Who is Vajrasattva?

[Francis king]

my first offical empowerment...hahahahahaaaa

[Francis king]

Vajradhara, humble.... hahahhahaaa

[Francis king]

bah... I didnt realise this was from 2005... why resurrect it, unless its to show you how FAKE it all is...

fakefakefakefakeBuddhism... burn them all....

[Francis king]

texts, not people...

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

....(I)n the general hierarchy of Buddhism, there are monasitcs and lay people. however, what you may not know is that there is another sort of being, what we call a Solitary Realizer, a Pratyekabuddha.
.... these beings are, for all intents and purposes, engaging in the process of Awakening without the benefit of a teacher.

Greetings Vajradhara,

I have seen reference to Pratyekabuddha as a solitarily enlightened person or "solitary attainer." Maybe it should be "solitary seeker." It seems the Pratyekabuddha are not fully enlightened. Perhaps they are best described as persons who sought enlightenment but ended up attaining a state shy of Enlightenment, the so-called "Pratyekabuddha state."

I wonder if the "solitary" approach implies a self-centeredness that keeps the Pratyekabuddha from becoming fully awakened. They would seem to be subject to the difficulties that confront even the most dedicated devotees. Self-centered preoccupations can become obsessive even when they are largely unconscious.

It should be noted that the self-centeredness can take various forms. An individual may indeed be unduly concerned with personal identity, but the self-centeredness can take other forms as well that involve states of craving that may be compared to addiction. Even smart people can have this problem. Consider a conversation I was having with my Philosophy of Religion professor. He confided to me that his considerable intellectual interests were really a kind of greed. That was actually an awakening right there! Love of knowledge can be an affliction of mind!

The reason why the self-centered absorption in question is incompatible with full awakening would seems fairly simple. It is very difficult to approach Emptiness or the "perfect peace free from conceptuality" if the mind is perpetually engaged in the "propulsion of mental bodies," to use Kunzang Pelden's terms, or if the mind is obsessively busy interacting with environmentally generated "mental bodies" that provide more or less constant mental stimuli. As in Monkey Mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_mind

The bondage may be further complicated by the narcissistic gratification and sense of self that derive from intellectual work. So now the person is not only hoarding thoughts and ideas, but also trying to preserve their personal identity in terms of al these thoughts and ideas. The usage of "mental bodies" may be part of a larger effort to shore up the individual's sense of what it is to be a person.

Arguably, "grasping at self" is at the root of all suffering. In fact, it has been suggested that attachment is one possible product of grasping at self. From that perspective, attachment is a secondary affliction of mind. Grasping at self is the more basic afflictive craving.

But the more fundamental problem that keeps all this wild and crazy mental machinery going is ignorance. It seems the Pratyekabuddha have had an incomplete awakening. This partial ignorance would apear, by its very nature, to be self-perpetuating. That is, the incomplete awakening dooms the individual to remain stuck in a world of self-centered absorption.

In terms of the effect on the individual's progress, the absorptive activities can -- and do -- interfere with further awakening. This World of Absorption does not appear to be a state of resting awareness because it involves and depends upon the mental machinery of the "active mind of mis-knowing," as Geshe Tashi Tsering calls it.

Being partially awakened will give Pratyekabuddha just enough insight to cause them to overestimate the importance of their mental prowess. This tends to create te impression that their self-centered absorptive activity is on track and worthwhile. Here we see delusion helping to perpetuate delusion. As Samabudi observes:

Originally Posted by samabudhi

There is no place for pride in Buddhism. It inhibits the flow of compassion for others and encourages the flow of egoism.

In a very real sense, a totally ignorant and unawakened person who is not egoically involved and therefore more open to a sudden or accidental Awakening has a much better shot at Enlightenment than a Pratyekabuddha who has read all the heavy duty descriptions of Buddhist epistemology.

The situation is remarkable in that dedicated followers who would be closest to the Buddha have no advantage. They may actually be at a real disadvantage and fail to reach Enlightenment despite their dedication.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Greetings Vajradhara,

I have seen reference to Pratyekabuddha as a solitarily enlightened person or "solitary attainer." Maybe it should be "solitary seeker." It seems the Pratyekabuddha are not fully enlightened.

the Suttas seem to indicate that there is no difference between a Pratyekabuddhas level of Awakening and that of an Arhant or Bodhisattva the salient difference is that Pratyekabuddhas arise in a world system where the Dharma is not present and there is no Buddha.

