Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
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
The person who is condescending thus (as a theoretical case) would just be showing their own level of practice wouldn't they, Spiny One? i.e. It's just a reflection of the person and whether there is supramundane or not in the teachings, I reckon only practice can tell.
The quotation in question distuishes between mundane and supramundane right view, not between mundane and supramundane teachings.
No, it doesn't.
Example, the quotation states mundane right view is there are fruits & results of good & bad actions (kamma), which include spontaneously reborn beings.
Where as the supramundane right view is the is kamma that it neither good nor bad, the kamma that ends karma, which results in the realisation of not-self or no beings.
Mundane and supramundane are also associated with different teachings, as show above.
For example, in MN 60, it states the mundane householder should follow the view of existence.
Where as SN 12.15 states the supramundane right view is neither existence nor non-existence.
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane". Pay them no attention because there is no difference. It is just in the minds eye that this kind of sophistication arises. Isn't there more interesting and important things to be doing with our brief stay on this planet, than making arbitrary distinctions between orange and red. Between even good and bad? It is only the "super Buddhists" who know the answer to these rather inane questions. Though they can not love their fellow human being, they can give lip service to the "finer" points of scholarly "Buddhism." Just chop the wood, and carry the water....suffer when you suffer, and be what you are without pretense. Forget the mental gymnastics that so many so called Buddhists argue about, in fact stop being Buddhist at all, it only gives one a false sense of identity that the ego needs to be self important. .
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane". Pay them no attention because there is no difference.
That's right. They are fools. They also often use it for diversion. Ignore them and remember there's nothing more ordinary than nirvana. If the distinction's an important part of the path, your experience on the path will confirm or dis-confirm it, not what someone else said about it. Especially someone on an internet forum! You don't have to join in they're trafficking in and clinging to wrong views. How would that be relevant to your duties as and aspirant?
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 imagine that in the buddha's time, and probably for a good while after, it was all mundane.
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane". Pay them no attention because there is no difference.
That's right. They are fools. They also often use it for diversion. Ignore them and remember there's nothing more ordinary than nirvana. If the distinction's an important part of the path, your experience on the path will confirm or dis-confirm it, not what someone else said about it. Especially someone on an internet forum! You don't have to join in they're trafficking in and clinging to wrong views. How would that be relevant to your duties as and aspirant?
I think its a bit heavy calling other members of the forum "fools" I don't think anyone who's learning about the Dharma should judge others in that way - because that's also "clinging to wrong views".
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane". Pay them no attention because there is no difference.
That's right. They are fools. They also often use it for diversion. Ignore them and remember there's nothing more ordinary than nirvana.
Are you directly contradicting what the historical Buddha taught?
And are you based on that contradiction slandering people who agree with the Buddha?
Not 'noble'.
The Blessed One said: "There is the case, Bhikkhus, where an untrained run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — [..] perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives [things] about Nibbana, he conceives [things] in Nibbana, he conceives [things] coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you. (Mulapariyaya Sutta)
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
Well, there seems to be a major difference between mundane teachings on rebirth, and supramundane. Or is this difference also a matter of interpretation??
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane". Pay them no attention because there is no difference.
The above post seems to have mistaken personal opinions for established theory.
Just chop the wood, and carry the water....suffer when you suffer
Forget the mental gymnastics that so many so called Buddhists argue about, in fact stop being Buddhist at all, it only gives one a false sense of identity that the ego needs to be self important. .
Hello Dennis
For me, I cannot agree with your post.
First, I have little interest in suffering, therefore your exhortation to "suffer when you suffer" has no relevence for me. The Buddhist path is to be free from suffering. It is not about resigning to suffering.
Second, it is not a matter of mental gymnastics. That you regard it as such is possibly one cause for your mind to continue to suffer.
Third, discussing the teachings does not necessarily give one a false sense of identity. However, suffering arises because of a false sense of identity.
