Property:Abstract
From Bodhicitta
This is a property of type Text.
K
Kyotön Monlam Tsultrim (1219-1299/1300), eighth abbot of Narthang Monastery, preserved and systematized the Kadam tradition's approach to Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' during Tibet's classical-systematic period. His extant works include three texts directly focused on the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'': a ritual for generating bodhicitta according to Śāntideva's system, oral instructions combining lineage history with meditation practices, and ''The Wheel-like Method for Meditating on the Profound Path''. Drawing on Atiśa's original "wheel-like" commentary framework, Kyotön's approach uses the metaphor of a scythed chariot wheel to demonstrate how the text's ten chapters function as interconnected spokes that systematically eliminate obstacles to awakening. His distinctive contribution lies in elaborating both "worldly grounds" and "transcendent grounds" to provide concrete markers of progress, organizing practice according to three levels of capacity (superior, middling, and lesser practitioners), and transforming the text's philosophical content into structured meditation instructions. This pedagogical framework made Atiśa's sophisticated commentary more accessible while maintaining its core insight that the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' serves as a complete vehicle for enlightenment from initial practice through buddhahood. +
L
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
L' ouvrage que Mlle Amalia Pezzali a consacré a Śāntideva est divisé en deux parties: I. La vie et les œuvres; II. La pensée. Comme le relève M. Olivier Lacombe clans sa préface le travail de Mlle Pezzali s'attache à synthétiser les connaissances critiques acquises par la bouddhologie sur Ia vie, les œuvres et Ia doctrine de Śāntideva. Des travaux de ce genre peuvent être très utiles, même si l'auteur n'apporte rien de neuf, à condition que l'information donnée soit exacte et complète. Malheureusement, l'ouvrage présent est loin de remplir ces deux conditions essentielles pour un travail de synthèse. On y trouve non seulement maintes inexactitudes, fautes d'impression, de lecture du sanskrit et du tibétain, etc., mais aussi des lacunes sérieuses clans l'information. Nous n'avons nullement l'intention de signaler toutes les erreurs dont ce livre fourmille.[1] Le lecteur averti sera capable de faire lui-même les corrections nécessaires. II nous a paru utile d'examiner les documents concernant la vie de Śāntideva que Mlle Pezzali a réunis dans le premier chapitre de la première partie de son ouvrage (pp. 3-45). (De Jong, premilinary remarks, 161)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Il faudrait commencer par les abréviations (page XIII). Le catalogue de Cordier n'est pas en trois volumes mais en deux. Il faut corriger Hiuan-tsang en Hiouenthsang et Stanislaus en Stanislas. La Prasannapadā ne fut pas publiée en 1913 mais de 1903 à 1913. +
The following excerpt from Fredrik Liland's master's thesis traces the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''<i>'</i>s journey from its Mongolian translations in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to its introduction to Western academia in the late nineteenth century. It explores the proliferation of academic and religious translations, highlighting key figures such as Louis de La Vallée Poussin and Ekai Kawaguchi. The text discusses the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''<i>'</i>s increased popularity following the Tibetan diaspora and examines academic work, notably Paul Williams' philosophical analysis. It concludes by exploring modern religious commentaries and self-help books based on the text.
