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.
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' :-/
It is not so important. If our mind has right view, that is all that matters and all we can control.
i believe the buddha see's no distinction meaning it is what it is. the split is for teaching purposes only.
the buddha made a clear unambiguous distinction
what is recorded in the suttas is far more reliable than your personal belief
like you can reel people in with mundane teachings. then when they are ready and ripe you thrown in a supermundane teaching.
the buddha did not have such an attitude. the buddha, unlike Jesus, did not go fishing for converts. the buddha simply taught those who sought his advice
the buddha did not ever say those to whom he taught the mundane dhamma would ripen
"A wise fisherman cast his net into the sea and caught many small fish. The fisherman found among them a fine big fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose to keep the big fish. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."
Come on now, let's not get personal people. That's what "private" messages are for, and that's the only place it's acceptable (to a point; if it's harassment or we get complaints we do check into it and take any appropriate action).
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'.
Regards
I am a bit baffled by this. Some say ( the much learned of our Buddhist friends ) The Buddha says to "go beyond one's personal opinions" and yet this statement is 100% a personal opinion. Can't have it both ways. Then some learned Buddhist friends say there is a difference between the mundane and the supra mundane ( transcendent ) teachings, and that many of us in the west do not understand the finer distinctions, and are unable to discern these finer teachings. IMO, this is the realm of "Hungry Ghosts". Trying to fill themselves with the "right Buddhist meaning", but never really ever reaching the end. Constantly consuming more knowledge and believing they can find the true meaning of life ( in a Buddhist sense ) by knowing the finer teachings. Getting another book to read, or having their mind compare what they they think they know with what they perceive is another persons view. Never at rest. Never blowing the flame of desire to be right "out". Maybe THIS is the supra mundane teaching, but there are very few who can quit their own mental fabrications.
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'.
Regards
I am a bit baffled by this. Some say ( the much learned of our Buddhist friends ) The Buddha says to "go beyond one's personal opinions" and yet this statement is 100% a personal opinion. Can't have it both ways. Then some learned Buddhist friends say there is a difference between the mundane and the supra mundane ( transcendent ) teachings, and that many of us in the west do not understand the finer distinctions, and are unable to discern these finer teachings. IMO, this is the realm of "Hungry Ghosts". Trying to fill themselves with the "right Buddhist meaning", but never really ever reaching the end. Constantly consuming more knowledge and believing they can find the true meaning of life ( in a Buddhist sense ) by knowing the finer teachings. Getting another book to read, or having their mind compare what they they think they know with what they perceive is another persons view. Never at rest. Never blowing the flame of desire to be right "out". Maybe THIS is the supra mundane teaching, but there are very few who can quit their own mental fabrications.
But your own post is also just mental fabrications/opinions too, lol !
But your own post is also just mental fabrications/opinions too, lol !
OF COURSE! That was the point. As ALL our posts on here are. But, some of the people really believe what they have interpreted as what the Buddha really said, is somehow the supra- mundane teaching. They put themselves on a pedestal and TEACH us what the real Dharma IS! No THAT is a joke. HA! lmao!!!!!
Very true taiyaki, and that is the bottom line truth. The mundane Buddhist folk talk a good line, and follow what they think the "Buddha" said. That is all they know how to do. They actually think that they are being righteous, and loving, and stopping suffering....but all the time they just add more and more suffering to the world. They speak as if they know the truth, and then try to convince others of their self-made delusions. The real practice of Buddhism happens when you actually have an experience of giving up everything. After one experiences this there is no turning around, or believing in "what the Buddha said", because you have now become like the Buddha and have your own life to live, and realize the fabrications that you concoct in your mind. The real experience leads one to give up all their property, and to become a wanderer. With nowhere to lay your head. You no longer have a real job in the world, and you for sure do not give the government money to make war. Anything less than this is just sophomoric adolescent acting like a Buddhist. So don't be fooled by the pundits of knowledge, or the preachers of love, because they have not realized the true nature of what the Buddha realized. Anything less than giving up everything, is false teaching. No amount of scripture, or defensive posturing can hide the shallowness of that kind of practice. The OP wanted to know the difference between mundane and supra mundane. Well you have just heard it. Not one person who reads this will be able to give up everything and find their own way, but that is what it takes, and that is what all Buddhas know and live.
I question the word transendent. Pema Chodron says that meditation is about seeing clearly sitting with the present sitting with the most difficult states ? and seeing this as no big deal. She states that meditation is not about feeling better but rather it is about sitting with how you feel as it is. Thus it is not transendent but rather you go into your experience.