So if a mind continues to "suffer when you suffer" then that mind is still caught up in a false sense of identity.
These points are not scholarly. They are matters of discernment, being able to distinguish between apples and oranges.
Apple = apple Orange = orange Suffering = false sense of identity Mundane = false sense of identity No suffering = supramundane Supramundane = no sense of identity
Sure...Nibbana is ordinary...there are seven billion human beings on the planet earth abiding in Nibbana...seven billion human beings free from greed, hatred & delusion
I agree, to say Nirvana is ordinary is not very helpful. Ordinary is wanting and suffering; Nirvana is the cessation of wanting, the cessation of suffering. It's the very opposite of ordinary or normal, and requires applying right effort in walking the path. I think people mix up the idea of Buddha-Nature and Nirvana and think it's all just word-fluff... concluding that we're all buddhas already, there's no need to do anything, yada yada. There's a lack of clear discernment of the reality of these concepts.
Cloud, the idea of Nirvana being "ordinary", or possibly "just around the corner" for any or all of us, comes from Mahayana teachings. I don't know if that also exists in Theravada. Also the idea that there are many hidden bodhisattvas among us, and worldwide, trying to make a difference among the suffering masses. So although when one takes into consideration the sheer numbers--billions of humans on the earth, from that perspective Enlightenment isn't exactly "ordinary", still, it may not be as rare and unattainable as many of us assume. This is something I've learned on this forum from some of the members. We tend to convince ourselves that Enlightenment is nearly impossible, but that's not necessarily the case.
I didn't mean anything about easy or difficult, but ordinary and normal say different things altogether. Personally I think easy and difficult don't apply... it all depends on individual conditioning and effort. One person might wake up in a snap, another might put in 20+ years as a monk. It's just not a normal/regular/ordinary human condition to be in, an "awakened" state. If it were, we wouldn't need the Buddha to have taught us how to make-it-so; otherwise there'd only be the rarity of "private buddhas" amongst the billions of humans on the planet at any given time.
That's all I meant; "ordinarily", ignorance and suffering are the human condition. The awakened state is the abnormal or rare state in comparison.
Cloud, the idea of Nirvana being "ordinary", or possibly "just around the corner" for any or all of us, comes from Mahayana teachings. I don't know if that also exists in Theravada. Also the idea that there are many hidden bodhisattvas among us, and worldwide, trying to make a difference among the suffering masses. So although when one takes into consideration the sheer numbers--billions of humans on the earth, from that perspective Enlightenment isn't exactly "ordinary", still, it may not be as rare and unattainable as many of us assume. This is something I've learned on this forum from some of the members. We tend to convince ourselves that Enlightenment is nearly impossible, but that's not necessarily the case.
When the mind reifies "bodhisatvas", "beings", etc, Nibbana is not possible.
Nibbana is the ending of the perception of "beings".
When the mind can see there are no sentient beings, that is Nibbana.
.... the idea of Nirvana being "ordinary", or possibly "just around the corner" for any or all of us, comes from Mahayana teachings. I don't know if that also exists in Theravada. Also the idea that there are many hidden bodhisattvas among us, and worldwide, trying to make a difference among the suffering masses. So although when one takes into consideration the sheer numbers--billions of humans on the earth, from that perspective Enlightenment isn't exactly "ordinary", still, it may not be as rare and unattainable as many of us assume. This is something I've learned on this forum from some of the members. We tend to convince ourselves that Enlightenment is nearly impossible, but that's not necessarily the case.
Just a matter of perspective.
Could you give some references/links for Nirvana being said to be' ordinary' or 'just around the corner' in Mahayana teachings, please Dakini ?
Also references to 'hidden bodhisattvas', please. (which might in fact be from a morality teaching about how we should be nice to everyone because they might be a bodhisattva in disguise)
Just chop the wood, and carry the water....suffer when you suffer...