This comprehensive overview serves as a key resource for understanding the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''<i>'</i>s impact and evolution. It offers historical context, tracing the text's journey across cultures and languages, and demonstrating its enduring relevance in a variety of contexts. It offers insights into both the scholarly significance and the spiritual importance of Śāntideva's work. By highlighting key translations, commentaries, and modern interpretations, the article guides readers toward important sources for further study and illustrates the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''<i>'</i>s continued relevance in contemporary discourse. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:<br><br>
The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra consists of ten chapters, named respectively —(1) Rāvaṇādhyeṣaṇā parivarta, (2) Sarvadharmasamuccaya parivarta, (3) Anityatā parivarta, (4) Abhisamaya parivarta, (5) Tathāgata - nityānityatva, (6) Kṣaṇika parivarta, (7) Nairmāṇika parivarta, (8) Māṃsabhakṣaṇa parivarta, (9) Dhāraṇīparivarta, and (10) the Parisamāpti parivarta, which bears no special name.<br> Throughout the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra the speaker is Buddha himself. The first chapter of the book is addressed to Rāvaṇa, while the person spoken to in the remaining nine chapters is Mahāmati. Rāvaṇa prayed to Buddha for the solution of two questions, viz. : (1) what is the distinction between ''dharma'' and ''adharma'', and (2) how could one pass beyond both ''dharma'' and ''adharma''? Buddha’s answers to these questions form the subject-matter of the first chapter. Thereafter 108 questions were asked by Mahāmati, and
Buddha’s answers to these questions form the topics of the remaining nine chapters. (Vidyābhūṣaṇa, para 10–11, 833)<br><br>
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70554/page/n863/mode/2up Read more here . . .] +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Les Bouddhistes[1], en leur qualité d'Indiens, chérissent le énuméretions. Pour peu qu'on veuille s'occuper de leur religion, on apprend bientôt à connaître les quatre vérités, les quatre bases de réunion, les quatre abandons parfaits, les quatre bases de la puissance surnaturelle, les dix forces d'un Bouddha, les dix actes religieux, la voie à huit branches, etc. Le dictionnaire Mahâvyutpatti ne se compose guère que d'une collection d'énumérations, et le dépouillement du Kandjur entrepris à ce point de vue en offrirait un nombre considérable; les titres seuls des ouvrages que renferme ce recueil fourniraient déjà un assez vaste matière à un travail de ce genre. Je ne me propose pourtant pas de l'entreprendre ici ; Je veux seulement examiner une de ces énumérations, qui a pour base le nombre 4. Ce nombre revient plus d'une fois dans les titres des traités qui composent le Kandjur ; on le retrouve dans treize de ces titres. Mais il serait trop long, et d'ailleurs en dehors du plan que je me suis tracé, de les reproduire et de les étudier tous : mon intention est de m'attacher seulement à ceux qui, par leur nature et la place même qu'ils occupent dans la collection sacrée, forment un groupe à part, solicitent l'attention, et semblent appeler une étude que les résultats m'ont paru justifier. Ce sont cinq ouvrages du XX<sup>e</sup> volume de la section intitulée ''Mdo'' (''sûtra''), la cinquième de Kandjur ; ils portent les numéros 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Csoma de Koros en a donné les titres, accompagnés d'une courte notice, dans son analyse du ''Bkah-hgyur'' ; seulement il n'a pas toujours reproduit complétement ces titres, parce qu'il n'attachait pas à la qualification ''Mahâyâna sûtra'' (sûtra de grand véhicule) l'importance que le progrès des études bouddhiques oblige d'y attribuer aujourd'hui. Je crois qu'il est utile, avant toute discussion, de reproduire exactement les renseignements fournis par Csoma : j'extrais donc des ''Recherches asiatiques'' la partie qui nous importe, mettant seulement entre parenthèses les portions de titres que Csoma a omises, et traduisant l'anglais en français ; je supprime en outre les titres tibétains, que je me réserve de donner ultérieurement :<br> 6˚ (fol. 65-84). ''Bôdhisattva pratimo[kṣ]a Chatushka Nirahâra'' (''nâma Mahâyâna sûtra''). Instruction sur les quatre vertus pa l'acquisition desquelle un Bodhisattva peut arrivar à la perfection suprème ou devenir un Buddha. Prononcé par Çâkya à la requête de Çarihibu.<br> 7˚(fol. 84–84). (''Arya'') ''Chatur Dharma nirdêça'' (''nâma Mahâyâna sûtra''). Énumeration de quatre choses par lesquelles tous les crimes commis sont effacés.<br> 8˚(fol. 85–86) ''Chatur Dharmaka sûtra''. Quatre choses à éviter par tout homme sage.<br> 9˚(fol. 86–87). ''Même titre'' (ce titre est : ''Arya Chatur Dharmaka nâma Mahâyâna sûtra''). Quatre choses à observer par tout Bodhisattva ou homme sage.<br> 10˚(''Arya'') ''Chatushka Nirahâra'' (''nâma Mahâyâna sûtra''). Explication de l'exercice parfait ou de l'accomplissement de quatre choses, ou du chemin d'un Bodhisattva. —Prononcé par Manjuçrî[1].