I am a bit baffled by this. Some say ( the much learned of our Buddhist friends ) The Buddha says to "go beyond one's personal opinions" and yet this statement is 100% a personal opinion.
dharma dude Dennis
Indeed, your mind is baffled.
Describing the functioning of the mind is supramundane, as long it is described in terms of function rather than "self". The non-reflective mind, blindly following instincts, is the 'animal mind' in supramundane dhamma.
Mundane dhamma is to regard an 'animal' to be an elephant, dog, cat, koala bear, etc, rather than as the functioning of the human mind.
IMO, this is the realm of "Hungry Ghosts". Trying to fill themselves with the "right Buddhist meaning", but never really ever reaching the end.
Definitely, not. The comment here has no basis. It is non sequitur. In fact, bizzare.
The Buddha taught "Right" understanding has an end, which is the goal of the path.
The Buddha taught all right dhammas have Nibbana as their final end (fulfilment).
Constantly consuming more knowledge and believing they can find the true meaning of life ( in a Buddhist sense ) by knowing the finer teachings.
Again, non sequitur. The capacity to describe reality is a reflection of the clarity of realisation. You are simply fighting the Buddhist teachings, the revelations of the Buddha, like a rebel without a cause. Non sequitur.
Getting another book to read, or having their mind compare what they they think they know with what they perceive is another persons view. Never at rest.
Again, non sequitur. The books to read are set. They have a limit. They are a "handful of leaves", as the Buddha described. There are five Nikayas. There have been for many centuries.
Relying on these as the teacher or path is far more reliable than taking refuge in "eat grass", "chop wood", "slurp water", etc.
Never blowing the flame of desire to be right "out". Maybe THIS is the supra mundane teaching, but there are very few who can quit their own mental fabrications.
Again, non sequitur. Obviously, the dualistic rant that exploded from your mind does not embody what you are attempting to impart.
When the bait is cast, the fish hooks on & fights. "When fishing, just fish", "when taking bait, just taking bait".
the buddha doesn't have to function from mind. the buddha can function from heart, gut, being, intuition, the mind is useful but there are other places the buddha can function from.
The real practice of Buddhism happens when you actually have an experience of giving up everything. After one experiences this there is no turning around, or believing in "what the Buddha said", because you have now become like the Buddha and have your own life to live, and realize the fabrications that you concoct in your mind. The real experience leads one to give up all their property, and to become a wanderer. With nowhere to lay your head. You no longer have a real job in the world, and you for sure do not give the government money to make war.
Well you have just heard it. :bowdown:
Not one person who reads this will be able to give up everything and find their own way, but that is what it takes, and that is what all Buddhas know and live.
What an extreme post. As I said prior, like a rebel without a cause, exalting oneself, disparaging others, no comprehension of the conventional world. Sounds like the zombie experience in Chapter 20 of the Tao Te Ching of the wanderer and not like the 10th Ox-Herding Picture of Returning to the Market Place.
now to give an alternative view:
(1) "Not one person who reads this" - what "person"?
(2) "Not one person who reads this will be able to give up everything" - I trust there are those here who have been there, done that
(3) "find their own way" - in Buddhism, only one 'person' has found their own way, 100%, which was the Buddha
(4) "all Buddhas know and live" - that you have declared yourself to be a Buddha I cannot concur with
the buddha doesn't have to function from mind. the buddha can function from heart, gut, being, intuition, the mind is useful but there are other places the buddha can function from.
Animal functions from 'gut'
Buddha functions from wisdom
Anyway, time to earn a living and make some ("evil", "unGodly") $$$$$
Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.
Searching all directions with one's awareness, one finds no one dearer than oneself. In the same way, others are fiercely dear to themselves. So one should not hurt others if one loves oneself.
But your own post is also just mental fabrications/opinions too, lol !
OF COURSE! That was the point. As ALL our posts on here are. But, some of the people really believe what they have interpreted as what the Buddha really said, is somehow the supra- mundane teaching. They put themselves on a pedestal and TEACH us what the real Dharma IS! No THAT is a joke. HA! lmao!!!!!
The point is that Dennis identifies his posts as his opinion. Some members make proclamations as though they have a monopoly on the truth.
This latest diatribe began in response to "just chop wood, carry water". This has nothing to do with animal behavior. This is a teaching about being in the moment, as in walking meditation. Hard to imagine someone would be unfamiliar with that. So much ado about nothing, or very little... :rolleyes:
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
(1) "Not one person who reads this" - what "person"?
I assume he's referring to me, though I don't know why I always get singled out in these examples.
My mind definitely knows, 100%. As was said by an objective observer: "Are you directly contradicting what the historical Buddha taught? And are you based on that contradiction slandering people who agree with the Buddha?"
