes]

In reply to your pointless semantic quibble:

"Belongs" as in the sense of apples belonging in an apple bin -- an apple bin is where apples go, and it is where apples are found, and when you want to put apples in their proper place, you put them in the apple bin, and not the orange bin.

It's neither pointless nor semantic: you know very well that it is utterly arbitrary which place you put apples and which place you put oranges.

That arbitrariness tells us something very significant about the view itself: that categorising it in this way or that does not in any way alter that view.

Your argument in this thread is strongly reifies categorising the view - asserting that its "bin" (Buddhism, Madhyamaka) is central to what it is; ironically enough, something you consistently refute on other threads.

So maybe you're playing some upaya game here, or maybe you hold two opposing positions: one when you argue within the discourse of Madhyamaka and one when you talk about Madhyamaka.

Could you clarify?

[Malcolm]

It's neither pointless nor semantic: you know very well that it is utterly arbitrary which place you put apples and which place you put oranges.

For intellectuals who pointlessly like to quibble with others it is arbitrary. For grocers, it is practical to place apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

[Malcolm]

So maybe you're playing some upaya game here, or maybe you hold two opposing positions: one when you argue within the discourse of Madhyamaka and one when you talk about Madhyamaka.

When trying to direct people to the correct aisle in a grocery store so they can buy beans, I don't send them to the meat counter.

Likewise, when trying direct people to where they can find the eight fold path, I don't send them to Santeria or Taoism, since they won't find it there.

N