Imo, this is behaviour of the 'animal realm', void of reflection. Animals eat when eating, find food when hungry, without questioning, without reflecting upon or understanding anything. Following automated instinctual behaviour is the definition of the 'animal realm', which includes having 'no views'.
it means you go about your life with freedom and understanding. prior to enlightenment you did stuff. after enlightenment you still do stuff. the only difference that one doesn't attach to views, thus are allowed to have all views or a no view. whatever works for you in the situation. a mirror reflects but we also have to learn how the mirror functions.
how does an enlighten one function after attain nirvana?
If that is the case, was Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro a mistaken fool?
Why did you post the link to Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro?
:-/
Ajaan Lee Dhammadaro said: "If we haven't yet reached or realized nibbana, there's nothing extraordinary about it. But once we have come close to nibbana, the world will appear as if full of vipers and masses of fire. The palaces and mansions of heavenly beings, if you can see them, will look like the hovels of outcastes. You won't be attracted to living in them, because you've already known nibbana.
Nibbana is nothing else but this ordinary heart, freed from all the effluents of defilement so that it reaches its primal nature."
lol that's fine. the enlighten one gets rid of all delusion and attains nirvana. the buddha directly finds the truth which is.
in that stateless state or whatever you want to label it. how does the buddha function? what does the buddha do? does the buddha do anything? is he/she passive? active? compassionate? indifferent? accepting? does it matter what the buddha does?
lol that's fine. the enlighten one gets rid of all delusion and attains nirvana. the buddha directly finds the truth which is.
in that stateless state or whatever you want to label it. how does the buddha function? what does the buddha do? does the buddha do anything? is he/she passive? active? compassionate? indifferent? accepting? does it matter what the buddha does?
I guess to understand fully and see things as they really are, we have to keep practising rather than intellectualising too much, lol !
though i do agree with you whole heartedly. that statement could be said about everything on this forum lol. i'd love an answer though. whether from a sutra or from an experience by an "enlightened" being. how does a buddha function? i think it is very important to know and understand this because if we as buddhist want liberation we must also understand how this liberation functions in life.
now i understand buddhism for the most part places emphasis on getting rid of suffering and attaining nirvana. well that is great. but what happens afterwards? are there theories? so your own personal suffering is gone and now nirvana is a reality. what about the other people who aren't buddhas yet? does one help them? does a buddha still work at walmart?
Why shouldn't a Buddha be fully aware, have let go of all the crap, and yet still work at Walmart? Also help others spontaneously when occasions arise?
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane". Pay them no attention because there is no difference.
That's right. They are fools. They also often use it for diversion. Ignore them and remember there's nothing more ordinary than nirvana. If the distinction's an important part of the path, your experience on the path will confirm or dis-confirm it, not what someone else said about it. Especially someone on an internet forum! You don't have to join in they're trafficking in and clinging to wrong views. How would that be relevant to your duties as and aspirant?
I think its a bit heavy calling other members of the forum "fools" I don't think anyone who's learning about the Dharma should judge others in that way - because that's also "clinging to wrong views".
Ajaan Lee Dhammadaro said: "The Buddha taught us: Asevana ca balanam panditanañca sevana, which means, 'Don't associate with fools. Associate only with wise people." Only then will we be safe and happy.
'Fools' here means people whose minds and actions are shoddy and evil. They behave shoddily in their actions — killing, stealing, having illicit sex — and shoddily in their words: telling lies, creating disharmony, deceiving other people. In other words, they act as enemies to the society of good people at large. That's what we mean by fools. If you associate with people of this sort, it's as if you're letting them pull you into a cave where there's nothing but darkness. The deeper you go, the darker it gets, to the point where you can't see any light at all. There's no way out. The more you associate with fools, the stupider you get, and you find yourself slipping into ways that lead to nothing but pain and suffering. But if you associate with wise people and sages, they'll bring you back out into the light, so that you'll be able to become more intelligent. You'll have the eyes to see what's good, what's bad, what's right, what's wrong. You'll be able to help yourself gain freedom from suffering and turmoil, and will meet with nothing but happiness, progress, and peace." To clarify: I do not mean those who believe in the distinction (mundane & transcendnnt) are fools. I mean using the distinction as diversion is foolish behavior. Why associate with them? Why fuel their fool fire?