This is a study of the Meditation Chapter of the ''Bodhisattvabhūmi''. +
This article, published in 1981, provides a research report on the life and work of Atiśa (Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna), a significant figure in Indo-Tibetan intellectual history. It primarily reviews and evaluates Helmut Eimer's extensive three-volume work on Atiśa's biographies and the ''Bodhipathapradīpa''. Hahn highlights Eimer's methodological rigor in analyzing a vast amount of biographical material, emphasizing the application of Western historical principles to Central Asian sources. +
Like Pouring Water into Water - Buddhist Lineages, Modernity and the Continuity of Memory in the Twentieth-Century History of Tibetan Buddhism +
This thesis focuses on the life of the Indo-Tibetan scholar and yogi Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen (Khu nu bla ma Bstan 'dzin rgyal mtshan, 1895 - 1977). It considers the role of teacher-student transmission lineages (Tib. ''brgyud'') in enabling or limiting intellectual innovation among Himalayan Buddhists. By examining oral and literary narratives of Khunu Lama's lineage relationships from multiple biographical and autobiographical genres, this dissertation investigates Tibetan Buddhist strategies for re-appropriating the past, and demonstrates that these strategies are marked by profound intellectual independence. The thesis further argues that such independence subtly locates authority within individual scholar-practitioners, resonating with intellectual moves associated with modernity, and calling into question common understandings of the term modernity (and its double, tradition) in both Religious Studies and Tibetan Studies. Via the example of Khunu Lama's life and work, this dissertation offers a preliminary view of alternative ways to understand modernity in the Himalayan context, while at the same time enriching understanding of related intellectual issues, including the role of life narratives in creating individual and communal Buddhist identity; the question of Tibetan Buddhist sectarianism and non-sectarianism; and the creative role of individuals from areas long thought of as at the Tibetan periphery. +
The Profound View lineage is associated with Mañjuśrī and the philosopher Nāgārjuna, the founder of the Middle Way School. However, the most well-known promoter of bodhicitta in this lineage is Śāntideva, whose writings became the main literature for the lineage. The lineage's core practices—"equating self and others" and "exchanging self for others"—involve meditating on beings' fundamental equality and mentally taking on others' suffering while offering one's happiness, directly countering self-cherishing attitudes. +
The Vast Conduct lineage is linked to Buddha Maitreya and the philosopher Asaṅga, one of the founding masters of the Yogācāra school. The lineage was passed down through Atiśa and emphasizes the methodical cultivation of compassion through the "sevenfold cause-and-effect instruction"—a structured contemplative sequence progressing from recognizing all beings as former mothers to generating bodhicitta. This tradition provides a detailed analysis of the causes, conditions, and strengths needed for awakening. +
In this his essay drawn from Markus Viehbeck's book ''Polemics in Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism'', the author establishes the wider literary and sociohistorical background of the debate between 'Ju Mi pham and Dpa' ris Rab gsal. The history of philosophical controversies in Tibet is traced, from early disagreements about proper Buddhist practice to later doctrinal disputes between schools. Viehbeck explains in detail how these debates centered on the correct interpretation of Madhyamaka philosophy, with different lineages claiming to represent the authentic transmission of Indian Buddhist thought.
By situating specific controversies within a broader historical context, this overview helps readers appreciate the significance of these debates beyond mere philosophical disagreements. It demonstrates how polemical literature served as a means for different schools to define their identities and claim legitimacy, highlighting the intricate ways in which Tibetan scholars engaged with their intellectual heritage and creatively reinterpreted earlier ideas to address contemporary concerns. +
Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen (1895–1977) composed ''The Jewel Lamp: In Praise of Bodhicitta'' (''Byang chub sems kyi bstod pa rin chen sgron ma'') in 1959–60 during the Tibetan refugee crisis, creating a 356-verse masterwork that demonstrates his mastery of both Sanskrit and Tibetan poetic traditions. The text emerged from his deep study of Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' under Khenpo Shenga and his extensive training in classical Indian poetics, employing sophisticated literary devices and traditional metaphorical imagery to convey profound spiritual teachings. Dedicated to the Dalai Lama's sister and endorsed by the Dalai Lama himself, who wrote the foreword and frequently references the work in his teachings, ''The Jewel Lamp'' presents bodhicitta not as abstract philosophy but as transformative daily practice.