Mere opinion.
The Buddha and many teachers regard it as important. Thus, it is wise to follow such opinions. Why? Then one does not become lost in the various teachings.
This teaching is about what it says: "Chop wood; carry water". On its face value, I see no spiritual value it. I chopped wood on Saturday (cleaning hurricane debris), probably the first time in 5 years. I cannot recall the last time I carried water.
As for being in the (illusory) present moment, how does this relate to anxieties & deep needs to uphold the rebirth/reincarnation teachings?
How do the rebirth/reincarnation teachings relate to the (fleeting) present moment?
Are the rebirth/reincarnation teachings much ado about nothing or very little?
I believe the passage about chopping wood and carrying water was written by a Zen teacher. In Japan, the monasteries are often in rural areas, so chopping wood and carrying water are part of daily chores. The teaching isn't meant to be taken literally. It's about giving your full attention to whatever you're doing at the moment--mundane chores, meditation, or study, all are to be treated alike in that respect. All deserve our full attention.
I suspect Dennis' comment (back on pg. 2) was a way of saying that all this discussion of mundane vs. supramundane doesn't do much to enhance one's daily practice. See your friend Dazzle with your questions about whether being in the present moment is relevant to anxieties & deep needs, etc. etc. I've noticed she's fond of commenting that being in the "now" and furthering our practice are what's important.
Personally, however, I find the discussion on mundane and supramundane teachings interesting. I think it's an important aspect of the teachings to understand, especially if it's true the Buddha sometimes taught one thing to laypeople, and the opposite to advanced students. Is that really possible?
(The "much ado" comment referred to the "animal behavior" digression (see my previous post).)
Personally, however, I find the discussion on mundane and supramundane teachings interesting. I think it's an important aspect of the teachings to understand, especially if it's true the Buddha sometimes taught one thing to laypeople, and the opposite to advanced students. Is that really possible?
Hey there compassionate_warrior, Yes, the Buddha discriminated audience, but not how you suggest. Your wording implies "laypeople" and "advanced students" are mutually exclusive categories. Since we can't ask the Buddha personally which teaching he would give us, though, we investigate his teachings for ourselves and form our own opinion, aside from other opinions about his teachings. And since all his teachings are about the path to nirvana, the mundane/transcendent distinction is just one way of describing that path. May you find the causes of true happiness within.
I suspect Dennis' comment (back on pg. 2) was a way of saying that all this discussion of mundane vs. supramundane doesn't do much to enhance one's daily practice.
Well, if one spends one's day grunting, hunting & gathering like a caveman or monkey then I also agree that all this discussion of mundane vs. supramundane doesn't do much to enhance one's daily practice.
And since all his teachings are about the path to nirvana, the mundane/transcendent distinction is just one way of describing that path.
All of the Buddha's teachings are not about the path the nirvana. The suttas make it clear the duty of a monk, in general, is to teach lay devotees the way to heaven.
Just as the honesty & integrity of some Buddhists were previously misrepresented by quoting Ajahn Lee, again, a view has been presented that is way out of the ballpark.
The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good, (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.
Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven.
But your own post is also just mental fabrications/opinions too, lol !
OF COURSE! That was the point. As ALL our posts on here are. But, some of the people really believe what they have interpreted as what the Buddha really said, is somehow the supra- mundane teaching. They put themselves on a pedestal and TEACH us what the real Dharma IS! No THAT is a joke. HA! lmao!!!!!
The point is that Dennis identifies his posts as his opinion. Some members make proclamations as though they have a monopoly on the truth.
This latest diatribe began in response to "just chop wood, carry water". This has nothing to do with animal behavior. This is a teaching about being in the moment, as in walking meditation. Hard to imagine someone would be unfamiliar with that. So much ado about nothing, or very little... :rolleyes:
Thank You, and you DO understand. Some people have an agenda. They stick with it no matter what is presented to them. This agenda, is totally inflexible....and results in a holier than though position. It is book learning, not experience. They would be and should be shunned by all practicing Buddhists because they do not really listen, they preach. In fact they have no understanding of even the mundane teachings of the Buddha. They read more, and convince themselves that they have unique special knowledge. The only way to deal with such people is to ignore them. They remind me of the Jehovah Witnesses that go around door to door and have an answer to absolutely everything in this world. Someone even has the gall to describe others as existing in the animal realm, without ever meeting them, or knowing them. This is heresy and obviously can not be talked through because some people will not budge from there self made islands of delusion. That special knowledge that comes from a twisted mind, and an ego that believes they have actually given up there ego. The worst possible state a person can get into according to Dharma principles. But they will write it off as others ignorance and search their monkey mind for another response that is holier than any that has been suggested. As for me, because of this type of ego dominance of an ignorant sort, I am leaving this forum to never return, and let the "know it all" rule the roost. Playing the Cock on Dung Hill game, and pretending it is superior knowledge and it is directly what the Buddha taught. Not realizing that everyone has a different set of circumstances and karma, and have to be dealt with as humans not machines. In the monastery i have lived in for 25 years these kind of people last about 5 minutes, and then are asked to leave. But since this is a forum, and they will not leave or change their deluded beliefs, it is better that I leave and go practice what I have learned by giving everything up to know and live like the Buddha. If you support war you are not even close to knowing what a Buddha is. And no matter how you justify it, it is still an excuse, and if you really cared about others would stop it immediately. These are the teachings, the rest is child's play, and pompous ego tripping.
