Yeah, not sure what to make of your reference to the Vajra Cutter sutra or how you think that answers the question proffered about hypothetical escape from a burning building
My best guess is you’re saying the Vajra Cutter sutra is in error and implies that the motivation behind a persons actions ultimately doesn’t matter because it negates too much? And that you need not bother with answering the question about a burning building because it is proffered by someone who you believe has faith in what you deem the erroneous Vajra Cutter sutra? Do I have that correct?
Buddhas are not superfluous, Awakening is not a mathematical equation. Choice matters, and the input of choice matters. You cannot reap the Harvest of the field, even if it is fully ripe, without a Harvester. And no matter how wonderful you are, you can still die from thirst if you are thirsty, unless someone gives you water. The Buddhas are of the Highest Nature.
Yeah, I can’t tell if this is your contention or if this is the contention you think the Vajra Cutter sutra implies.
If it is the former, I think that is quite a problematic statement to make for a Buddhist aka someone who professes to take refuge in the Buddha If it is the latter, I think that is quite a departure from the topic of this thread. It certainly is not my contention nor do I agree with it.
I don’t see how this is possible literally. Buddhas have finite lifespan, and true parinibbāna is not some kind of heaven like thing where people can manifest bodies to act like a Buddha in the world.
I only see it’s possible in a loose causation manner. Each time a fully enlightened Buddha appears, they produce a finite amount of arahants, but also they give predictions to those who are Bodhisattas, and perhaps even the first prediction for those, so new Bodhisattas are on the path to Buddhahood. In this way, they support the arising of new Buddhas, and the future Buddhas in turn produces more arahants. And so on down the line. So, it’s a very loose causation manner. Not personally teach and liberate all beings one by one.
No one can save ourselves, but ourselves. The Buddha merely show the way. The Buddha cannot practise for us and we get the result.
Given that the Buddha spent so long perfecting the perfections just to become a Buddha and produce arahants, how can we let the Buddha down by not practising for our own liberation?
It’s actually more selfish not wanting to escape the burning house ourselves, citing that there are other people there. It makes it so that the person telling us to escape is wasting their energy and time.
Arahants eradicated conceit, ignorance, self view. There’s not even the sense of self to be selfish in their actions.
This sounds like taking refuge in ourself and not in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
Wait so you’re saying that the person telling us to escape is being selfish by not immediately heading to the exits themselves?? Seems contradictory. The Buddha was a selfish person for becoming a Buddha and not just seeking personal liberation?? Seems problematic.
“Mendicants, live as your own island, your own refuge, with no other refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other refuge.
“Attadīpā, bhikkhave, viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā.
Buddha already done the job of getting out of the house of samsara. He has no more rebirth. That’s how he knows there’s an escape by personal knowledge and how he is qualified to tell us to get out.
So too an arahant, or at least a stream winner knows the further shore, they are beyond doubt in that nibbāna is real, and there’s an escape from rebirth, so they are uniquely qualified to guide people out step by step all the way to at least their level.
Those who are in the house asking others to go out but do not go out themselves, how can people follow their lead? It’s a bit hypocritical, is it not?
After many countless eons practicing and perfecting to fulfill the wish to aid sentient beings by becoming the Buddha, right?
By all means they should escape regarding all sentient beings with equanimity not preferring one over another just as Stu pointed out; we are sentient beings as well. The question again is one of motivation. That is what this thread is about.
Is it to be a selfish motivation - elevating the self over others - or is it to be an altruistic and non-selfish motivation - wishing for all sentient beings to escape - and with wisdom conjoined with the altruistic wish accomplishing that task to the best one is able.
By that account, all the more people have to stick to observing the precepts strictly. It is only by this manner that liberation is possible. And one ought to set an example for others to follow.
The 4 people who help or not help others, are ranked as follows: AN4.95
The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.
tathūpamāhaṁ, bhikkhave, imaṁ puggalaṁ vadāmi yvāyaṁ puggalo nevattahitāya paṭipanno no parahitāya.