The work shows intimate connection with Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', particularly in its emphasis on self-other exchange and the practical application of compassion in adverse circumstances—themes especially resonant for Tibetan refugees facing exile. Verse 355 directly echoes BCA 1.2 in stating the author's motivation to "familiarize my mind" with bodhicitta through composition, while verses 348-349 parallel Śāntideva's teachings on equalizing and exchanging self and others. ''The Jewel Lamp'' serves as both spiritual instruction and literary achievement, bridging traditional Indo-Tibetan contemplative poetry with contemporary needs, and continues to function as a primary meditation text in mind training practices across Tibetan Buddhist traditions. +
Love in Christianity and Buddhism: A Comparative Study of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae and Śāntideva's Bodhicaryāvatāra +
Through comparing Thomas Aquinas’s ''Summa Theologiae'' with Śāntideva’s ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', this study makes use of the distinction between "human love" and "divine love" as a conceptual framework to study about love in Christian and Buddhist traditions.
In Chapter 1, I defined the meaning of divine love and human love, dividing the latter into ''human love1'' and ''human love2''. The former emphasizes aspects such as desire, sentiments, and personal benefit, while the latter emphasizes aspects such as benevolence and altruism. Chapter 2 introduced the reader to the terminologies of love seen in the ''Summa Theologiae'' and the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' in order to highlight the different types of love found in Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism. In Chapter 3, I discussed Aquinas's fourfold categorization of love: ''amor'', ''dilectio'', ''caritas'', and ''misericordia''. And I advance an interpretation of the relationship between these different kinds of love. Chapter 4 is about Śāntideva’s ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', its Mahayanist compassion, and altruistic spirit. I also discuss Śāntideva's view of worldly love; he emphatically promotes that practitioners abandon worldly love in order to embrace the Bodhisattva ideal of compassion. By comparing Aquinas and Śāntideva’s accounts of love, chapter 5 illustrates how Buddhism illuminates Christianity regarding the relation between divine love and human love, and, how Christianity illuminates Buddhism regarding the relation between self-love and altruism. I conclude this dissertation by drawing out some major differences regarding the relationship between divine love and human love in Christian and Buddhist traditions and the implications for interpreting their religious goals and experience.
This study carries an in-depth study of love in a wider context of Christian and Buddhist traditions. Based on the methodology of “reciprocal illumination” and dialoguing with the interdisciplinary studies on love, its findings contribute to the Christian-Buddhist studies/comparison in particular and the comparative philosophy of religions in general.
This teaching was given by Mindrolling Jetsün Khandro Rinpoche on July 13, 2011, at
the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C. in the context of the auspicious occasion of the Kalachakra empowerment bestowed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Rinpoche had been asked to speak on the topic of bodhicitta. +
M
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Madhyamaka is one of two major philosophical schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, alongside Yogācāra.[1] It is best known for its philosophy of emptiness (''śūnyavāda'') as articulated by Nāgārjuna in his ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' and has an illustrious lineage of eminent exponents in India, Tibet, and China. While Mādhyamikas are primarily concerned with metaphysical and semantic issues, central figures also address ethical matters. Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' (BCA), in particular, provides the most extensive treatment of ethics within the Madhyamaka tradition. So influential is this text that the current Dalai Lama represents it as the epitome of Buddhist ethical thought (Gyatso 2004, 2009).