Mundane vs. Supramundane Teachings

Dakini

If, as some members say, the Supramundane teachings of the Buddha were for advanced practitioners, and the mundane teachings were adapted for ordinary people, why bother with the mundane teachings? Why do experts quote them? Why doesn't someone publish a collection of the supramundane teachings as a handbook for advanced practitioners?

DhammaDhatu

imo, it may be useful to start with the question: "why am i interested in buddhism?"

Vajraheart

If, as some members say, the Supramundane teachings of the Buddha were for advanced practitioners, and the mundane teachings were adapted for ordinary people, why bother with the mundane teachings? Why do experts quote them? Why doesn't someone publish a collection of the supramundane teachings as a handbook for advanced practitioners?

Well, there is. It's the Dzogchen tradition. Which previously one could not come into contact of until one had a great degree of understanding in the other yanas (vehicles) as well as having experience with them.

genkaku

why bother with the mundane teachings?
________________________________

@Dakini -- I'm not a big fan of making distinctions like this (mundane vs. supramundane tends to fall on their face with examination), but it is true that trying to run before you can walk is a fool's errand. Children and other impatient people want to get to the end before they've even found a sure-footed beginning. That's the reason, I think, that we practice.

santhisouk

There is no point in creating a supramundane handbook. It would lead the masses into supramundane confusion. As if the mundane teachings weren't confusing enough already to most people.

Vajraheart

There is no point in creating a supramundane handbook. It would lead the masses into supramundane confusion. As if the mundane teachings weren't confusing enough already to most people.

I agree, the distinction can seem somewhat superfluous.

But, often I find people completely misunderstanding the Dzogchen teachings because they don't have a firm understanding of the more easily understood teachings, like Nagarjuna for instance. Which many find hard to understand as well because they don't even have a firm understanding of the Pali Suttas. But, I find a lot of theists in the West go for Dzogchen because it seems to cater to their pre-disposition for larger Self clinging. Which is a mistaken view in Dzogchen.

Also, the methods are definitely not for the "mundane minded" which is different from saying, "mundane teachings." It's said that one should not even embark on the teachings of Dzogchen without stabilization in the lower jhanas. Therefore, one could say that a person should have some level of supermundane realization before even picking up a Dzogchen book. If you have any understanding of Buddhism, and you pick up a Dzogchen book, you will either get mad and say, "this isn't Buddhism", or you will say, "Oh, yea... I'm not ready for this yet", or you will fall into direct experiencing of "primordial awareness"... which does not mean supermundane "Self."

People who know the intention of Vajrayana and Dzogchen can understand the difference between these teachings and the other yanas.

Dakini

@Dakini -- I'm not a big fan of making distinctions like this (mundane vs. supramundane tends to fall on their face with examination), but it is true that trying to run before you can walk is a fool's errand. Children and other impatient people want to get to the end before they've even found a sure-footed beginning. That's the reason, I think, that we practice.

Thanks for your answers, guys. I just want to explain, I'd never heard of mundane and supramundane teachings of the Buddha until I joined this forum, so I've been trying to get my mind around what that's all about, ever since.

OK, genkaku; I get the idea that the mundane teachings are training wheels for the supramundane. But that type of analogy doesn't hold across the board. For example [DISCLAIMER: this is NOT a discussion about rebirth! The following is just an illustration of the distinction between mundane and supramundane teachings. No dead horse, please.] It's said that in the mundane teachings, the Buddha taught rebirth, because the public he was teaching already believed in rebirth, so he tailored his teachings to his audience. And he reportedly didn't teach rebirth to monks because he personally didn't believe in rebirth. So this is why I can't help but wonder: why are we bothering with the mundane teaching if it's not what he really believed? And why do Buddhologists quote the mundane teachings as proof the Buddha intended to teach rebirth, if the mundane teachings aren't the real deal? In this regard, anyway.

And if, as genkaku says, the distinction between mundane and supramundane is perhaps a false dichotomy, then why are such heated and interminable discussions generated over the difference between the two (on certain topice)?