The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.
Tatra, bhikkhave, yvāyaṁ puggalo parahitāya paṭipanno no attahitāya, ayaṁ imesaṁ dvinnaṁ puggalānaṁ abhikkantataro ca paṇītataro ca.
The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.
Tatra, bhikkhave, yvāyaṁ puggalo attahitāya paṭipanno no parahitāya, ayaṁ imesaṁ tiṇṇaṁ puggalānaṁ abhikkantataro ca paṇītataro ca.
But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.
Tatra, bhikkhave, yvāyaṁ puggalo attahitāya ceva paṭipanno parahitāya ca, ayaṁ imesaṁ catunnaṁ puggalānaṁ aggo ca seṭṭho ca pāmokkho ca uttamo ca pavaro ca.
Thank you for the sutta reference. I do not believe the third is superior to the second. The fourth though is clearly the zenith and that is what I was trying to convey with my ineloquence about the any including the self and regarding the any with equanimity not favoring any individual over another.
At one time, the Buddha was staying in the Jeta Grove, Anathapindika’s Park in the country of Shravasti. The Buddha addressed the monks: “There are four types of people. Some people protect themselves but not others, some protect others but not themselves, some neither protect themselves nor others, and some both protect themselves and others. Among these, those who neither protect themselves nor others are the most inferior; those who protect others but not themselves are superior; those who protect themselves but not others are superior; and those who both protect themselves and others are the most superior. Those who are like this are the foremost.”
Yeah, that is not unambiguously translating that the third are considered superior to the second
GPT4 says:
"Yes, the Buddha does rank the other three types of people:
Those who neither protect themselves nor protect others: This group is considered the lowest and most despicable.
Those who protect others but do not protect themselves: This group is considered superior to the first.
Those who protect themselves but do not protect others: This group is also considered superior to the first but is ranked similarly to the second.
Ultimately, the highest rank is given to those who protect both themselves and others."
Maybe @cdpatton can translate? Anyway, I started a separate thread for this side discussion here. Probably does not matter much to the discussion here where it is mutually agreed the fourth type is best.
It’s likely based on your history or how you frame the question. I see the unreliability of AI now.
是勝上 is repeated for all 2, 3 and 4. Is better/superior. There’s no additional Chinese wording to be translated to the quoted passage above to specially make it equal.
Or perhaps what is meant by “a person who practices to benefit others!”
And how does a person practice to benefit others, but not themselves?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, puggalo parahitāya paṭipanno hoti, no attahitāya?
It’s when a person kills living creatures, steals, commits sexual misconduct, lies, and uses alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. But they encourage others to not do these things.
AN 4.99
Suffice it to say this is not the description I had in mind of “a person who practices to benefit others” Not too hard to see how such a person might fall in the rankings
No. Because even good karma causes rebirth! Puṇya leads to a sugati, not to vimokṣa.
The soteriology of early Buddhism aims to eliminate the element of cetanā from actions (since cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi AN 6.63). It is the elimination of cetanā that cuts off making new karma (āsavakṣaya) and ensures that you will eventually stop being reborn.
The way to achieve this is to submerge the sense of self into the subconscious so that one acts without conscious motivation.
And this self-submersion can best be achieved using the self-hypnotic techniques of Buddhist meditation, though mileage may vary and other self-submerging techniques are available. Also other ancient Indian religious doctrines about how actions cause rebirth are available.
What we call “precepts” are more like training principles (śikṣapāda) that aid one in preparing for meditation, i.e. that facilitate withdrawing attention from the sensorium and dealing with the effects of sensory deprivation that may arise as a result.
Theoretically precepts enable one to imitate the behaviour of someone who has successfully submerged their self in the meantime. Precepts aim to allow us to “fake it till we make it.” But the real soteriological significance is the contribution that they make towards self-submersion.