Well, if one spends one's day grunting, hunting & gathering like a caveman or monkey then I also agree that all this discussion of mundane vs. supramundane doesn't do much to enhance one's daily practice.
What if one spends their time fishing for monkey minds, hunting for sutta references, and gathering knowledge... like a lawyer or debater?
It seems many of us rebel from this notion of mundane vs supramundane. Supramundane implies "secret" or "advanced" or "special", at least in the west. I notice vajraheart took it to mean secret tantric practices. It can also give rise to a restlessness, thinking "Is this the best teaching to be following?"
Perhaps the attachment to these notions might be stilled if mundane vs supramundane are described simply as "moral teachings" vs "liberation teachings".
The path to liberation is clear in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, yet the Buddha spent a great deal of time saying different things to other people. Some minds rebel against the simple teachings, as not all minds are ready to abandon their clinging. Still, there is a way to live a resonant, compassionate life, and Buddha taught that as well, when it was the right thing to do in the moment, for the person.
If we are studying the four noble truths and following the eightfold path, we're using the supramundane teachings already. Abandon the worrying...
The worst possible state a person can get into according to Dharma principles. But they will write it off as others ignorance and search their monkey mind for another response that is holier than any that has been suggested. As for me, because of this type of ego dominance of an ignorant sort, I am leaving this forum to never return, and let the "know it all" rule the roost. Playing the Cock on Dung Hill game, and pretending it is superior knowledge and it is directly what the Buddha taught. Not realizing that everyone has a different set of circumstances and karma, and have to be dealt with as humans not machines.
You sound very angry, and I have empathy for the difficulty in your present moment. If the cock's words was striking at empty air, it wouldn't stir up your ego. Breathe and let go...
I had a friend once who used his knowledge of spiritual archetypes to "fish for ego", and he ended up alone, convinced he was the next Buddha. All he really was, though, was a knowledgeable bully. Sometimes its called Spiritual Materialism, where knowledge and the appearance of wisdom can underpin an ego, and when one looks in the mirror they truly think their ego is silent and they are "awake". If you poke them even the tiniest bit, they explode into aggression and projection. My friend did get over it, though, and is well on the path of recovery. He realized one day how ignorant he really was of other peoples emotions, and it woke him up to his actual reflection.
Good luck on staying gone or coming back. Fed and Cloud mostly rule this roost, and they are usually fair and compassionate.
If morality is divorced from wisdom then it would be possible to become an arhant murderer. This is called shunyata poisoning by Trungpa Rinpoche. Which is rather ironic considering his lifestyle.
Perhaps the attachment to these notions might be stilled if mundane vs supramundane are described simply as "moral teachings" vs "liberation teachings".
I think this is the best way to go about it that I've heard in the last 30+ posts, if someone is going to make a distinction between teachings. Thank you, @aMatt!
Perhaps the attachment to these notions might be stilled if mundane vs supramundane are described simply as "moral teachings" vs "liberation teachings". If we are studying the four noble truths and following the eightfold path, we're using the supramundane teachings already. Abandon the worrying...
Good point. The 8-fold path is sometimes summarised in the 3-fold formula of morality, meditation and wisdom ( sila, samadhi, panna ), so it could be said that morality ( mundane ) is a foundation for wisdom ( supramundane ).
@BuckyG Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the best. I've read on this forum many times that the Buddha taught one thing to lay practitioners, and another thing to monks. There is, of course, the now (on this forum) infamous example of his teaching rebirth to laypeople, and (it is said) no-rebirth to monks. Some members have called into question the idea that the Buddha would have taught (to anyone) something he, himself, didn't believe. My intent was only to raise a question about that point.