<br> There is a growing body of philosophical literature focused on critically examining how the Madhyamaka analysis of emptiness (''śūnyatā'') bears on the ethical claims and commitments that were held and asserted by historical Mādhyamikas. There are two main loci of contemporary debate. The first concerns the general issue of whether Madhyamaka emptiness is consistent with a commitment to systematic ethical distinctions. The second queries whether the metaphysical analysis of no-self (''anātman'') presented by Śāntideva in BCA entails or provides good reasons for the compassion or altruism of a bodhisattva. This second issue was galvanized by Paul Williams (1998), who powerfully argued that these ontological considerations not only fail to provide a rational basis for altruism but that Śāntideva’s argument for this claim, if followed to its logical conclusion, actually undermined the bodhisattva path. Given the importance placed on this text within the Buddhist tradition, Williams's argument has unsurprisingly provoked a growing body of literature aimed at rationally reconstructing a positive account of Śāntideva's views and, thereby, a positive account of the relationship between a Madhyamaka metaphysical analysis and the Mahāyāna bodhisattva ideal of acting out of great compassion for the suffering of all sentient beings.<br> While many aim to rationally reconstruct Madhyamaka ethics in positive terms, there is considerable disagreement about what this should be. This chapter will critically examine this literature and will demonstrate that much disagreement turns on competing interpretations of the doctrine of the two truths from the perspective of Madhyamaka: in particular, competing accounts of conventional truth or reality (''saṃvṛtisatya'') as well as the forms of reasoning admissible for differentiating conventional truth from falsity and conventional good from bad. To draw this out, this chapter will begin by providing a general introduction to Madhyamaka ''śūnyavāda'' and outlining a range of positions on the nature of conventional reality that have been advanced and disputed by historical Madhyamaka thinkers in India and Tibet. It will then use these different conceptions to navigate the above two loci of contemporary debate. (Finnigan, introduction, 162–63)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Many thanks to Sara McClintock, Tom Tillemans, and the editors of this collection for helpful comments on a previous draft of this chapter.
In this section from ''The Wisdom Chapter: Jamgön Mipham's Commentary on the Ninth Chapter of The Way of the Bodhisattva'', Wulstan Fletcher and Helena Blankleder of the Padmakara Translation Group give a detailed account of Madhyamaka in Tibet as well as of the hermeneutical issues related to the debates between Mipham and Geluk scholars. The evolution of Madhyamaka philosophy in Tibet is traced, from the initial introduction of Śāntarakṣita's Yogācāra-Madhyamaka synthesis to the later influence of Candrakīrti's works, leading to the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction. Tsongkhapa's innovative interpretation of Madhyamaka is explored, highlighting his unique positions on the Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction, the two truths, and the nature of ultimate truth.
The historical context provided helps readers grasp the nuances of different Madhyamaka interpretations and the evolution of related ideas over time. By presenting various viewpoints and controversies in their historical context, this overview also sheds light on the influence of cultural and political factors on the development and transmission of philosophical ideas in Tibet. +
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
The Skt. Ms. of the present text, written on Indian paper and presumably imported from Bengal in the 16th century A. D., was kindly allowed to be inspected and copied out by Hutuktu Rimpoche Lobsang Jigme Gyaltsen, the Abbot of the Kundeling monastery of Lhasa, during my tenure there as an Officer on Special Duty of the Government of India (1948-50). The text begins with the salutation stanza of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā and ends with a discussion based mainly on the first kārikā (I.l) of the same work (See note 49 below). The main central part of this text, however, is practically identical with the Śālistamba-sūtra as reconstructed from its Tibetan version and quotations found in other Sanskrit works, like Prajñākaramati's Bodhicaryāvatāra-Pañjikā (BCA) Śikṣāsamuccaya (ŚŚ) Candrakīrti's Madhyamakavṛtti (MV), Yaśomitra's Sphutārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, etc. by Louis de la Vallée Poussin in his ''Théorie des douze Causes'' (Gand, 1913), pp. 68-108 (LVP). Another attempt at reconstruction of the Śālistamba was made by N. Aiyaswami Sastri (Adyar, 1950), Sūtra No. 8 in this volume, without reference to LPV's able reconstruction, which I have used here for the purposes of comparison. In our present Sanskrit Ms., which seems to be the only one so far discovered of the original text, and which, curiously enough, begins, as said above, with Nāgārjuna's salutation, the first seven introductory paragraphs of LVP's text are absent. Thus, beginning with LVP's p. 73 it continues only up to p. 89, leaving out again over three concluding paragraphs of LVP's text. Besides this, there are the following gaps in our text as compared with LVP's, viz., Para 2 on p. 73; Para 4 on p. 76; Para 5 on p. 81; Para 4 on p. 82; Paras 5–6 on p. 83, and Paras 3–4 on p. 86.