This week’s readings focused on the work of the 8th-century monk, Shantideva. The Introduction and Appendices of The Way of the Bodhisattva provided an excellent overview and foundation for understanding the actual writing of Shantideva in A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life.

There is a particular emphasis on bodhicitta in these readings. Bodhicitta is translated in the Introduction as

“awakening mind” (The Way 3),

and it can be further described as a state of mind which leads one to aspire to buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. The author of the introduction expresses amazement at the very fact that stirrings toward bodhicitta can take place:

“that an impulse toward perfect altruism and self-forgetting can arise at all seems nothing short of miraculous” (The Way 4).

Indeed, stirrings toward bodhicitta should be celebrated and protected in a world entrenched in materialism and ego. This is exactly why Shantideva advocates for the deliberate and active maintenance of bodhicitta; mental states and insights are ephemeral and must be reinforced so they do not fade away. This idea is expanded in verse 1.6 of Shantideva’s Guide:

“Thus, virtue is perpetually ever so feeble, while the power of vice is great and extremely dreadful.”

A state of constant vigilance over one’s thoughts and actions is recommended in order to protect the bodhicitta, and prevent kleshas, or defiled emotions (The Way 11).

This vigilance is a theme that is repeatedly emphasized in this week’s readings. Shantideva understands the havoc that can be wreaked by unattended thoughts, and goes so far as to say that there are no ultimately innocent victims in samsara. Every suffering in one’s life can be traced back to one of one’s own thoughts or actions (The Way 8). To Shantideva, evil is defined by causality: evil is that which is productive of suffering in this or any future existence, and suffering comes as a consequence of one’s own action, rather than as a retribution inflicted by an external power. Therefore, it is suggested that all actions, even the most seemingly insignificant, must be monitored and deliberated upon, because any action can lead to another being’s suffering.

Chapter 5 of Shantideva’s Guide goes into great depth about why and how to safeguard the unsteady mind from afflictive states. An argument that I found effective was the idea that we very diligently guard sensitive parts of our body, like a broken limb in a large crowd of people, so it only makes sense that we would guard our damaged minds with the same rigor (Guide 5.20). On the other hand, Shantideva goes on to look critically at why we are so attached to the body at all:

“Mind, why do you protect this body, appropriating it as your own? If it is really separate from you, what good is it to you? If you do not consider as your own a pure wooden statue, why are you guarding this foul machine composed of impurities?” (Guide 5.60-61).

It is a bit unsettling to read about how Shantideva describes the body. We go out of our way every day to protect and nurture our bodies, so it is a bit disturbing (albeit fascinating and reasonable) to look critically at what the body actually is: a fundamentally separate entity from the mind.

Shantideva’s dedication to impartiality between good and evil is provocative, and can be difficult to accept at times. In particular, the notion that there are no ultimately innocent victims in samsara does not quite sit well with me. I think we can all imagine certain situations in which a victim truly is innocent, and taking on the belief that that person’s suffering must have been caused by one of their past actions, even in a distant past life, could be incredibly counterproductive to that person’s healing. Though one can reasonably come to the same conclusions as Shantideva, they are certainly not so easy to apply in practice. I wonder if modern interpretations of these teachings have any specific advice for victims of violence or other traumatic experiences, while still maintaining the same core teachings of Shantideva? I imagine there must be a way to communicate information about the root of suffering in a way that does not evoke typical victim-blaming rhetoric.

In all of Shantideva’s writings––and indeed, in a great number of other readings for this class––I am struck by just how different Buddhist teachings are from how we live our lives in the West. Reading verse 8.113 of Shantideva’s Guide helped me to more fully recognize the cultural differences between American culture and the culture fostered by Buddhism:

“Acknowledging oneself as fault-ridden and others as oceans of virtues, one should contemplate renouncing one’s self-identity and accepting others.”

This one sentence is almost entirely contrary to how American society operates. I’m thinking specifically of the self-serving bias described by psychology, which suggests that we disproportionately credit ourselves when good things happen to us, and blame external factors when bad things happen to us. We do the opposite when it comes to other people: we tend to credit external factors when good things happen to another person, and blame that person when something bad happens to them. Buddhism asks us to do the exact opposite. We are supposed to openly acknowledge our own faults, and dedicate ourselves to seeing virtue in others, and improving others’ welfare.