I think this delineation of the teachings into morality vs. wisdom is interesting. The question comes to mind: did the Buddha impart wisdom teachings to householders (laypeople) and monks alike? Or did he reserve the wisdom teachings (supramundane) for monks only? Why would he reserve a class of teachings only for monks? Surely there were lay practitioners capable of understanding advanced teachings.
And why the division between rebirth teachings and no-rebirth? Or does that dichotomy even exist? does it exist only in the minds of those who interpret the teachings a certain way? Do the "wisdom teachings" really differ that radically on rebirth from the morality teachings? This still raises the question: which teachings do you go by, for guidance on rebirth? I have my own reasons for believing the way I do on this score, but for the benefit of newbies, I think this is an important question to answer. If some of the morality teachings contain info the Buddha didn't really believe, (big "if", that) then shouldn't newbies be directed to the wisdom teachings, at least on key topics like karma and rebirth?
If such questions are "irrelevant to practice", as so many have commented in the past, a) why did the Buddha bother to teach these things and b) why study the sutras or spend much time on study at all? What's the point of all the sutras, commentaries, later teachings and endless publications?
Thank you, aMatt, Spiny, and Cloud for bringing the discussion back on topic.
Re: this discussion, I think it is important to recognise the Buddha's teaching thus --
A HANDFUL OF LEAVES
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
The question, in my opinion, is not whether or not there are 'so called' mundane and supramundane teachings, but rather is this even relevant to your life and practice now. Because, if there are truly supramundane teachings, then they will come about as a result of a genuine and true, solid practice -- NOT by further and endless speculations and distractions.
But Abu, people kinda need to know what it is the Buddha taught, to guide them in their practice. The purpose of this thread is to try to clarify that.
Oh well. I guess it's impossible to know for sure, in some respects. :-/ *shrug*
I don't think there is a specific line between them, its a matter of giving what is needed by the listener, to help them align their actions to the eight fold path.
For instance, convincing someone who is rich and indulgant that they are suffering is difficult, if not impossible. So one might say to them "Being indulgent now brings about an unfavorable rebirth" which is true. Where you could say to the monk, who has cultivated some right view "being indulgant causes clinging, causes suffering" and they would see it for as it is, without the need for the personal carrot.
You can't call to a pig with pearls and diamonds, nor to the royal caste with abandonment and dispassion.
@BuckyG Perhaps my choice of words wasn't the best. I've read on this forum many times that the Buddha taught one thing to lay practitioners, and another thing to monks. There is, of course, the now (on this forum) infamous example of his teaching rebirth to laypeople, and (it is said) no-rebirth to monks. Some members have called into question the idea that the Buddha would have taught (to anyone) something he, himself, didn't believe. My intent was only to raise a question about that point.
The Buddha's teachings, as far as I know them are pretty straight forward and direct. Sometimes, however, the nuance is in the detail and the detail is in the nuance. Words are limited, experience is not. Sometimes people use different words for different standards, or even different understandings of an audience, but I am not and have not been aware of different teachings for lay people and monks.
However, in experience, contradiction is ALSO fact. For example, when you cry, are you happy or are you sad? Sometimes there is both but in words we might be only able to express a very limited set.
Here is an example (which you may like) of a nice teacher and an example of a kind and wise (if I can use the word) 'contradiction' teaching, which is also entirely accurate in both senses -
Once there was a layman who came to Ajahn Chah and asked him who Ajahn Chah was. Ajahn Chah, seeing that the spiritual development of the individual was not very advanced, pointed to himself and said, This, this is Ajahn Chah.
Once there was a layman who came to Ajahn Chah and asked him who Ajahn Chah was. Ajahn Chah, seeing that the questioners capacity to understand the Dhamma was higher, Ajahn Chah answered by saying Ajahn Chah? There is NO Ajahn Chah!"
But Abu, people kinda need to know what it is the Buddha taught, to guide them in their practice. The purpose of this thread is to try to clarify that.
Oh well. I guess it's impossible to know for sure, in some respects. :-/ *shrug*
As far as I know the Buddha also said that he has not held anything back in terms of the teachings. In the teachings that he left behind and well formed by the many traditions there is the guidance there already. The Eightfold Path, as it is, is a complete teaching. To live it is to live the Buddha Way and it is in the Buddha Way that we strive.
haha! great story, Abu! And thank you for your comments, too, aMatt.
edit: Right, gotcha, Abu--stick with the basics, as many so often say on this forum, and you can't go wrong. It's up for each to decide how they want to take the teachings on karma and rebirth.
Perhaps the attachment to these notions might be stilled if mundane vs supramundane are described simply as "moral teachings" vs "liberation teachings". If we are studying the four noble truths and following the eightfold path, we're using the supramundane teachings already. Abandon the worrying...