I'm just trying to keep up, guys. This is still relatively new to me. :facepalm:

DhammaDhatu

mundane = "self"; "me"

supramundane = "not-self", "emptiness of self"; mere elements

genkaku

mundane = "self"; "me"

supramundane = "not-self", "emptiness of self"; mere elements

@ Dhamma Dhatu -- Is distinguishing something called self from something called not-self a mundane or supramundane teaching?

why are such heated and interminable discussions generated over the difference between the two (on certain topice)?

@Dakini -- The first reason that comes to mind is, "There's nothing good on television just now." Less facetiously, perhaps, is the possibility that by discussing such things (with fervor of course), there is no time to realize and actualize the foundation of what is called mundane and what is called supramundane.

Just my take.

santhisouk

It's said that in the mundane teachings, the Buddha taught rebirth, because the public he was teaching already believed in rebirth, so he tailored his teachings to his audience. And he reportedly didn't teach rebirth to monks because he personally didn't believe in rebirth. So this is why I can't help but wonder: why are we bothering with the mundane teaching if it's not what he really believed? And why do Buddhologists quote the mundane teachings as proof the Buddha intended to teach rebirth, if the mundane teachings aren't the real deal? In this regard, anyway

Somewhere along the line I think somebody confused rebirth with reincarnation. It doesn't make sense to teach something you don't believe in.

rebirth = born again through attachment.

reincarnation = born to the world again with the same soul but different body/form.

Buddhism does not believe in the universal soul.

There is a good talk here:
http://abmp3.com/mp3/ajahn-sumedho-kamma-rebirth.html

compassionate_warrior

Vajrayana Buddhism does teach, though, that there is a "very subtle mind and body" that does transmigrate from one body to another. HHDL has used the word "self" to describe this, though that may be an unusual use of the word "self", maybe a sort of shorthand. In any case, the process is described at:
www.viewonbuddhism.org/rebirth_reincarnation.html

According to other info provided by HHDL, this "very subtle mind" carries memories from past lives. He says some advanced meditators are able to still the "gross" and "subtle" minds to the point that they have access to the "very subtle mind", and are able to retrieve memories from it.

I don't know what the source of this belief is in TB, but one of our members did post about something similar from Theravada teachings.

compassionate_warrior

Follow-up: Upekka, on the "Big Topic" thread under Advanced Ideas, said the vacci shankara could be viewed as similar to the "very subtle mind" that moves on after death to a new life.

Sabre

If, as some members say, the Supramundane teachings of the Buddha were for advanced practitioners, and the mundane teachings were adapted for ordinary people, why bother with the mundane teachings? Why do experts quote them? Why doesn't someone publish a collection of the supramundane teachings as a handbook for advanced practitioners?

There is not really something like separate mundane and supramundane teachings. In fact they are the same because there is just one teaching, the 4 noble truths. But there are two kinds of practitioners, those without direct insight (mundane) and those with direct insight (supramundane). In short, if you understand the 4 noble truths by a direct encounter with nibbana you have supramundane view and otherwise not. It's that simple.

Of course the teachings have to be adjusted slightly to whoever is listening so that's where the idea of separate teachings might come from. For example someone who has supramundane view doesn't need explaining what the goal is anymore, but he might still need training on other grounds. But the Buddha didn't teach one thing to one and an opposing thing to another.

It's just like maths. There is just one kind of maths but you can't explain integral analysis to the average 10 year old.

A good collection of the teachings is this one:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf
It also has a section on supramundane vs mundane view (understanding).

With metta,
Sabre

Vajraheart

Vajrayana Buddhism does teach, though, that there is a "very subtle mind and body" that does transmigrate from one body to another. HHDL has used the word "self" to describe this, though that may be an unusual use of the word "self", maybe a sort of shorthand. In any case, the process is described at:
www.viewonbuddhism.org/rebirth_reincarnation.html

According to other info provided by HHDL, this "very subtle mind" carries memories from past lives. He says some advanced meditators are able to still the "gross" and "subtle" minds to the point that they have access to the "very subtle mind", and are able to retrieve memories from it.

I don't know what the source of this belief is in TB, but one of our members did post about something similar from Theravada teachings.

It's called the alayavijnana, but it's not a self. I've never seen the Dalai Lama use the term self outside of relative contextualization usage of it.