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
Well, there seems to be a major difference between mundane teachings on rebirth, and supramundane. Or is this difference also a matter of interpretation??
I guess that teachings on rebirth would be considered as mundane.
It is just the people who believe they have the answers that post a difference between the "mundane and the supra mundane".
Clearly there are different levels of teachings. Though I'm still not sure whether the mundane / supramundane distinction is particularly helpful or descriptive.
I'm still not sure whether the mundane / supramundane distinction is particularly helpful or descriptive. Spiny
It's just a conventional distinction. Mundane/transcendent is ike a sharp knife. It can be used to trim the fat off a nourishing slab of steak or to stab someone in the back.
It's just a conventional distinction. Mundane/transcendent is ike a sharp knife. It can be used to trim the fat off a nourishing slab of steak or to stab someone in the back.
Well luckily I've never actually heard of Buddhists being stabbed in the back by words, lol !
Ajahn Buddhadasa uses the expressions supramundane and mundane in 'Handbook for mankind' here:
EMANCIPATION FROM THE WORLD
"Vipassana meditation is mental training aimed at raising the mind to such a level that it is no longer subject to suffering. The mind breaks free from suffering by virtue of the clear knowledge that nothing is worth grasping at or clinging to. This knowledge deprives worldly things of their ability to lead the mind into further thoughtless liking or disliking.
Having this knowledge, the mind transcends the worldly condition and attains the level known as the Supramundane Plane (Lokuttara-bhumi).
In order to comprehend clearly the supramundane plane, we have to know first about its opposite, the mundane plane (Lokiyabhumi). The mundane plane comprises those levels at which the things of the world have control over the mind."
Also references to 'hidden bodhisattvas', please. (which might in fact be from a morality teaching about how we should be nice to everyone because they might be a bodhisattva in disguise)
hahaha! Wow, someone's cynical about Tibetan teachings! If you're referring to the tale about the man who found a bodhisattva walking on a path, recognized him as such, and received a great blessing, while the next person he encountered said all she saw was a mangy, rabid dog, "being nice to people" is not at all what that's about. But...whatever floats your boat. Or raft, as the case may be. ^_^
does a buddha still work at walmart?
Why shouldn't a Buddha be fully aware, have let go of all the crap, and yet still work at Walmart? Also help others spontaneously when occasions arise?
So you do believe that bodhisattvas are hidden among us, and can be found in seemingly the most mundane of environments?
So you do believe that bodhisattvas are hidden among us, and can be found in seemingly the most mundane of environments?
Hiyah c-w,
To be totally honest, I try most of the time not to clutter my mind with speculation and beliefs about this and that - better to just be aware in the here and now.
Cloud, the idea of Nirvana being "ordinary", or possibly "just around the corner" for any or all of us, comes from Mahayana teachings. I don't know if that also exists in Theravada. Also the idea that there are many hidden bodhisattvas among us, and worldwide, trying to make a difference among the suffering masses. So although when one takes into consideration the sheer numbers--billions of humans on the earth, from that perspective Enlightenment isn't exactly "ordinary", still, it may not be as rare and unattainable as many of us assume. This is something I've learned on this forum from some of the members. We tend to convince ourselves that Enlightenment is nearly impossible, but that's not necessarily the case.
Just a matter of perspective.
Subhuti said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, in the future will there be living beings, who, when they hear such phrases spoken will truly believe?"
The Buddha told Subhuti, "Do not speak in such a way! After the Tathagata's extinction, in the last five hundred years, there will be those who hold the precepts and cultivate blessings who will believe such phrases and accept them as true."