Good point. The 8-fold path is sometimes summarised in the 3-fold formula of morality, meditation and wisdom ( sila, samadhi, panna ), so it could be said that morality ( mundane ) is a foundation for wisdom ( supramundane ).
What I do know is that there is the transcendent, but this is an outcome or result of practice, and not the motivation or desire of practice. Here in forums there can be a lot of distraction IMO.
Wisdom is understanding ultimate nature of reality. Compassion radiates from that understanding. If you have no compassion there must not be any wisdom. And you cannot have wisdom without the stable base of compassion to stabilize your realization.
Longchenpa (I think) said roughly: My mind is as vast as the sky but I respect karma like fine grains of sand.
To a buddha relative truth and ultimate truth are not separate. Which is to say relative truth is like an illusion and not grasping to that relative truth would be a realization of ultimate truth. If we could do that we would be buddhas. How do you practice when you lose your home are diseased about to die?
I think the Buddha taught everything for anyone who wanted to learn, but for the type of lay Buddhist that isn't seeking enlightenment but rather a good life (and life beyond), he explained why we should lead moral and compassionate lives even if not for the purpose of transcendence. Many lay practitioners actually do wish to awaken and so must take in both types of teachings. No one was ever excluded by the Buddha; they only exclude themselves by the type of life they choose to lead. We're all somewhere in the middle, who want to actually understand this whole Nirvana thing and find true peace.
Comments
Please understand, Buddhism is not like Christainity, that if you cry out your allegience to the name of the guru, you will be saved.
The distinction between mundane & transcendent is not being being used as a diversion nor is it foolish behavior.
The distinction between mundane & transcendent is something the Buddha taught and quite important for those interested in what is true.
The distinction between mundane & transcendent is relatively unknown/untaught in the West and those few who expound it bring many into the light.
All the best
what is recorded in the suttas is far more reliable than your personal belief the buddha did not have such an attitude. the buddha, unlike Jesus, did not go fishing for converts. the buddha simply taught those who sought his advice
the buddha did not ever say those to whom he taught the mundane dhamma would ripen
he remained silent on such speculations
IMO, this is the realm of "Hungry Ghosts". Trying to fill themselves with the "right Buddhist meaning", but never really ever reaching the end. Constantly consuming more knowledge and believing they can find the true meaning of life ( in a Buddhist sense ) by knowing the finer teachings. Getting another book to read, or having their mind compare what they they think they know with what they perceive is another persons view. Never at rest. Never blowing the flame of desire to be right "out". Maybe THIS is the supra mundane teaching, but there are very few who can quit their own mental fabrications.
The mundane Buddhist folk talk a good line, and follow what they think the "Buddha" said. That is all they know how to do. They actually think that they are being righteous, and loving, and stopping suffering....but all the time they just add more and more suffering to the world. They speak as if they know the truth, and then try to convince others of their self-made delusions.
The real practice of Buddhism happens when you actually have an experience of giving up everything. After one experiences this there is no turning around, or believing in "what the Buddha said", because you have now become like the Buddha and have your own life to live, and realize the fabrications that you concoct in your mind. The real experience leads one to give up all their property, and to become a wanderer. With nowhere to lay your head. You no longer have a real job in the world, and you for sure do not give the government money to make war. Anything less than this is just sophomoric adolescent acting like a Buddhist. So don't be fooled by the pundits of knowledge, or the preachers of love, because they have not realized the true nature of what the Buddha realized. Anything less than giving up everything, is false teaching. No amount of scripture, or defensive posturing can hide the shallowness of that kind of practice. The OP wanted to know the difference between mundane and supra mundane. Well you have just heard it. Not one person who reads this will be able to give up everything and find their own way, but that is what it takes, and that is what all Buddhas know and live.
Indeed, your mind is baffled.
Describing the functioning of the mind is supramundane, as long it is described in terms of function rather than "self". The non-reflective mind, blindly following instincts, is the 'animal mind' in supramundane dhamma.
Mundane dhamma is to regard an 'animal' to be an elephant, dog, cat, koala bear, etc, rather than as the functioning of the human mind. Definitely, not. The comment here has no basis. It is non sequitur. In fact, bizzare.
The Buddha taught "Right" understanding has an end, which is the goal of the path.
The Buddha taught all right dhammas have Nibbana as their final end (fulfilment). Again, non sequitur. The capacity to describe reality is a reflection of the clarity of realisation. You are simply fighting the Buddhist teachings, the revelations of the Buddha, like a rebel without a cause. Non sequitur.
