Why did he ignore or refuse Brahma's request at first? When he was sitting, he did not realize his sitting was for all human beings. By the request of Brahma, he realized that all he did for getting indictment was for all human beings, to save all human beings. At that point, when Brahma requested, he realized all he tried to get indictment for for long time was all to save human beings. This is a Bodhisattva.

[01:04]

This is a Bodhisattva's will. Does Pratyekabuddha try to get indictment for all sentient beings, but does not know? No. Pratyekabuddha tried only for himself. There must be some person who tried only for himself, who tried to get indictment only for himself. They are called Pratyekabuddha. And also, who got indictment only for himself is a Pratyekabuddha. What would it take for him to become a Buddha? He has to also preach. There must be someone's request.

[02:06]

Yes. I just finished reading some of Lama Yogananda's work, and he talks about nirvana, as returning to the stream, which includes everything, as being nirvana. He says that even compassion or joy are still mundane or worldly, and may not exist in nirvana. So what I'm asking is, did Buddha have to give up first the idea of saving all sentient beings, and then give up his nirvana in order to save them? Is that what happened? Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'll try to ask more simply. Yes. I'm asking whether when Buddha became enlightened, did he have to give up even his intention

[03:19]

of saving all sentient beings in order to understand nirvana, or did he give up his nirvana in order to teach? In order to teach, no. No. To teach Buddha's teaching is compassion. It came out from his wisdom, pranayama. So, the... Gautama Buddha... Gautama Buddha's compassion came out from his wisdom, and he tried to enlighten all

[04:29]

sentient beings, and... He has pranayama, enlightenment. He does not give up. And the bodhisattva's way, bodhisattva is now trying to get enlightenment. Bodhisattva is always trying to save all human beings. Although he has not yet arrived at nirvana stage, he's always trying to save all human beings. And through doing, through practicing of his making all human beings enlightenment, or to save all human beings, his practice is elevated.

[05:35]

So, bodhisattva's practice is to say, through his practice, he's going to nirvana. And Gautama Buddha is different. He got enlightenment, and he preached. He preached. This is compassion. The bodhisattva way is different. He's not at the stage of nirvana. And sometimes in Mahayana Buddhism, we say that one should not... One, for getting enlightenment, should not only at the stage of nirvana. He should come to the mundane. And you should preach. You should forget your nirvana. It means you should not...

[06:41]

It does not mean you should forget nirvana. The real practice of wisdom, enlightenment, has a function really in mundane stage. Therefore, enlightenment, wisdom, has its function in this world, in the mundane stage. So, therefore, come from nirvana stage to mundane stage. So, sometimes in Mahayana scripture, it emphasizes like this. But it does not mean you should forget nirvana and come to this world. You should bring nirvana to this world. Does this make any sense? Yes. Before Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment, was he a bodhisattva?

[07:49]

When he got enlightenment, you mean? At Bodhgaya, when he got enlightenment? Has he practiced to attain enlightenment? Yes, he was a bodhisattva. And when he got enlightenment at Bodhgaya, he was Pratyekabuddha. He was Pratyekabuddha. And he became real Buddha at Sarnath, when he proclaimed his first sermon. Is this the same thing as saying the end justifies the means? Since Buddha started off motivated as a Pratyekabuddha to practice, and after that he became enlightened, or he became a bodhisattva. Does this mean the end... Not he became a bodhisattva, he became the Buddha.

[08:54]

He became the Buddha. But does this mean that the end justifies the means, and that he had to go... I mean, him being a bodhisattva, becoming a bodhisattva, after being a Pratyekabuddha, being enlightened, does that justify him being a Pratyekabuddha to begin with? That little... The expression, end justifies the means, is used to justify all kinds of things, and it's too much of a focal English expression, I think, for him to understand the implication of it. But the confusion happening in the question is, you're confusing the narrative explanation of the progress of a bodhisattva with the Prajnaparamita explanation of a bodhisattva, which is timeless, in which there's no scale of narrative

[09:55]

where you can say, first you're a bodhisattva, because the Buddha, nirvana and samsara are the same. So, bodhisattva and all these terms mean both things, that the seed and the plant are simultaneous. So, some of you are asking questions which have to do with the confusion of the Prajnaparamita or Diamond Sutra way of describing bodhisattva with the narrative, historical way of describing it. And he's talking about the narrative way and how that's understood. Yeah. Thank you very much. I think we can, maybe tonight we'll talk again, he'll give us some talk, and we'll do it in the dining room, and we can go on a little longer. So, maybe now, maybe we can continue some of this this evening. Yes.

[10:46]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