I'm a little confused o.0 I thought Dazzle was sceptical of the "bodhisattvas among us" idea, but I guess not. But to answer the questions: #1 I already answered in my earlier post; I learned about the idea that enlightenment could be just around the corner for any of us from this forum, from advanced TB practitioners (who are no longer with us) posting on the subject. And Dazzle and CW guessed right: it was the story of the dog encountered on a trail, who one who was pure in thought and devoted to the dharma saw as a bodhisattva, but a more deluded person saw as a mangy cur. In my view, and that of many practitioners I've discussed it with, both Eastern and Western, this is about seeing life with the clear view of open heart that our practice imbues us with. It's about living spiritually and seeing life spiritually. Not about a mundane "being nice to people". (or maybe that's the "mundane" side, and the "supramundane" is as I explained--lol!)
We're migrating off topic, so if anyone would like to discuss this more, I think it would be a great topic for its own thread.
i believe the buddha see's no distinction meaning it is what it is. the split is for teaching purposes only. like you can reel people in with mundane teachings. then when they are ready and ripe you thrown in a supermundane teaching.
“Mind is Buddha” is the phrase for one who wants medicine while he has no disease. “No Mind, No Buddha” is given to those who have been cured of disease but still cling to medicine.
A monk asked Baso, “Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?” Baso replied, “To stop a baby's crying.” The monk asked, “ What is it like when the baby stops crying?” Baso answered, “No Mind, no Buddha.”
In connection with “Mind is Buddha,” there is an interesting story in Nanbanji Kohai-ki (History of Nanbanji):
In the 16th century, a great religious debate was held at Nanbanji between Buddhists and a Portugese Catholic Father who was much favored by Oda Nobunaga, an influential feudal lord of that time. The Portugese Priest was a man of wide erudition and was familiar with the Buddhist Sutras. Representatives of various Buddhist schools were all debated down by his eloquence. Finally Zen Master In of Nanzenji in Kyoto, was selected as the last debater.
The Portugese Priest asked, “What is Buddha?”
“Mind is Buddha” answered Master In.
The Portugese Father now unsheathed a dagger, thrust it at Master In's chest, and demanded “What is 'Mind is Buddha'?”
Master In, not perturbed in the least, shouted: “KWATZ!”
The Portugese Priest fell into a swoon in spite of himself and the audience including Lord Nobunaga, all paled.
— from Zenkei Shibayama, Zen Comments on the Mumonkan (1974), p. 225
You can consider it one teaching, or you can consider it two separate teachings. It's all on how you look at it. Is there a distinction? Yes. Has the distinction been classified as "mundane" and "supramundane"? Yes. Can you consider it both as one teaching and two separate teachings? Yes.
Ajaan Lee Dhammadaro said: "If we haven't yet reached or realized nibbana, there's nothing extraordinary about it. But once we have come close to nibbana, the world will appear as if full of vipers and masses of fire. The palaces and mansions of heavenly beings, if you can see them, will look like the hovels of outcastes. You won't be attracted to living in them, because you've already known nibbana.
Nibbana is nothing else but this ordinary heart, freed from all the effluents of defilement so that it reaches its primal nature."
Unrelated to the topic of mundane vs supramundane.
Comments
Well wishes,
Abu
Walking is good ;-)
Long time no see, how are you doing?
Spiny
Thinking the same.
Yes, good actually, very very well. Thankyou.
Yourself, O Spiny One? I hope you and the family are well
Spiny
Example, the quotation states mundane right view is there are fruits & results of good & bad actions (kamma), which include spontaneously reborn beings.
Where as the supramundane right view is the is kamma that it neither good nor bad, the kamma that ends karma, which results in the realisation of not-self or no beings.
Mundane and supramundane are also associated with different teachings, as show above.
For example, in MN 60, it states the mundane householder should follow the view of existence.
Where as SN 12.15 states the supramundane right view is neither existence nor non-existence.