I wonder if the "solitary" approach implies a self-centeredness that keeps the Pratyekabuddha from becoming fully awakened. They would seem to be subject to the difficulties that confront even the most dedicated devotees. Self-centered preoccupations can become obsessive even when they are largely unconscious.

it sounds like you are conflating the Forest Monk tradition and the Pratyekabuddha as the Suttas indicate that Solitary Realizers are Awakened and Liberated without remainder whereas the Forest Monk tradition it would be dependent upon where the particular monk or nun for that matter, is within the Stream.

Arguably, "grasping at self" is at the root of all suffering. In fact, it has been suggested that attachment is one possible product of grasping at self. From that perspective, attachment is a secondary affliction of mind. Grasping at self is the more basic afflictive craving.

that seems to be consonant with my understanding of the Suttas exposition on the subject. though in our teachings these things are all interdependent and co-arising.

In a very real sense, a totally ignorant and unawakened person who is not egoically involved and therefore more open to a sudden or accidental Awakening has a much better shot at Enlightenment than a Pratyekabuddha who has read all the heavy duty descriptions of Buddhist epistemology.

by definition a Pratyekabuddha has no access to Buddhist teachings of any sort.

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

by definition a Pratyekabuddha has no access to Buddhist teachings of any sort.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Vajradhara.

Historical descriptions of the Pratyekabuddha and the so-called "Pratyekabuddha state" are hard to find. But that may not be particularly relevant when the term is used in a nontechnical way "to refer to students who get entangled in personal striving for illumination." http://dharma.ncf.ca/faqs/glossary.html

Presumably, if they are students of Buddhism they would have access to relevant doctrine. What is at issue, though, is a failure to internalize the doctrine, which has been attributed by some observers to the Pratyekabuddha's willful effort to attain Buddhahood on their own, without a teacher. Perhaps a certain ego-centric defiance is involved among the Pratyekabuddha that defines their situation.

The informal reference highlights the Pratyekabuddhas' preoccupation with their own enlightenment to the exclusion of concern with others' salvation -- a preoccupation that is reflected by fact that they keep to themselves and don't usually teach. This self-absorbed approach would seem to bespeak a qualitatively different level of attainment, as is confirmed in these characterizations:

" A Sravaka or a Pratyekabuddha also attains enlightenment but their enlightenment is not supreme because it is only deprived of ‘the ignorance defiled by the defilement’ "

Furthermore:

"(T)he state of a Sravaka or a Pratyekabuddha is inferior to that of a Bodhisattva. ...(A) Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) is a person who realizes Nirvana alone by himself at a time when there is no Samyaksambuddha in the world. He also renders service to others, but in a limited way. He is not capable of revealing the Truth to others as a Samyaksambuddha, a fully Enlightened Buddha does."

Based on these descriptions, I'd disagree with the contention that "there is no difference between a Pratyekabuddha level of Awakening and that of an Arhant or Bodhisattva." My original comment was about Enlightenment. Perhaps you are making a distinction between Awakening and Enlightenment?

I'd be interested which Suttas you are referring to since. I have had to rely entirely on secondary sources for the various characterizations. Some authors' scriptural references have been duds. It's been somewhat discouraging to be spinning the proverbial wheel when trying to track down more information.

[quote]...(I)t would be dependent upon where the particular monk or nun for that matter, is within the Stream. [quote]
That's it. My point was that there is something about the Pratyekabuddha's situation that keeps them from moving foward.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

interesting.. i've never heard the term used in such a manner.

here's a relevant Sutta:
MN 116: Isigili Sutta

according to the Sutta a paccekabuddha is fully Enlightened though, as per the defnition, lack the requisite paramis to fully expound the Dharma and upon attainment of the final fruit of practice they live a solitary life rather than as a teacher.

A Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms

with respect to individual beings i would certainly agree that becoming attached to ones practice is likely to be a difficult obstacle to surmount. in the Mahayana teachings this sort of attachment was a criticism of the Hinyana Arhant ideal and the upholding of the Bodhisattva ideal.

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Namaste Vajradhara,

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

here's a relevant Sutta:
MN 116: Isigili Sutta

Thanks you for that. I was wondering, at what point did Buddhists start to differentiate Great Awakening from Supreme Enlightenment?