Again, non sequitur. The books to read are set. They have a limit. They are a "handful of leaves", as the Buddha described. There are five Nikayas. There have been for many centuries.
Relying on these as the teacher or path is far more reliable than taking refuge in "eat grass", "chop wood", "slurp water", etc. Again, non sequitur. Obviously, the dualistic rant that exploded from your mind does not embody what you are attempting to impart.
When the bait is cast, the fish hooks on & fights. "When fishing, just fish", "when taking bait, just taking bait".
:coffee:
now to give an alternative view:
(1) "Not one person who reads this" - what "person"?
(2) "Not one person who reads this will be able to give up everything" - I trust there are those here who have been there, done that
(3) "find their own way" - in Buddhism, only one 'person' has found their own way, 100%, which was the Buddha
(4) "all Buddhas know and live" - that you have declared yourself to be a Buddha I cannot concur with
All the best
Buddha functions from wisdom
Anyway, time to earn a living and make some ("evil", "unGodly") $$$$$
with one's awareness,
one finds no one dearer
than oneself.
In the same way, others
are fiercely dear to themselves.
So one should not hurt others
if one loves oneself.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.01.than.html
Mere opinion. Where is the line between "east" and "west"? How does one determine where "the light" shines and where it doesn't?
This latest diatribe began in response to "just chop wood, carry water". This has nothing to do with animal behavior. This is a teaching about being in the moment, as in walking meditation. Hard to imagine someone would be unfamiliar with that.
So much ado about nothing, or very little... :rolleyes:
As for being in the (illusory) present moment, how does this relate to anxieties & deep needs to uphold the rebirth/reincarnation teachings?
How do the rebirth/reincarnation teachings relate to the (fleeting) present moment?
Are the rebirth/reincarnation teachings much ado about nothing or very little?
I suspect Dennis' comment (back on pg. 2) was a way of saying that all this discussion of mundane vs. supramundane doesn't do much to enhance one's daily practice. See your friend Dazzle with your questions about whether being in the present moment is relevant to anxieties & deep needs, etc. etc. I've noticed she's fond of commenting that being in the "now" and furthering our practice are what's important.
Personally, however, I find the discussion on mundane and supramundane teachings interesting. I think it's an important aspect of the teachings to understand, especially if it's true the Buddha sometimes taught one thing to laypeople, and the opposite to advanced students. Is that really possible?
(The "much ado" comment referred to the "animal behavior" digression (see my previous post).)
Yes, the Buddha discriminated audience, but not how you suggest. Your wording implies "laypeople" and "advanced students" are mutually exclusive categories. Since we can't ask the Buddha personally which teaching he would give us, though, we investigate his teachings for ourselves and form our own opinion, aside from other opinions about his teachings. And since all his teachings are about the path to nirvana, the mundane/transcendent distinction is just one way of describing that path.
May you find the causes of true happiness within.
Regards
Just as the honesty & integrity of some Buddhists were previously misrepresented by quoting Ajahn Lee, again, a view has been presented that is way out of the ballpark.
Someone even has the gall to describe others as existing in the animal realm, without ever meeting them, or knowing them. This is heresy and obviously can not be talked through because some people will not budge from there self made islands of delusion. That special knowledge that comes from a twisted mind, and an ego that believes they have actually given up there ego. The worst possible state a person can get into according to Dharma principles. But they will write it off as others ignorance and search their monkey mind for another response that is holier than any that has been suggested. As for me, because of this type of ego dominance of an ignorant sort, I am leaving this forum to never return, and let the "know it all" rule the roost. Playing the Cock on Dung Hill game, and pretending it is superior knowledge and it is directly what the Buddha taught. Not realizing that everyone has a different set of circumstances and karma, and have to be dealt with as humans not machines.
In the monastery i have lived in for 25 years these kind of people last about 5 minutes, and then are asked to leave. But since this is a forum, and they will not leave or change their deluded beliefs, it is better that I leave and go practice what I have learned by giving everything up to know and live like the Buddha. If you support war you are not even close to knowing what a Buddha is. And no matter how you justify it, it is still an excuse, and if you really cared about others would stop it immediately. These are the teachings, the rest is child's play, and pompous ego tripping.
In a way, we live amongst ego's world so we only have to learn how to be genuine ourself. What other choice is there? _/\_
It seems many of us rebel from this notion of mundane vs supramundane. Supramundane implies "secret" or "advanced" or "special", at least in the west. I notice vajraheart took it to mean secret tantric practices. It can also give rise to a restlessness, thinking "Is this the best teaching to be following?"
Perhaps the attachment to these notions might be stilled if mundane vs supramundane are described simply as "moral teachings" vs "liberation teachings".