<br> A misleading Tibetan title in the U-me script appears on fol. 1a of the Sanskrit Ms.: Śer phyin brgya lṅa bcu pa bźugs so, which corresponds to: Adhyardhaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā; the available Chinese and Tibetan translations, as well as the mixed fragmentary Sanskrit texts of the latter, however, have nothing to do with the Śālistambasūtra as such. LVP's recension of the Śālistamba has Bodhisattva Maitreya as its promulgator and is as such assigned to the presumably pre-Nāgārjunian "Mahāyāna" by the Tibetan and some later Chinese versions. But the immense popularity of this Sūtra (of which commentaries attributed to Nāgārjuna and Kamalaśīla are available in Tibetan) might have led some post-Nāgārjunian scholar to establish a special Madhyamaka version of it by suitably changing the beginning and end of this venerable old text, which is found here in this new garb. I have ventured, therefore, to suggest the provisional title: Madhyamaka-Śālistambasūtra.<br> In editing the Sanskrit Ms. I have tried to retain as much as possible of the original irregular orthography, correcting and reforming only the interpunctuation so as to facilitate the understanding of the context. Phrases, which apparently crept into the original text from marginal glosses during the process of copying, have been put into round brackets, e.g., at note 7 etc. (Gokhale, prefatory note, 107–108)
The present paper provides a critical edition of basic verses of ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' chapter 6. The verses are extracted from the Sanskrit manuscript of the ''Madhyamakāvatārabhāṣya'' preserved at Potala Palace. The ''Madhyamakāvatāra ''is one of Candrakīrti’s major works and clearly establishes his own doctrinal position. Chapter 6 (about two-thirds of the entire text) contains most important doctrinal discussions of the work. +
Bodhichitta is the essential, universal truth.
This most pure thought is the wish and the will to bring all sentient beings to the
realization of their highest potential, enlightenment.
The bodhisattva sees the crystal nature that exists in each of us, and by recognizing the beauty of our human potential, always has respect.
For the disrespectful mind human beings are like grass, something to be used.
‘Ah, he means nothing to me. Human beings are nothing to me.'
We all try to take advantage of someone else, to profit only for ourselves. The
entire world is built on attachment. Big countries overwhelm small countries, big
children take candy from small children, husbands take advantage of their wives.
I make friends with someone because he can benefit me. It is the same with the
rest of the world. Boyfriends, girlfriends. Everybody wants something.
The desire to make friends only for the other person's benefit is extremely rare;
however, it is very worthwhile. Buddha explained that even one moment's
thought of this mind dedicated to enlightenment for the sake of others can
destroy a hundred thousand lifetimes' negative karma.
We have attachment which makes us tight and uncomfortable. But even a tiny
spark of bodhichitta's heat makes the heart warm and relaxed.
Bodhichitta is the powerful solution, the atomic energy that destroys the kingdom
of attachment.
Bodhichitta is not emotional love. By understanding the relative nature of
sentient beings and seeing their highest destination, and by developing the willingness to bring all beings to that state of enlightenment, the mind is filled with love born from wisdom, not emotion.
Bodhichitta is not partial. Wherever you go with bodhichitta if you meet people,
rich people or poor people, black or white, you are comfortable and you can
communicate.
We have a fixed idea; life is this way or that. 'This is good. This is bad.' We do
not understand the different aspects of the human condition. But, having this
incredible universal thought our narrow mind vanishes automatically. It is so
simple; you have space and life becomes easier.
For example, someone looks at us, at our home, at our garden and we freak out.
We are so insecure and tight in our hearts. Arrogant. 'Don't look at me.' But with
bodhichitta there is space. When someone looks we can say, 'Hmm. She's looking. But that's O.K.' Do you understand? Rather than feeling upset you know it is
alright.
Bodhichitta is the intoxicant that numbs us against pain and fills us with bliss.
Bodhichitta is the alchemy that transforms every action into benefit for others.
Bodhichitta is the cloud that carries the rain of positive energy to nourish growing things.
Bodhichitta is not doctrine. It is a state of mind. This inner experience is completely individual. So how can we see who is a bodhisattva and who is not? How
can we see the self-cherishing mind?
If we feel insecure ourselves we will project that negative feeling onto others.
We need the pure innermost thought of bodhichitta; wherever we go that will take
care of us.