It's from the Chitamatra teachings, derived directly from the pali suttas, and it's not a concept that is completely different from what is elaborated in the pali suttas. In fact, there are plenty of people who can explain it's context from the pali suttas with greater scholarship than I. But, it's not a very subtle self existent mind.

Like I said before CW, please provide exact quotes, because I know, due to much study of the Vajrayana, that you are mistaken in your assumption.

There is no very subtle self existence that is inherent, and not relative according to Vajrayana. Even the Alayavijnana is a formless and unconscious platform for re-becoming derived directly from an beginningless personal attachment to inherent selfhood. The storehouse consciousness is nothing other than what it is a storage of, which are seeds of self attachment, or self identity deep within the formless realms, experienced in deep jhanic bliss. There is no ultimate self there, except in the relative sense. How else should I explain this? It is just an elaboration upon the earliest teachings of the Buddha, but plenty misunderstand this. It's not a new "self" doctrine, at all!

This is where the Dalai Lama got his teaching from.

"According to Walpola Rahula, all the elements of the Yogacara storehouse-consciousness are already found in the Pali Canon. He writes that the three layers of the mind (citta, manas, and vijnana) as presented by Asanga are also used in the Pali Canon: "Thus we can see that Vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the Vijnanaskanda. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta which is here called Alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future possibilities."

So you see, the storehouse consciousness is an aggregated consciousness as well, and is not a self, except in the relative sense. It's the most subtle aspect of ones personal and relative self.

Vajraheart

If, as some members say, the Supramundane teachings of the Buddha were for advanced practitioners, and the mundane teachings were adapted for ordinary people, why bother with the mundane teachings? Why do experts quote them? Why doesn't someone publish a collection of the supramundane teachings as a handbook for advanced practitioners?

There is not really something like separate mundane and supramundane teachings. In fact they are the same because there is just one teaching, the 4 noble truths. But there are two kinds of practitioners, those without direct insight (mundane) and those with direct insight (supramundane). In short, if you understand the 4 noble truths by a direct encounter with nibbana you have supramundane view and otherwise not. It's that simple.

Exactly.

You can't really teach about the nuances of the direct experience to people without that nuanced direct experience. Just like as you said, you don't teach algebra to students who are still learning 1,2,3,4.

SpinyNorman2

If, as some members say, the Supramundane teachings of the Buddha were for advanced practitioners, and the mundane teachings were adapted for ordinary people, why bother with the mundane teachings?

I haven't come across any evidence for this idea in the suttas, and I don't find it convincing. As I see it mundane teachings are the foundation for supramundane teachings, so it's about a progression of understanding. First we need a good grasp of the "basics", then we can move on to the more subtle stuff.

Spiny

SpinyNorman2

There is not really something like separate mundane and supramundane teachings. In fact they are the same because there is just one teaching, the 4 noble truths. But there are two kinds of practitioners, those without direct insight (mundane) and those with direct insight (supramundane). In short, if you understand the 4 noble truths by a direct encounter with nibbana you have supramundane view and otherwise not. It's that simple.

I agree.

Spiny

SpinyNorman2

mundane = "self"; "me"

supramundane = "not-self", "emptiness of self"; mere elements

Interesting idea, but what are you basing this on?

Spiny

Cloud

I don't believe there's such a thing as supramundane teachings, only supramundane knowing, i.e. stream-entry and beyond. Words are just words, can never be anything other than words, and can only ever point to truths beyond them. Everything we are taught is mundane/conceptual, but is taught for the purpose of leading to the supramundane, at which point it is beyond words (not that someone can't try to explain it, but you'd never understand it unless you experienced it for yourself).

DhammaDhatu

There is not really something like separate mundane and supramundane teachings.

:wow:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

upekka

I don't believe there's such a thing as supramundane teachings, only supramundane knowing, i.e. stream-entry and beyond. Words are just words, can never be anything other than words, and can only ever point to truths beyond them. Everything we are taught is mundane/conceptual, but is taught for the purpose of leading to the supramundane, at which point it is beyond words (not that someone can't try to explain it, but you'd never understand it unless you experienced it for yourself).

exactly

Vajraheart

I don't believe there's such a thing as supramundane teachings, only supramundane knowing, i.e. stream-entry and beyond. Words are just words, can never be anything other than words, and can only ever point to truths beyond them. Everything we are taught is mundane/conceptual, but is taught for the purpose of leading to the supramundane, at which point it is beyond words (not that someone can't try to explain it, but you'd never understand it unless you experienced it for yourself).

