Every sentient being would end their suffering today if they believed that a change in belief was all that was needed. Since our lives are dedicated to avoiding suffering it would seem that we would make a bee line to that belief to end our suffering. However, the trouble is that suffering is caused by beliefs that for the majority of people seem equal or better with those of the direct path. And since every aspect of our life experience is bound in belief how can we know fact from fiction?
We live during a time in which the teachings of masters like
Shantideva are available. With their guidance I have gleaned that the solution to our suffering is right under our noses and the path to freedom is as straight as the flight of a bee. However, right now we can barely walk much less fly like a bee because we are firmly attached to the ground by entangling delusions,
obscurations and
ignorance. We must free ourselves from attachments in order t o clear our flight path.
Buddhism is a logic based belief. Many years ago I remember being taught that spiritual beliefs are not logical because the master mind of the universe was far above the human mind and not comprehensible. After rejecting that notion I super simplified my cosmos to become a devout atheist for twenty five years before arriving at the door of the most sensible explanation for existence.
Learning reasonable truths about our universe that accords with human experience, quantum mechanics and mysticism is comforting.
Shantideva gathers our ignorance in a big pan, adds his particular spices, cooks it and dishes out the reasons we suffer bite by bite. Even though Shantideva lived long time ago in a different culture, human nature has
not changed one bit so his teachings are as fresh as the first time.
Shantideva arranges his questions to surgically excise our delusions about the true nature of things that maintains our focus on emptiness despite intense distraction. He exposes our deepest resistances with relentless questions that expose our doubts [about] emptiness.
The "Guide to Way of the Bodhisattva," gives us a uniquely practical guide that is both intellectually eloquent and humanistically applicable. Shantideva's intention reflects my intention for this book but states it much better than I in the second and third verses of the first chapter of the "Guide to Way of the Bodhisattva," translated by Stephan Bachelor.
- There is nothing here that has not been explained before
- And I have no skill in the art of rhetoric;
- Therefore, lacking any intention to benefit others,
- I write this in order to acquaint it to my mind
- For due to acquaintance with what is wholesome,
- The force of my faith may for a short while increase because of these
- (words).
- If, however, these (words) are seen by others
- Equal in fortune to myself, it may be
- meaningful (for them).
The personal information we have about Shantideva is scant but interesting. He studied at Nalanda University in India in the 8th century and was an adherent of the Madhyamika philosophy of Nagarjuna. It is said that all he did was eat, sleep and shit. He was apparently reclusive until his colleagues goaded him into gjving a teaching to the entire university which became the "Guide to the Way of the Bodhisattva ."
How he gathered enough knowledge to give such an eloquent teaching is a mystery unless we assume that he studied at night while his comrades slept. He would not have talked to others very much because his wisdom would have been known all along. Wisdom is not vociferous or self-serving.
This book is a collection of seven translations of the ninth chapter of the "Guide to Way of the Bodhisattva," which is called the philosophy chapter. The ninth chapter has such depth that it deserves special attention but the entire book of twelve chapters should be read in order to gain the profoundness of the entire work.
The seven translators I have chosen for this book are philosophers in their own right which when assembled brings a rich learning experience to the student of logic and Buddhism.
My commentary attempts to clarify and simplify the difficult points and offer definitions to many historical and philosophical terms. My comments of course are only mine and reflect only my depth of understanding. (Larson, introduction, 5–7)
