I agree with Vajradhara when he says that this thread has veered from its original intention. Let's take a look back at the original posting.
The Fool said:
I remember when discussing the plight of the current Dalai Lama, it was pointed out that if he returned to China, he could die.
However, this point of view puzzles myself - I was very strongly under the impression that Buddhism teaches liberation from material things - even to the point that existence is no better than suffering, and therefore should be escaped - with the Buddhist spending his lifetime shaping his or her life precisely to try and pull on karmic guidelines to prevent them ever having to "live"/"suffer" again.
In which case, that a Buddhist should fear for their life for their faith would make little sense.
So what attachments do Buddhists make with this world? And do they really see existence as something to be escaped from, life as nothing more than a form of suffering that should be escaped?
Samabudhi responded with the implication that the Dali Lama is a Bodhisattva:
Samabudhi said:
There is an ideal which, in the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools is seen as higher than Buddhahood. It is to live the life of a Bodhisattva which is someone who instead of gaining enlightenment for themselves, does it for everyone else. His aim is to help everyone else reach enlightenment.
I agree with this, although Vajradhara disputes it on a technicality:
Vajradhara said:
whilst it is true that both the Mahayana and the Vajrayana posit the Bodhisattva as the highest path, that should not be understood to mean that the Bodhisattva is, in fact, a more realized being than a Buddha.
I don't think I am as learned of a Buddhist scholar as Vajradhara, and I have to admit that I get turned around and lost with this whole idea of "Bodhisattva" and "Buddha." I do agree with the general sentiment of Samabudhi's post. To me, what he is saying is that it is one thing to sit and meditate and seek enlightenment, but there is more to the process than just that. After a person becomes "enlightened," the natural thing for them to do is to seek to guide others along a spiritual path; they want to share their salvation with the world. Indeed, this is an inevitable step in spiritual progress. If someone reaches samadhi and feels "enlightened," it doesn't end there. They have to go on developing themselves, and part of how that is done is by guiding others, which is the Bodhisattva path. I'm not sure, but I think "Bodhisattva" is part of the journey to "Buddhahood." It gets a little sticky, to my mind. After all, if "Buddha" means enlightened one, and "Bodhisattva" is one who guides others along to enlightenment, and therefore must be enlightened him- or herself, then does it not logically follow that a "Bodhisattva" is a "Buddha?" Perhaps Vajradhara can clear this up.
At any rate, to address the original post: I think that it is possible to live in the material world and utilize the materials of the world in a non-attached way. When all the materials in the world are used with non-attachment, for the welfare and spiritual progress of others, basically no karma is generated. And this is the Bodhisattva path. Looking at it this way, the Dali Lama's 'fear for' and 'attachment to' his life are not really that, since he is not living for his own sake and salvation, but for others'. To put it another way, he has
gone beyond; that is, he is not seeking "enlightenment" or "Nirvana" or what-have-you, because he is already in that state. This idea that one can have human form but already be "liberated" may be surprising to some people, but I don't believe it's so uncommon; all the great spiritual teachers of humanity have been "Bodhisattvas" in this way.