Well, Dzogchen methods are less conceptual based and more supermundane experience based.

So, there are supermundane teachings, but these teachings reflect the supermundane capacity of the student and the teacher only grants access to the subtler aspects of Dzogchen upon adequate revelation of experience.

Dazzle

Dzogchen is just about relaxing and letting go.

Vajraheart

Dzogchen is just about relaxing and letting go.

That's a practice, but it's more than that. Because that real relaxing has to do with recognizing rigpa, not just physical body relaxing. It's a subtler level of relaxing, chakra relaxing, prana relaxing, the winds enter the shashumna relaxing, relaxing in blissful awareness. The phrase, "relaxing into the re-cognition of rigpa" can be endlessly unpacked. Otherwise the Dzogchen Masters wouldn't have written many, many texts about it, and Tertons would not have found different methods left by Padmasambhava to be revealed at particular times over the centuries to be passed on.

If you truly are re-cognizant of rigpa... then you are seeing through everything into the radiance's. That's Buddhahood!

'Since everything is but an apparition
Perfect in being what it is,
Having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection,
One may well burst out in laughter.'
LONGCHENPA

Dazzle

"Because that real relaxing has to do with recognizing rigpa"

Sure, I already know that, so its not necessary to give me a 'teaching'... but thanks anyway !

SpinyNorman2

There is not really something like separate mundane and supramundane teachings.

:wow:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

The distinction here is not between different types of teachings, but between mundane and noble right view. So I think Sabre is correct. The distinction is not primarily about different types of teachings, but about whether the practitioner has developed direct insight into the teachings, ie wisdom.

There are no inferior or superior teachings, there are no quick paths, it's all just propaganda put out by people who should know better.

Spiny

Vajraheart

"Because that real relaxing has to do with recognizing rigpa"

Sure, I already know that, so its not necessary to give me a 'teaching'... but thanks anyway !

Ok, awesome!! Well then, maybe it was said for someone else.

BuckyG

I like the way Ajaan Lee explains it in his book, The Craft of the Heart; for instance at the end of the section, "Jhana" and the sections, "The Nine Stages of Liberating Insight" and, "Turning The Mundane Path into the Transcendent Path."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/craft.html#top

DhammaDhatu

The distinction here is not between different types of teachings, but between mundane and noble right view. So I think Sabre is correct. The distinction is not primarily about different types of teachings, but about whether the practitioner has developed direct insight into the teachings, ie wisdom.

There are no inferior or superior teachings, there are no quick paths, it's all just propaganda put out by people who should know better.

Spiny

I can only suggest you read the Buddha's teaching quoted.

The teachings are distinctly different, as shown.

So, the quotation is contrary to your assertion that you and Sabre are correct.

The mundane teachings are about 'self' or the existence of 'beings', the right view of 'existence', good & bad karma, etc.

Supramundane is about impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self, emptiness, non-attachment, the karma that ends karma, etc.

Regards

DhammaDhatu

Interesting idea, but what are you basing this on?

I could answer your question but I have done multiple times on your behalf on multiple forums.

As Jesus said, one cannot pour new wine into old skins, one cannot teach old dogs new tricks.

Regards

Floating_Abu

I don't believe there's such a thing as supramundane teachings, only supramundane knowing, i.e. stream-entry and beyond. Words are just words, can never be anything other than words, and can only ever point to truths beyond them. Everything we are taught is mundane/conceptual, but is taught for the purpose of leading to the supramundane, at which point it is beyond words (not that someone can't try to explain it, but you'd never understand it unless you experienced it for yourself).

:cool:

"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.

"The knowledge that comes from a mind that's quiet is extremely subtle and profound. So let your knowledge come out of a mind quiet and still."

~ Ajahn Dune Atulo

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajaan_Atulo_Dhamma_Legacy.htm

Floating_Abu

Dzogchen is just about relaxing and letting go.

'just'? Funny...

Dazzle

Dzogchen is just about relaxing and letting go.

'just'? Funny...