No abstract given. Here are the first relevant paragraphs:
Śāntideva's ''Bodhicaryāvtāra'' has long been celebrated, alongside Candrakīrti's ''Madhyamakāvatāra'', for its explication of emptiness from the Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamaka viewpoint, set within a broader presentation of the Mahāyāna path structure. While the features that these two texts share - and, indeed, the features of Prāsaṅgika itself- have been oft-debated in the history of Tibetan Madhyamaka, we have good textual and doctrinal evidence for associating them. One compelling reason is Śāntideva's declaration that "the ultimate is not a referent of awareness,"[1] a claim that echoes Candrakīrti's statement that the ultimate "is ineffable and just not a referent of consciousness."[2] Further, in explication of Śāntideva's assertion, Prajñākaramati's (c. 950-1030) commentary on the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' quotes the ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' four times, linking these two texts' views on this central Madhyamaka doctrine.[3]<br> The kind of ultimate suggested in these passages, an ultimate that transcends thought and language, would prove to be a stumbling block for those early Tibetan Mādhyamikas with strong commitments to the Buddhist epistemological tradition. Logic-minded Mādhyamikas, particularly those connected with gSaṅ phu Ne'u thog Monastery, tended to reject Candrakīrti's philosophy following its spread in Central Tibet around the year 1100, in large part because of its perceived difficulties in explaining how one realizes an ultimate that transcends human intellect.[4] In contrast, the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', having long since been translated, retranslated, and commented upon, was universally acclaimed, making an accounting of its views incumbent upon any author. Rather than accept or reject Śāntideva's seemingly transcendent ultimate and the host of problems attendant on this view, early bKa' gdams pa scholars found a variety of ways to interpret it. How one interpreted Śāntideva's ultimate, whether aligning with Candrakīrti's transcendent portrayal or with gSaṅ phu's logic-based model, in turn became a dividing line for a series of categories of Madhyamaka, including the well-known Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika divide.<br> The authority of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' was forged at gSaṅ phu by the monastery's intellectual founder, rṄog Blo ldan ses rab (1059-1109), who is credited with establishing the final version of the Tibetan translation of the text. The colophon of the Tibetan translation states that the text was first translated from a Kashmiri exemplar by Ka ba dpal brtsegs (prior to 840), then was revised in accordance with a central Indian exemplar and its (unnamed) commentary by Rin chen bzaṅ po (958-1055) and Shākya blo gros (eleventh century). Finally, rṄog - apparently on the basis of no new manuscripts or commentaries, but under the guidance of his
Kashmiri teacher Sumatikīrti - corrected and finalized the text.[5] Despite the credit given to rṄog, early Tibetan commentaries reveal a variety of readings of the root text, suggesting that it circulated in many forms during this period and not just in rṄog's "finalized" version. [6]<br> rṄog is known to have written both a commentary and a topical outline on the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra''.[7] The text likewise figured prominently at gSaṅ phu in the generations following rṄog, as a series of scholars in teacher-to-student relationship composed commentaries on it: rṄog's student rGya dmar pa Byaṅ chub grags; rGya: dmar pa's student Phya pa Chos kyi seṅ ge; and Phya pa's student gTsaṅ nag pa brTson 'grus seṅ ge. [8] To these we may add the commentary of the second Sa skya pa hierarch, bSod nams rtse mo (1142-1182), which according to its colophon relates the comments of his teacher Phya pa and also occasionally cites rṄog's commentary.[9] These four generations of commentaries allow us to see the evolution of gSaṅ phu exegesis, revealing a variety of ways to accommodate and even champion the transcendent ultimate found in the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'', while at the same time holding to gSaṅ phu's emphasis on inferential logic. These early commentators' solutions to the problems attendant upon Śāntideva's ultimate took the shape of two interrelated discussions of the nature of ultimate truth and of the cognitive processes involved with realizing it. These in turn gave rise to distinct Madhyamaka categories to classify views on each. (Vose, preliminary remarks, 285–88)
<h5>Notes</h5>
#Stanza IX.2c; La Vallée Poussin, ''Prajñākaramati's Commentary'' (1905), 352: ''buddher agocaras tattvaṃ''.