Spiny
And are you based on that contradiction slandering people who agree with the Buddha?
Not 'noble'.
The Blessed One said: "There is the case, Bhikkhus, where an untrained run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — [..] perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives [things] about Nibbana, he conceives [things] in Nibbana, he conceives [things] coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you. (Mulapariyaya Sutta)
:-/
:-/
Why did you post the link to Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro (which no one was interested in)?
:-/
For me, I cannot agree with your post.
First, I have little interest in suffering, therefore your exhortation to "suffer when you suffer" has no relevence for me. The Buddhist path is to be free from suffering. It is not about resigning to suffering.
Second, it is not a matter of mental gymnastics. That you regard it as such is possibly one cause for your mind to continue to suffer.
Third, discussing the teachings does not necessarily give one a false sense of identity. However, suffering arises because of a false sense of identity.
So if a mind continues to "suffer when you suffer" then that mind is still caught up in a false sense of identity.
These points are not scholarly. They are matters of discernment, being able to distinguish between apples and oranges.
Apple = apple
Orange = orange
Suffering = false sense of identity
Mundane = false sense of identity
No suffering = supramundane
Supramundane = no sense of identity
Just a matter of perspective.
That's all I meant; "ordinarily", ignorance and suffering are the human condition. The awakened state is the abnormal or rare state in comparison.
Nibbana is the ending of the perception of "beings".
When the mind can see there are no sentient beings, that is Nibbana.
:hair:
Could you give some references/links for Nirvana being said to be' ordinary' or 'just around the corner' in Mahayana teachings, please Dakini ?
Also references to 'hidden bodhisattvas', please. (which might in fact be from a morality teaching about how we should be nice to everyone because they might be a bodhisattva in disguise)
Thank you.
Regards
how does an enlighten one function after attain nirvana?
metta
"If we haven't yet reached or realized nibbana, there's nothing extraordinary about it. But once we have come close to nibbana, the world will appear as if full of vipers and masses of fire. The palaces and mansions of heavenly beings, if you can see them, will look like the hovels of outcastes. You won't be attracted to living in them, because you've already known nibbana.
Nibbana is nothing else but this ordinary heart, freed from all the effluents of defilement so that it reaches its primal nature."
in that stateless state or whatever you want to label it. how does the buddha function? what does the buddha do? does the buddha do anything? is he/she passive? active? compassionate? indifferent? accepting? does it matter what the buddha does?
I guess to understand fully and see things as they really are, we have to keep practising rather than intellectualising too much, lol !
i'd love an answer though. whether from a sutra or from an experience by an "enlightened" being. how does a buddha function? i think it is very important to know and understand this because if we as buddhist want liberation we must also understand how this liberation functions in life.
now i understand buddhism for the most part places emphasis on getting rid of suffering and attaining nirvana. well that is great. but what happens afterwards? are there theories? so your own personal suffering is gone and now nirvana is a reality. what about the other people who aren't buddhas yet? does one help them? does a buddha still work at walmart?
lol
Gotta go, back later
"The Buddha taught us: Asevana ca balanam panditanañca sevana, which means, 'Don't associate with fools. Associate only with wise people." Only then will we be safe and happy.
'Fools' here means people whose minds and actions are shoddy and evil. They behave shoddily in their actions — killing, stealing, having illicit sex — and shoddily in their words: telling lies, creating disharmony, deceiving other people. In other words, they act as enemies to the society of good people at large. That's what we mean by fools. If you associate with people of this sort, it's as if you're letting them pull you into a cave where there's nothing but darkness. The deeper you go, the darker it gets, to the point where you can't see any light at all. There's no way out. The more you associate with fools, the stupider you get, and you find yourself slipping into ways that lead to nothing but pain and suffering. But if you associate with wise people and sages, they'll bring you back out into the light, so that you'll be able to become more intelligent. You'll have the eyes to see what's good, what's bad, what's right, what's wrong. You'll be able to help yourself gain freedom from suffering and turmoil, and will meet with nothing but happiness, progress, and peace."