I didn't know that you were an expert on Dzogchen as well as Theravada and Zen, Abu ! My goodness, I prostrate to all your accomplishments !

:bowdown:

Dakini

Dazzle, I think you've given people a mistaken impression, by posting such a simplified statement. Many members don't know you're an old pro at Vajrayana, so they may take your post as a newbie's. Maybe you could explain what you intended by that post, to dispel any possible misunderstandings.

Dazzle

Hi Dakini, Dzogchen isn't complicated, but depends on instruction/transmission from a teacher and Vajraheart more or less continued from where I left off.

Abu has known me on forums for 3 years or more and knows very well that I used to be a Vajrayana practitioner- but thanks for your concern.

dorje

I think @Dazzle, like me and maybe @Vajraheart has seen that the essence of all the Vajrayana practices comes back to Vipassana and Shamata.

Dazzle

I think @Dazzle, like me and maybe @Vajraheart has seen that the essence of all the Vajrayana practices comes back to Vipassana and Shamata.

Indeed.

Vajraheart

I think @Dazzle, like me and maybe @Vajraheart has seen that the essence of all the Vajrayana practices comes back to Vipassana and Shamata.

Sure, the practice of insight (vipassana) and clear awareness/calm abiding (samatha) or the experience of insight and clear awareness. When you have the latter to a degree of stabilization, a teacher introduces methods of deepening and stabilizing it on a 24 hour basis, which is what Dzogchen/Mahamudra is all about, full on integration.

Anyway... yes.

compassionate_warrior

Vajrayana Buddhism does teach, though, that there is a "very subtle mind and body" that does transmigrate from one body to another.

According to other info provided by HHDL, this "very subtle mind" carries memories from past lives. He says some advanced meditators are able to still the "gross" and "subtle" minds to the point that they have access to the "very subtle mind", and are able to retrieve memories from it.

It's called the alayavijnana, but it's not a self. I've never seen the Dalai Lama use the term self outside of relative contextualization usage of it.


Like I said before CW, please provide exact quotes, because I know, due to much study of the Vajrayana, that you are mistaken in your assumption.

V-H, FYI, that info from the DL about retrieving memories from the "very subtle mind" is from the same quote as the "very subtle mind, which is the self" quote. These are posted by "person" on the "reincarnation =/= separation of body + mind" thread, middle of page 1. I think you gave a good explanation of it in your "this is where HHDL got his teaching from". If the alayavijnana carries traces or impressions of past actions, that would be what HHDL refers to as accessing the "very subtle mind" to retrieve past life memories, that's how I read it. I'm not assuming anything here, I'm just asking questions about HHDL's use of "self" in this context, and trying to clarify this business about how past life recall is achieved. Thanks for your patience.

Vajraheart

Vajrayana Buddhism does teach, though, that there is a "very subtle mind and body" that does transmigrate from one body to another.

According to other info provided by HHDL, this "very subtle mind" carries memories from past lives. He says some advanced meditators are able to still the "gross" and "subtle" minds to the point that they have access to the "very subtle mind", and are able to retrieve memories from it.

It's called the alayavijnana, but it's not a self. I've never seen the Dalai Lama use the term self outside of relative contextualization usage of it.


Like I said before CW, please provide exact quotes, because I know, due to much study of the Vajrayana, that you are mistaken in your assumption.

V-H, FYI, that info from the DL about retrieving memories from the "very subtle mind" is from the same quote as the "very subtle mind, which is the self" quote. These are posted by "person" on the "reincarnation =/= separation of body + mind" thread, middle of page 1. I think you gave a good explanation of it in your "this is where HHDL got his teaching from". If the alayavijnana carries traces or impressions of past actions, that would be what HHDL refers to as accessing the "very subtle mind" to retrieve past life memories, that's how I read it. I'm not assuming anything here, I'm just asking questions about HHDL's use of "self" in this context, and trying to clarify this business about how past life recall is achieved. Thanks for your patience.