It seems the three modes of Enlightenment came to pass with Mahayana doctrine: Sāvaka-Bodhi (Arhat), Pacceka-Bodhi (Pratyeka), Sammā-Sambodhi (supreme Buddha) (from the Wiki description of Bodhi).

A Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms

I notice the glossary does not include a definition of Enlightenment. It seems to equate "enlightened" and "awakened."

with respect to individual beings i would certainly agree that becoming attached to ones practice is likely to be a difficult obstacle to surmount. in the Mahayana teachings this sort of attachment was a criticism of the Hinyana Arhant ideal and the upholding of the Bodhisattva ideal.

Something to investigate. Thanks again

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Namaste Vajradhara,

Thanks you for that. I was wondering, at what point did Buddhists start to differentiate Great Awakening from Supreme Enlightenment?

It seems the three modes of Enlightenment came to pass with Mahayana doctrine: Sāvaka-Bodhi (Arhat), Pacceka-Bodhi (Pratyeka), Sammā-Sambodhi (supreme Buddha) (from the Wiki description of Bodhi).

the Suttas indicate that Paccekabuddha, Arhant and Bodhisattvas have attained Samyak Sambodhi whereas Buddhas attain Annuttara Samyak Sambodhi which, practically speaking, is indicative of the Final fruit and the engaging in a teaching career with the ability to fully expound the Dharma to all sentient beings.

I notice the glossary does not include a definition of Enlightenment. It seems to equate "enlightened" and "awakened."

indeed... Enlightened and Enlightenment are actually artifacts from Buddha Dharmas introduction into English society during the height of the Enlightenment period by the Theosophical society. it was an attempt to present Buddha Dharma as a completely rational philosophical paradigm without any unusual metaphysics, gods and all of that sort of thing. the Suttas, as you've seen, do not use this term to describe what the fruit of the practice is and, in my estimation, this term has some of it's own connotations which are not consonant with the experience related in the Suttas. ymmv.

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

Thank you for your reply, Vajradhara.

with respect to individual beings i would certainly agree that becoming attached to ones practice is likely to be a difficult obstacle to surmount.

According to the Manjushri literature, someone may need to go into a solitary life to avoid attraction to pleasing things and repulsion toward unpleasant things. Attractions and aversions are, at the very least, distractions.

Obviously it's easier to restrain the senses without sensory input. One way to minimize the input to the senses is to be solitary. However, that is always the perfect solution. A practitioner could very well be effectively guarding the senses by avoiding sensory stimuli and still be thoroughly distracted. In fact, it seems that in Buddhism the brain is seen as being yet another sensory organ. Accordingly, it is easy to see how a pre-occupation with mindal/spiritual things can become a substitute for more commonplace sensory experience. Spiritual elation demons have the potential to be especially powerful and, as such, can compete with intense physical pleasures in terms of their ability to produce enjoyable experiences that the person becomes attached to.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

One way to minimize the input to the senses is to be solitary. However, that is always the perfect solution. A practitioner could very well be effectively guarding the senses by avoiding.

Sorry, meant to say that guarding the senses is NOT always a perfect solution. In fact, it's impractical.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste netti-netti,

sorry for my tardy reply and, other than this reply, i'm afraid i'll have to wait a bit longer before i can respond... certain family things have arisen.... just didn't want to you think i'd forgotten our conversation

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

.... just didn't want to you think i'd forgotten our conversation

No problem, whenever you're ready.

Previousy I noted that pre-occupation with mindal/spiritual things can become an end in itself - a substitute for more commonplace sensory experience. This situation can actually be one of the mind enjoying its own attachments and afflictions. Also, the undisciplined mind likes the way it gets to wander off. It's as though these are forms of entertainment.

Quick comment: It seems we go through life only half awake. We don't really pay much attention to where we are. And when we do, we often misinterpret what's going on. We don't give much thought to the goals we should be moving toward or to the adequacy of our current efforts. Even though we are all running out of time, we preoccupy ourselves with endless distractions and dress rehearsals. Maybe that's becauze we don't really know what we want out of life. Something to think about.

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Another question for my ever-patient "teachers": are there vows beyond either Vajrasattva and Bodhisattva vows? If so, what are they?

Thank you from your ever- student,
Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine (and her :kitty:s)