The path to liberation is clear in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, yet the Buddha spent a great deal of time saying different things to other people. Some minds rebel against the simple teachings, as not all minds are ready to abandon their clinging. Still, there is a way to live a resonant, compassionate life, and Buddha taught that as well, when it was the right thing to do in the moment, for the person.
If we are studying the four noble truths and following the eightfold path, we're using the supramundane teachings already. Abandon the worrying...
You sound very angry, and I have empathy for the difficulty in your present moment. If the cock's words was striking at empty air, it wouldn't stir up your ego. Breathe and let go...
I had a friend once who used his knowledge of spiritual archetypes to "fish for ego", and he ended up alone, convinced he was the next Buddha. All he really was, though, was a knowledgeable bully. Sometimes its called Spiritual Materialism, where knowledge and the appearance of wisdom can underpin an ego, and when one looks in the mirror they truly think their ego is silent and they are "awake". If you poke them even the tiniest bit, they explode into aggression and projection. My friend did get over it, though, and is well on the path of recovery. He realized one day how ignorant he really was of other peoples emotions, and it woke him up to his actual reflection.
Good luck on staying gone or coming back. Fed and Cloud mostly rule this roost, and they are usually fair and compassionate.
With warmth,
Matt
Spiny
And why the division between rebirth teachings and no-rebirth? Or does that dichotomy even exist? does it exist only in the minds of those who interpret the teachings a certain way? Do the "wisdom teachings" really differ that radically on rebirth from the morality teachings? This still raises the question: which teachings do you go by, for guidance on rebirth? I have my own reasons for believing the way I do on this score, but for the benefit of newbies, I think this is an important question to answer. If some of the morality teachings contain info the Buddha didn't really believe, (big "if", that) then shouldn't newbies be directed to the wisdom teachings, at least on key topics like karma and rebirth?
If such questions are "irrelevant to practice", as so many have commented in the past, a) why did the Buddha bother to teach these things and b) why study the sutras or spend much time on study at all? What's the point of all the sutras, commentaries, later teachings and endless publications?
Thank you, aMatt, Spiny, and Cloud for bringing the discussion back on topic.
A HANDFUL OF LEAVES
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
The question, in my opinion, is not whether or not there are 'so called' mundane and supramundane teachings, but rather is this even relevant to your life and practice now. Because, if there are truly supramundane teachings, then they will come about as a result of a genuine and true, solid practice -- NOT by further and endless speculations and distractions.
Best wishes,
Abu
Oh well. I guess it's impossible to know for sure, in some respects. :-/ *shrug*
For instance, convincing someone who is rich and indulgant that they are suffering is difficult, if not impossible. So one might say to them "Being indulgent now brings about an unfavorable rebirth" which is true. Where you could say to the monk, who has cultivated some right view "being indulgant causes clinging, causes suffering" and they would see it for as it is, without the need for the personal carrot.
You can't call to a pig with pearls and diamonds, nor to the royal caste with abandonment and dispassion.
The Buddha's teachings, as far as I know them are pretty straight forward and direct. Sometimes, however, the nuance is in the detail and the detail is in the nuance. Words are limited, experience is not. Sometimes people use different words for different standards, or even different understandings of an audience, but I am not and have not been aware of different teachings for lay people and monks.
However, in experience, contradiction is ALSO fact. For example, when you cry, are you happy or are you sad? Sometimes there is both but in words we might be only able to express a very limited set.
Here is an example (which you may like) of a nice teacher and an example of a kind and wise (if I can use the word) 'contradiction' teaching, which is also entirely accurate in both senses - With well wishes,
Abu
As far as I know the Buddha also said that he has not held anything back in terms of the teachings. In the teachings that he left behind and well formed by the many traditions there is the guidance there already. The Eightfold Path, as it is, is a complete teaching. To live it is to live the Buddha Way and it is in the Buddha Way that we strive.
Best wishes,
Abu
edit: Right, gotcha, Abu--stick with the basics, as many so often say on this forum, and you can't go wrong. It's up for each to decide how they want to take the teachings on karma and rebirth.
What I do know is that there is the transcendent, but this is an outcome or result of practice, and not the motivation or desire of practice.
Here in forums there can be a lot of distraction IMO.
Best wishes,
Abu
Longchenpa (I think) said roughly: My mind is as vast as the sky but I respect karma like fine grains of sand.
To a buddha relative truth and ultimate truth are not separate. Which is to say relative truth is like an illusion and not grasping to that relative truth would be a realization of ultimate truth. If we could do that we would be buddhas. How do you practice when you lose your home are diseased about to die?