To clarify: I do not mean those who believe in the distinction (mundane & transcendnnt) are fools. I mean using the distinction as diversion is foolish behavior. Why associate with them? Why fuel their fool fire?
Spiny
Spiny
"Every little helps" ....oops, that's from Tesco ;-)
AsdaSpiny
Ajahn Buddhadasa uses the expressions supramundane and mundane in 'Handbook for mankind' here:
EMANCIPATION FROM THE WORLD
"Vipassana meditation is mental training aimed at raising the mind to such a level that it is no longer subject to suffering. The mind breaks free from suffering by virtue of the clear knowledge that nothing is worth grasping at or clinging to. This knowledge deprives worldly things of their ability to lead the mind into further thoughtless liking or disliking.
Having this knowledge, the mind transcends the worldly condition and attains the level known as the Supramundane Plane (Lokuttara-bhumi).
In order to comprehend clearly the supramundane plane, we have to know first about its opposite, the mundane plane (Lokiyabhumi). The mundane plane comprises those levels at which the things of the world have control over the mind."
continued here:
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa12.htm
To be totally honest, I try most of the time not to clutter my mind with speculation and beliefs about this and that - better to just be aware in the here and now.
The Buddha told Subhuti, "Do not speak in such a way! After the Tathagata's extinction, in the last five hundred years, there will be those who hold the precepts and cultivate blessings who will believe such phrases and accept them as true."
Diamond Sutra
I'm a little confused o.0 I thought Dazzle was sceptical of the "bodhisattvas among us" idea, but I guess not. But to answer the questions: #1 I already answered in my earlier post; I learned about the idea that enlightenment could be just around the corner for any of us from this forum, from advanced TB practitioners (who are no longer with us) posting on the subject. And Dazzle and CW guessed right: it was the story of the dog encountered on a trail, who one who was pure in thought and devoted to the dharma saw as a bodhisattva, but a more deluded person saw as a mangy cur. In my view, and that of many practitioners I've discussed it with, both Eastern and Western, this is about seeing life with the clear view of open heart that our practice imbues us with. It's about living spiritually and seeing life spiritually. Not about a mundane "being nice to people". (or maybe that's the "mundane" side, and the "supramundane" is as I explained--lol!)
We're migrating off topic, so if anyone would like to discuss this more, I think it would be a great topic for its own thread.
like you can reel people in with mundane teachings. then when they are ready and ripe you thrown in a supermundane teaching.
“Mind is Buddha” is the phrase for one who wants medicine while he has no disease. “No Mind, No Buddha” is given to those who have been cured of disease but still cling to medicine.
A monk asked Baso, “Why do you teach that Mind is Buddha?”
Baso replied, “To stop a baby's crying.”
The monk asked, “ What is it like when the baby stops crying?”
Baso answered, “No Mind, no Buddha.”
In connection with “Mind is Buddha,” there is an interesting story in Nanbanji Kohai-ki (History of Nanbanji):
In the 16th century, a great religious debate was held at Nanbanji between Buddhists and a Portugese Catholic Father who was much favored by Oda Nobunaga, an influential feudal lord of that time. The Portugese Priest was a man of wide erudition and was familiar with the Buddhist Sutras. Representatives of various Buddhist schools were all debated down by his eloquence. Finally Zen Master In of Nanzenji in Kyoto, was selected as the last debater.
The Portugese Priest asked, “What is Buddha?”
“Mind is Buddha” answered Master In.
The Portugese Father now unsheathed a dagger, thrust it at Master In's chest, and demanded “What is 'Mind is Buddha'?”
Master In, not perturbed in the least, shouted: “KWATZ!”
The Portugese Priest fell into a swoon in spite of himself and the audience
including Lord Nobunaga, all paled.
— from Zenkei Shibayama,
Zen Comments on the Mumonkan (1974), p. 225