@compassionate_warrior

I apologize for my assumption now. LOL! Ok, so yes, there is that alayvijnana which is kind of the personal storage of all possible individual selves that you may have from life to life. It's all still relative and not ultimate though. That's all. Thank you for YOUR patience.

person

V-H, FYI, that info from the DL about retrieving memories from the "very subtle mind" is from the same quote as the "very subtle mind, which is the self" quote. These are posted by "person" on the "reincarnation =/= separation of body + mind" thread, middle of page 1. I think you gave a good explanation of it in your "this is where HHDL got his teaching from". If the alayavijnana carries traces or impressions of past actions, that would be what HHDL refers to as accessing the "very subtle mind" to retrieve past life memories, that's how I read it. I'm not assuming anything here, I'm just asking questions about HHDL's use of "self" in this context, and trying to clarify this business about how past life recall is achieved. Thanks for your patience.

I just dug up that quote from some random google search and it was intended for the paragraph on how memories are carried on from life to life. I included the sentence on self just for the context. I'm new to the forum and didn't realize how big of a controversy rebirth is here. Thanks for clearing up any confusion I may have caused @vajraheart.

Vajraheart

I just dug up that quote from some random google search and it was intended for the paragraph on how memories are carried on from life to life. I included the sentence on self just for the context. I'm new to the forum and didn't realize how big of a controversy rebirth is here. Thanks for clearing up any confusion I may have caused @vajraheart.

@person

Not at all a problem. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the topic.

Vincenzi

for now, I consider the supramundane/mundane duality as derogatory and intentionaly misleading terms, on par with hina/mahayana.

Floating_Abu

Dzogchen is just about relaxing and letting go.

'just'? Funny...

I didn't know that you were an expert on Dzogchen as well as Theravada and Zen, Abu ! My goodness, I prostrate to all your accomplishments !

:bowdown:

You're welcome. And you could certainly learn some kindneses that is for sure - why don't you look that up in all traditions, and you will be surprised perhaps to see how similar they really are 'in essence' (simplified that one just for you).

Well wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu

for now, I consider the supramundane/mundane duality as derogatory and intentionaly misleading terms, on par with hina/mahayana.

@Vincenzi

What choice is there but to just keep practicing anyway?

Well wishes,
Abu

compassionate_warrior

I just dug up that quote from some random google search and it was intended for the paragraph on how memories are carried on from life to life. I included the sentence on self just for the context. I'm new to the forum and didn't realize how big of a controversy rebirth is here. Thanks for clearing up any confusion I may have caused @vajraheart.

No need to apologize or explain, person. It was a very valuable quote you found, providing many with an opportunity to learn. The paragraph on the mechanics of how memories are passed on was especially valuable, all of it was great. You found a gem, thanks for posting it.

Sabre

There is not really something like separate mundane and supramundane teachings.

:wow:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything here supporting the idea of separate teachings. It talks about three different kind of views, that's something totally different. But I see a sutta that warns against many people misinterpreting the original teaching. Kind of funny you bring that up, so I don't have to do that anymore :nyah:

Sabre

DhammaDhatu

But I see a sutta that warns against many people misinterpreting the original teaching.

Mundane right view = view of existence; view of beings (refer to MN 60)

Supramundane view = view of neither existence nor non-existence; view of no "beings" (SN 12.15)

Dazzle

Dzogchen is just about relaxing and letting go.

'just'? Funny...

I didn't know that you were an expert on Dzogchen as well as Theravada and Zen, Abu ! My goodness, I prostrate to all your accomplishments !

:bowdown:

You're welcome. And you could certainly learn some kindneses that is for sure - why don't you look that up in all traditions, and you will be surprised perhaps to see how similar they really are 'in essence' (simplified that one just for you).

Well wishes,
Abu

Thanks as always for your loving comments and well wishes, Abu dear.

SpinyNorman2

I can only suggest you read the Buddha's teaching quoted.

The teachings are distinctly different, as shown.

So, the quotation is contrary to your assertion that you and Sabre are correct.

The quotation in question distuishes between mundane and supramundane right view, not between mundane and supramundane teachings.
Clearly there are different levels of teachings, but that doesn't mean some are inferior.

Spiny

SpinyNorman2

for now, I consider the supramundane/mundane duality as derogatory and intentionaly misleading terms, on par with hina/mahayana.

Yes, this distinction CAN be made in a rather condescending way, ie "I'm clever so I've moved on to those advanced supramundane teachings".
Though actually in the suttas I can only recall this distinction being made in relation to right view, not to different levels of teachings.

Spiny