[davidsun]

Originally Posted by slash112

Oh ok that helps a lot, thanks again!

I misunderstood because I read one of the definitions of Boddhisattva as "(in Mahayana Buddhism) a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so through compassion for suffering beings."

That is my understanding of what a 'boddisattva' is as well. BTW, "maha' literally means 'big' or 'great', as in Maharaja meaning the 'big' or 'great' king and Maharishi meaning 'big' or 'great' wise-man (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishi in this regard). It is my impression that that the 'Maha' in 'Mahayana Buddhism' references what those who subscribe to it think, feel and believe is indicates a bigger/fuller level of realization than 'Hinayana' variety.

The

"no old age and death,
and also no ending of old age and death;
no anguish, cause of anguish, cessation, path;
no wisdom and no attainment.
Since there is nothing to attain,
the Bodhisattva lives by Prajna Paramita,
with no hindrance in the mind; no hindrance
and therefore no fear;

pro-claim-ation and (hence) advocacy, strikes me (each to his own 'taste', aye what? ) as being a very avoidant way of Life, which is to say that I think it is not really living at all, at least as not fully living!

As I wrote in my book, in which among other things I critically analyze prior (historic) attempts to deal with 'problems' associated with 'the human condition':

"What is our primary problem? As already explained, in becoming dominant, we grew too big for instinct to carry and clothe. As long as we remain partial in attitude and intent, to the degree we don’t transcend narrow self-interest and effectively care for all that we are part of, harsh winters of our own making will continue to catch us, in rags and tatters, out in the cold.

So, what most needs doing? The very nature of the ‘drive’ that directed development all the way from the simplest kinds of gravitational, nuclear and electromagnetic associations to our current level of coherence must be creatively modified and redirected. Its unbridled ‘ascendancy’ to date is the very reason why we repeatedly outstrip and overrun our environmental base and end up abusing and being abused by others and fighting and squabbling among ourselves, instead of graciously sharing and serving to complement Life’s munificence.

More than two and a half thousand years ago in what is now India, pondering the human predicament in light of what was then and there believed and known, the one most have since called Buddha,a because distress was so pervasive, saw suffering as a central feature of earthly Life, and, because people were generally so selfish in aspiration, identified desire itself as the root-cause of such condition. Consequently, as a first order of business, he counseled a nirvanic state be sought wherein desire is renounced and, if not relinquished completely, at least held in abeyance.

But, though extremely beneficial in many ways, such advice is partial and therefore deficient unless there’s complementary learning. Because it focuses on the problem of suffering and ways to bring about its cessation, those who ‘religiously’ attend to it frequently end up giving short shrift to what is equally, if not more important: the why and wherefore of creative proficiency and joyful expression. While it is true that much that is of negative consequence can be prevented or, at least, overcome by relinquishment of desire, we won’t bring about, and so won’t enjoy, greater goodness unless we comprehend and learn to constructively channel the dynamic of Creativity.

Since [color=red]Life/color] is Creativity and Creativity is causal purpose in action, desirelessness is far from being an optimal goal (assuming such a state could actually be sustained, it would be totally Life-denying!). It is therefore important that we recognize that focusing on extinguishing desire, more than as a temporary exercise which enables us to develop the equanimity necessary to stop ourselves from being swayed by instinct, since other creatively crucial tasks—namely, developing and extending our capacity for constructive relationship and beneficent generativity—are then neglected, may not only be a waste of precious vitality, but result in atrophy and be crippling in effect in the long run.

For Life to flower and be more fruitful, desire must be discriminatingly refined and selectively accentuated. That is, what we desire and how we go about trying to attain it must be beneficially altered by greater awareness and understanding of the unitary nature and psychospiritual dynamic of Being. To promote such occurrence, relevant truth has been repeatedly stated; and I do so again: Individually, each of us is a transient aspect of an interwoven, ongoing whole. No one, as such, continues forever, and, except in illusion, no one has, or can ever have, a separate existence of his or her own. We maximize or minimize our own essential validity and creative potency to the degree to which we do or don’t cooperate with and contribute to developments that go on around us. Of itself, selfishness goes nowhere in the end.

But mere articulation of this truth is not enough. If it was, we’d already be getting along quite well together, because it has historically been stated in ways that are both profound and eloquent. Raising consciousness and inspiring unselfish involvement aren’t accomplished that easily. Indeed, at times, they are just about impossible, for, particularly when threatened by prospect of loss, selfishness has a tendency to tighten its innately powerful grip. Those so motivated then strive even more strenuously to insure their own welfare; if for more than that, then only for their own ‘kind’ to benefit. They not only reject but often actively persecute those who openly proclaim and conscientiously walk the path of what is holistically right and fitting. Because logic would otherwise dictate that self-interest be deliberately disregarded, sometimes even totally sacrificed, for greater good to ensue, many go to all sorts of extremes to still the voice of conscience and deny comprehensive truth."

It goes on from there, of course. "The unsurpassed mantra, the supreme mantra, which completely removes all anguish. This is truth not mere formality." strikes me as being as 'naive' a 'dream' as that of 'Christians' who 'dream' of everlasting happiness being the the result of and associated with 'hanging out' (forever!) with 'Jesus' and 'God' in a totally suffering-free 'heaven'.

The suffering-free, no anguish 'state' doesn't even come close to what I think of as being maximally Love-and-Joy full) way of living, i.e of being!