#La Vallée Poussin, ''Madhyamakāvatāra'', 109,2-3: ''don dam pa'i bden pa bstan par 'dod pas de ni brjod du med pa'i phyir daṅ śes pa'i yul ma yin pa ñid kyi phyir dṅos su bstan par mi nus pas''.
#Prajñākaramati cites ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.23, 25, 28, and 29 in his comments to ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' IX.2; La Vallee Poussin, ''Prajñākaramati's Commentary'' (1905), 353, 361, and 366.
#Candrakīrti's twelfth-century ascension and the debates it touched off in Tibet are treated in Vose, ''Resurrecting Candrakīrti''.
#This information is drawn from the colophon to the Tibetan translation found in the ''bsTan 'gyur''; ''sDe dge'' edition, vol. ''ya'', 40a5-7.
#Just what constitutes rṄog's finalized translation of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' is difficult to pinpoint. Akira Saito has analyzed Bu ston's suspicion that the version of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' available to him (which he included in his ''bsTan 'gyur'' collection) contains unwarranted "emendations" made by gTsaṅ nag pa; see Saito, "Bu ston on the ''sPyod 'jug''," 79-85. In one example, which he takes to be representative, Saito (p. 84) suggests that "the alteration [of rṄog's translation] appears to have been made with rather careless consultation of the old translation(s)." A thorough evaluation of this textual conundrum will require an examination of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' stanzas embedded in the various Indian and Tibetan commentaries, as compared to the stanzas preserved in the ''bsTan 'gyur'' editions and in the Dunhuang manuscript (Stein 628) edited in Saito, ''A Study of the Dun-huang Recension''. My initial investigation shows that gTsaṅ nag pa's commentary offers readings of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' stanzas that accord with the stanzas preserved in the ''bsTan 'gyur'' but not with those found in the Dunhuang version (in cases where the ''bsTan 'gyur'' edition and Dunhuang version disagree). If gTsaṅ nag pa was indeed Bu ston's culprit, he does not seem to have been utilizing a translation of the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' related to the Dunhuang version.
#For an overview of rṄog's compositions, see Kano, ''rNgog Blo-ldan-shes-rab's Summary'', 125-128 and Kramer, ''The Great Translator''. Fragments of rṄog's commentary are cited in bSod nams rtse mo's commentary (discussed below); the whereabouts of the complete commentary remain unknown. I thank Kazuo Kano for alerting me to his discovery in Lhasa of rṄog's ''sPyod 'jug gi bsdus don'', a "topical outline" of Śāntideva's text, which he is now preparing for publication.
#The available texts are rGya dmar pa Byaṅ chub grags's ''Byaṅ chub sems dpa'i spyod pa la 'jug pa'i tshig don gsal bar bśad pa''; Phya pa's ''sPyod 'jug bsdus don'', a topical outline (Phya pa's full commentary is not presently known); and gTsaṅ nag pa brTson 'grus seṅ ge's ''sPyod 'jug gi rnam bśad''.
#bSod nams rtse mo, ''sPyod pa la 'jug pa'i 'grel pa''. In the colophon (515.2,4-6), we read: "Indeed, the ''Commentary'' composed by the lord (''btsun pa'') is exceedingly clear. However, ... I write this for the ease of realization of myself and those like me. For the sake of easy realization even of the wisdom chapter, the spiritual friend bSod nams rtse mo clearly arranged (''ñe bar sbyar'') this from the concise (''tshig bsdus'', "a summary") and difficult to understand (''go dka' ba'') ''Explanation of Engaging in the Bodhisattva's Practices'' composed by the monk Chos kyi seṅ ge." In including bSod nams rtse mo's commentary in this discussion of early bKa' gdams pa commentaries, I do not intend to portray him as a bKa' gdams pa, but rather take his attribution of "arranging" his teacher's comments on the ''Bodhicaryāvatāra'' as rendering his comments germane to this investigation. As will be seen, his comments would prove to be more faithful to Phya pa's views than those of another of Phya pa's students, gTsaṅ nag pa. Even still, the subtle criticism implicit in calling Phya pa's summary "difficult to understand" may suggest a certain distance between teacher and student that we would be unlikely to see in later master-to-disciple relationships within the established orders of Tibet.
