Best Of

@Kotishka said:
Also, a question arises, when a Bodhisattva reaches his ultimate state, how can he remain and practice without being deluded again when he experiences re-birth? If there is no self, what then becomes Enlightened and leaves the rest behind?

One could also say, if there is no self, what then transmigrates and is reborn in saṃsāra? Your version of the question is, if there is no self, what then becomes enlightened and leaves saṃsāra?

The only answer I have for you is an empty scholasticism. I don't know the secrets of dependent origination, anātman, and Nirvāṇa anymore than anyone else who listens to the monks teach and reads a lot. "What transmigrates," like "what feels," and "for whom are there saṃskāras" is a question that the Buddha often declines to answer. In the Avijjāpaccayasutta at SN12.35, the Buddha has a dialogue with a bhikṣu whose name has not been preserved in the current redactions of the Buddhist texts:

“Venerable sir, what now are volitional formations, and for whom are there these volitional formations?”

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one says, ‘What now are volitional formations, and for whom are there these volitional formations?’ or whether one says, ‘Volitional formations are one thing, the one for whom there are these volitional formations is another’—both these assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing. If there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ there is no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one thing, the body is another,’ there is no living of the holy life.

(from the translation by Venerable Bodhi)

In the Mahāyāna, Nirvāṇa is said to be non-abiding. What "non-abiding" means here has to be unpacked however, because I'm going to be saying in a second that the Buddhas "abide" in Nirvāṇa, seemingly contradicting myself.

Please keep in mind that this is all my own opinion, and that I am not speaking with the doctrinal weight of an established scholastic opinion behind me.

In the teaching of the Mahāyāna, the Buddhas are not said to be destroyed by extinguishment, nor are they eternally existent in an all-encompassing realm of Nirvāṇa, as if gone to a mysterious abode. There are similes and metaphors that speak of "the city of Nirvāṇa," but these in my experience are not to be taken literally (i.e. as if there was a great Nirvāṇa-realm populated by the Buddhas that existed outside of time and space or something like that). Similarly, Nirvāṇa is extinguishment only because it is the extinguishment of the three fires of greed, ignorance, and hatred. It is for the sake of pointing out the extinction of these three things that it is called "extinguishment" and "extinction," nothing more nothing less.

In "Śrāvaka Buddhism" (i.e. "non-Mahāyāna Buddhism") the Buddha disappears into Parinirvāṇa, never to engage with the world ever again. Now, that's quite a sweeping statement, and when we read it, we should remember that Mahāyāna Buddhism has a history of sectarian polemics with non-Theravādin continental schools of Indian Buddhism. Either way, accurately or not, the general Mahāyāna tradition has a tendency to understand the Śrāvaka as believing that he will enter into a kind of death with Parinirvāṇa. The Mahāyāna rejects this framing of things. Whether this is a strawman is an entirely different conversation.

So what does it mean for Nirvāṇa to be "non-abiding?" Ironically, it means that Nirvāṇa is "always abiding" for the Buddhas. "Above, he holds on to the root of mysteries; [and] below, he reaches out to lift the weak and the forlorn" (Venerable Sēngzhào 肇論 Zhào's Essays T1858.158a4). It is a Mahāyāna teaching that the Buddhas always abide in Nirvāṇa, even when appearing to interact with and engage with the world. All of the mental activities that the Buddha manifests in order to teach the world are nothing more than the pure samādhis of the Āryans, but he makes a show of entering and exiting the dhyānas and the samāpattis for the sake of edifying living beings.

@Bunks said:
Can I suggest you're perhaps over thinking this?

You may. I am.

I overthink because I suffer.
I suffer because I overthink.

As it pertains to relationships, this may be a knot a step or so ahead of where I perceive myself capable of untangling.

I overthink because I suffer.
I suffer because I overthink.

(In time) this too shall pass @FleaMarket ....

In a nutshell answer to all the questions

I guess one would conduct oneself in a Sati, Metta and Karuna manner, that is, being mindful, using loving kindness and compassion to overcome difficulties and to connect with others and this from what I gather comes from ongoing practice...

Tis said that 'Love' conquers all ...

“The time of our delusion does not obstruct the time of our realization. Our practice is not in order to attain realization. Practice itself is the actualization of realization."

~Dogen~

Can I suggest you're perhaps over thinking this?

Just try to be nice to people.

But if they're not nice in return then it probably depends on the relationship as to how you respond. I have a tweenage daughter who can be a right little s**t at times but she's my daughter so I stick it out and love her regardless. However, if it were a friend behaving in such a way I'd give them a few chances (apparently the Buddha suggested 7) then kick 'em to the curb......I've had to do this once or twice before.

But that's just me.