Are all sentient beings Bodhisattvas?

[Daitetsu]

Hi Myozan,

Ouch!

If there were two beakers, one labeled water and one labeled acid, I know which I'd choose if I were thirsty!

I know that you'd know - I considered your above question ("Can we so easily just dismiss them as labels?") as rhethorical. I posted the story to underline it.

Gassho,

Timo

[RichardH]

This thread and the question of ...who is a Bodhisattva? ....is a bit confusing for me... but "All is Buddha Nature" is not so confusing..

This statement by Dogen...

To snatch away the voices of the sentient realm and liken them to the voices of the insentient realm is not the way of the buddha. The insentient preaching the dharma is not necessarily sound, just as preaching the dharma by the sentient is not sound. We should make concentrated effort to study this a while, asking ourselves, asking others, what is “the sentient,” “what is the insentient”?

Such being the case, we should carefully put our minds to and study in what manner it is that the insentient preach the dharma. One who considers, as the foolish think, that the rustling branches of the forests, the opening and falling of leaves and flowers, are the insentient preaching the dharma — this is not a man who studies the buddha dharma. If this were the case, who could not know the preaching of the insentient, who could not hear the preaching of the insentient? We should reflect a while. In the realm of the insentient, are there grasses, trees and forests? Is the realm of the insentient mixed into the realm of the sentient? Still, those who consider grasses and trees, tiles and pebbles as the insentient have not studied extensively; those who consider the insentient as grasses and trees, tiles and pebbles have not studied their fill. Even if, for now, we were to accept the plants seen by humans and treat them as the insentient, grasses and trees are also not what is fathomed by common thinking. Why? There is a vast difference between the forests of the heavens and those among humans; what grows in central countries and marginal lands is not the same; the grasses and trees in the ocean and in the mountains are all dissimilar. Not to mention that there are forests growing in the sky, forests growing in the clouds. Of the hundred grasses and myriad trees that grow in wind, fire, and the rest, there are in general those that should be studied as sentient, those that are not recognized as insentient. There are grasses and trees that are like humans and beasts; whether they are sentient or insentient is not clear. Not to mention the trees and rocks, flowers and fruits, hot and cold waters of the transcendents — though when we see them we have no doubts, when we would explain them, is it not difficult?

...appears like this to me... All is "one suchness", but trees are not people and people are not trees. Trees sprout leaves and people preach the Dharma , they are "not two" but shouldn't be confused. Therefore when a person preaches the Dharma, trees preach the Dharma, and when a tree sprouts leaves, people sprouts leaves. Even though people don't sprout leaves and trees don't speak. Not-two, yet not confused..

Just blathering..


Gassho, kojip. Ed. Mu!

[Myozan Kodo]

Thank you.

Neither two nor one?

Gassho
M

[Daitetsu]

Another thought on this:
When everything is dependent-arising - how could anything not have Buddha nature?

Gassho,

Timo

[Omoi Otoshi]

Another thought on this:
When everything is dependent-arising - how could anything not have Buddha nature?

Buddha nature is not something that needs to be intellectualized about, but yes, I agree. It's either all or none. If we agree that no thing has a separate, permanent existance and that all things arise (co-)dependently, then nothing has (is) buddha nature or everything has (is) buddha nature. You can't separate the dogs from saints. I prefer to say that all is buddha (nature), because it's not like our nature is something we can have or not have. We can't choose to have reality. We are reality. Buddha nature is the potential, the positive aspect of emptiness, in my intellectual view. And when I drop that, it just is what it is.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Mp]

I like that ... "All is Buddha Nature".

Gassho
Michael

[Taigu]

Great teachers here, great guys really...

gassho


Taigu

[ZenHarmony]

...This statement by Dogen...
"...There are grasses and trees that are like humans and beasts; whether they are sentient or insentient is not clear. Not to mention the trees and rocks, flowers and fruits, hot and cold waters of the transcendents — though when we see them we have no doubts, when we would explain them, is it not difficult?"

