INTRODUCTION TO THE PRACTICE OF FUTURE BUDDHAS
(BODHICARYÂVATÂRA)
By ÇÂNTIDEVA
PREFACE
Bodhicaryâvatâra means: “Introduction to the Practice of Bodhi,” which, according to the text of the book and the Tibetan version, is to be understood as: “Introduction to the Practice of the Bodhisattvas.”
Bodhi is knowledge, nourished by good works, that makes Buddhas: it is the supreme enlightenment that Çâkyamuni attained beneath the Tree, after conquering Mâra, god of love and death. Until that moment, in his last existence as in his former lives, he was a Bodhisattva, that is to say, a “future Buddha,” a “candidate for Bodhi.”
The oldest literature, known as that of the “Lesser Vehicle,” regards Buddhas and future Buddhas as beings of infinite rarity: it chiefly names three Buddhas of the past, Çâkyamuni, and the Buddha of the future, Maitreya, “the benevolent,” who is still only a “future Buddha.” The ancient lives of Çâkyamuni are recounted, and how, in animal or human forms, he practised the various virtues; he is shown, in his penultimate existence, as king of the “contented gods,” and, in the last, as a man of wondrous body, “bearing the marks of great men,” marks which he shares with “sovereign kings.”
(BODHICARYÂVATÂRA)
By ÇÂNTIDEVA
PREFACE
Bodhicaryâvatâra means: “Introduction to the Practice of Bodhi,” which, according to the text of the book and the Tibetan version, is to be understood as: “Introduction to the Practice of the Bodhisattvas.”
Bodhi is knowledge, nourished by good works, that makes Buddhas: it is the supreme enlightenment that Çâkyamuni attained beneath the Tree, after conquering Mâra, god of love and death. Until that moment, in his last existence as in his former lives, he was a Bodhisattva, that is to say, a “future Buddha,” a “candidate for Bodhi.”
The oldest literature, known as that of the “Lesser Vehicle,” regards Buddhas and future Buddhas as beings of infinite rarity: it chiefly names three Buddhas of the past, Çâkyamuni, and the Buddha of the future, Maitreya, “the benevolent,” who is still only a “future Buddha.” The ancient lives of Çâkyamuni are recounted, and how, in animal or human forms, he practised the various virtues; he is shown, in his penultimate existence, as king of the “contented gods,” and, in the last, as a man of wondrous body, “bearing the marks of great men,” marks which he shares with “sovereign kings.”
But nowhere does the idea arise that the destiny of the future Buddha and of the Buddha is not a destiny apart. The faithful man aspires not to become a Buddha: all he wishes is to attain the state of Arhat, an ascetic ripe for extinction, who lives his last existence; to escape the circle of transmigration, and to enter nirvâna.
The concept of nirvâna, which is the cessation of sentient, passionate, conscious life, dominates the concept of Arhat. In order not to be reborn, the Arhat must destroy desire, from which action arises, and from action the fruit of action, that is to say, a new existence. His law will therefore be abstention. And upon this wholly negative moral code will be superimposed an intellectual discipline tending towards the present suppression of consciousness; this is the practice of the four “ecstasies.” — The Buddha, receptacle of all knowledge, treasure of all merits, is a useful object of meditation; but He is not a helpful god, nor is He a model.
The concept of nirvâna, which is the cessation of sentient, passionate, conscious life, dominates the concept of Arhat. In order not to be reborn, the Arhat must destroy desire, from which action arises, and from action the fruit of action, that is to say, a new existence. His law will therefore be abstention. And upon this wholly negative moral code will be superimposed an intellectual discipline tending towards the present suppression of consciousness; this is the practice of the four “ecstasies.” — The Buddha, receptacle of all knowledge, treasure of all merits, is a useful object of meditation; but He is not a helpful god, nor is He a model.