Personally, I think the whole argument is a moot point: trees and grasses, wind and water are already Fully and Wholly one with Nature; they have no need to become awakened to the nature that is already theirs. Would a tree have regrets holding it back from seeing reality as it is? Or a fox, for that matter? I think not; man's mind seems to be the only one capable of hiding its true Nature from itself.

...We couldn't function in our everyday lives without categorizing and labeling things. We do so effortlessly and automatically.

We label things to be able to describe them to others. It is inexplicably tied in with our language and heritage. Doesn't make them good or bad, they just are.

Just my thoughts,

Gassho,

Lisa

[disastermouse]

A Western philosopher called nature "God in slumber". I can't remember which one though.

Chet

[Jundo]

I feel that the true meaning of (Big B) "Buddha" and "Bodhisattva" is not to be approached with a philosopher's intellectual scalpel, but with a poet's soft heart. Buddhist philosophers of old may have debated and refined their definitions, much as a Western philosopher might try to define "God" or "the Good" ... or a physicist might try to come up with the exact equation capturing some physical property. It is not like that.


Maybe it would take the sensibilities of a Walt Whitman to sing of the Bodhisattva (from "Song of Myself") ...


I know I have the best of time and space -- and that I was never measured, and
never will be measured

I tramp a perpetual journey,
My signs are a rain-proof coat and good shoes and a staff cut from the woods;
No friend of mine takes his ease in my chair,
I have no chair, nor church nor philosophy;
I lead no man to a dinner-table or library or exchange,
But each man and each woman of you I lead upon a knoll,
My left hand hooks you round the waist,
My right hand points to landscapes of continents, and a plain public road.

Not I, not any one else can travel that road for you,
You must travel it yourself

It is not far . . . . it is within reach,
Perhaps you have been on it since you were born, and did not know,
Perhaps it is every where on water and on land.

Shoulder your duds, and I will mine, and let us hasten forth;
Wonderful cities and free nations we shall fetch as we go.

If you tire, give me both burdens, and rest the chuff of your hand on my hip,
And in due time you shall repay the same service to me;
For after we start we never lie by again.

This day before dawn I ascended a hill and looked at the crowded heaven,
And I said to my spirit, When we become the enfolders of those orbs and the pleasure
and knowledge of every thing in them, shall
we be filled and satisfied then?
And my spirit said No, we level that lift to pass and continue beyond.

You are also asking me questions, and I hear you;
I answer that I cannot answer . . . . you must find out for yourself.

[Omoi Otoshi]

If you tire, give me both burdens, and rest the chuff of your hand on my hip,
And in due time you shall repay the same service to me;
For after we start we never lie by again.

Beautiful.

Gassho,
Pontus

[Jinyo]

'a poet's soft heart'

lovely - thank you Jundo.

Beautiful poem.

Gassho

Willow

[Daitetsu]

I feel that the true meaning of (Big B) "Buddha" and "Bodhisattva" is not to be approached with a philosopher's intellectual scalpel, but with a poet's soft heart. Buddhist philosophers of old may have debated and refined their definitions, much as a Western philosopher might try to define "God" or "the Good" ... or a physicist might try to come up with the exact equation capturing some physical property. It is not like that.

Thanks, Jundo!

Gassho,

Timo

[RichardH]

The philosopher's scalpel peels off Buddha Nature, and leaves nothing behind. It is the same scalpel that , for me, peeled off Brahman and God, and cause/effect, and causeless cause..etc.... and lead to putting down these ideas, and instead looking into reaching and grasping and dukkha. It was only after practicing dukkha and cessation of dukkha, that the poet's heart has been freed to enjoy (big B) Buddha without becoming trapped by Buddha. It has been freed to enjoy a lot, and it has taken a while.

Gassho.kojip

[Nengyo]

I don't have much to add, since the philosophers/zennist here often do a better job than I could. I really enjoyed reading everything.

I have a feeling that this buddha/Bodhisattva thing is not what it seems, but of course, nor is it otherwise*

Metta to all


*stolen from a conversation with Saijun, who read it in one of the sutras, used here purely for entertainment purposes