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.
Sutra Activity (Study/Activity)
Carlita
Bastian please! Save us!United States Veteran
I was thinking of doing a weekly activity which involves studying and talking about the sutras. It's serious but light hearted; and, I hope it works.
What if I posted a sutra verse, right? Then we talk about what it means and so forth. When the conversation get's less and less, someone else's post another sutra verse and we continue our conversation. It's kind of like the world association game as in it's continuous; but, I'm trying to figure how we know who is going to post the next sutra so it won't be multiple ones all at one time.
What ye think? You think we can pull it off?
1
Comments
Sounds good to me, how about just posting one up, nothing to lose?
(Here we go)
On one occasion The Blessed One was dwelling among the Koliyans where there was a market town of the Koliyans named Kakkarapatta. Then the Koliyan family man Dighajanu approahed the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. So seated, he said to the Blessed one:
"Venerable sir, we are laypeople who enjoy sensual pleasures, dwelling at home in a bed crowded with children, enjoying fine sandalwood, wearing gardlands, scents, and unguents, accpeting gold and silver. Let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma to us in a way that will lead to our welfare and happiness both in the present life and in the future life as well"
"There are, Byagghapajja, four things that lead to the welfare and happiness of a family man in this very life. What four? The accomplishment of protection, good, friendship, and balance living.
~AN 8:54; IV 281-285
https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.54
Protected or safe environments are easy to practice good in.
Friendship is also described by the Buddha as the whole of the holy life.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html
Balance to me means both moderation and The Middle Way.
Sounds like a plan.
I think balance would be a good foundation to which the rest of the traits reply on. Can there be balance in good and friendship, though?
Yes, of course, but you have to create them. They don't just 'happen'.
How does one accomplish protection?
Protection from what? From harm caused by desire or need? From emotional stress caused by relationships? Financial security?
To truly protect yourself would you not need to remove yourself from any reliance or dependence on anyone or anything, such that if those things are taken away you are not brought to harm? And would this approach align itself with family values?
How do you find a balance in good. Good exists on it's own according. What is there to balance? and friendship? Maybe we can create balance in that.
I'd say, since it does say the welfare for family, protection could be protecting family. That would include stress and financial security; and, I also think it goes deeper than that. First, why would one need to remove themselves to practice non dependence and non reliance on anything and anyone? Maybe protecting one's family from these things is what this is talking about (or how it aligns).
Off Topic: If you guys feel we need a new quote, just say "End of topic" and someone or I will post another sutra quote.
No, it doesn't. 'Good' and 'bad' are subjective. It's a decision based upon your own perception.
Something 'good' to you may not be seen in the same light, by others.
The amount, and what you base your decision on.
It takes 2 to tango.
There are thousands of stories of friendships being damaged through the inappropriate or unskilful actions of one friend, as judged to be so, by the other.
Friendship - like Love - needs to be unconditional, and for that to exist, we need to practise Wise Compassion, not Idiot Compassion.
The first supports and empowers.
The second, perpetuates and enables, negatively.
When an old farmer’s stallion wins a prize at a country show, his neighbour calls round to congratulate him, but the old farmer says, “Who knows what is good and what is bad?”
The next day some thieves come and steal his valuable animal. His neighbour comes to commiserate with him, but the old man replies, “Who knows what is good and what is bad?”
A few days later the spirited stallion escapes from the thieves and joins a herd of wild mares, leading them back to the farm. The neighbour calls to share the farmer’s joy, but the farmer says, “Who knows what is good and what is bad?”
The following day, while trying to break in one of the mares, the farmer’s son is thrown and fractures his leg. The neighbour calls to share the farmer’s sorrow, but the old man’s attitude remains the same as before, and he replies, “Who knows what is good and what is bad?”
The following week the army passes by, forcibly conscripting soldiers for the war, but they do not take the farmer’s son because he cannot walk. The neighbour thinks to himself,
I'm not going to go round and congratulate the old man! He will only say the same thing he always does...
“Who knows what is good and what is bad?”
And he'd be right....
More here....
New Sutra
"Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an inquirer, not knowing how to gauge another’s mind, should investigate the Tathāgata with respect to two kinds of states, states cognizable through the eye and through the ear thus: ‘Are there found in the Tathāgata or not any defiled states cognizable through the eye or through the ear?’ When he investigates him, he comes to know: ‘No defiled states cognizable through the eye or through the ear are found in the Tathāgata.’"
MN 47: Vimamsaka Suttal I 317-20
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn47
That and others I'd wager.
I don't think so. It lines up fine with me because to protect myself is to protect those within my reach. When I gained a family of my own my sense of self grew to include them.
To remove yourself from any dependence is to cease existing. I think the trick is to cherish what is here now while knowing it will not last forever and then not clinging too much when it's gone.
I think here he openly invites his students to investigate not only the teachings but the dharma-body Tathagata. They had the privilege of looking him in the eye when hearing the dharma.
"Can you see the truth in my eyes and in my voice?" "Am I lying or crazy?"
"Investigate"
Since the Buddha didn't write his words down, do you think there is a method of testing that the words are his and even more so test him given we can't literally him nor see him to test if what he says is true teachings?
I mean, our experiences can tell us; however, The Buddha looks more to the mind as the source. So...
How does good not stand up on it's own accord? This kind of like saying that we cannot have Buddhanature and all that's good without dellusions. Without dellusions, labels, what is left? All that is considered "good."
I can see the balance in the others you commented. Though, I'd say good or all that makes up what we call good in us (say things that make up our becoming a Buddha) doesn't change. It exist in itself. What was it called, our Self. I guess the subjective good/bad is non-self.. I dont know. I need to eat.
For me, I think it's a given that the 4NTs and 8FP can be attributed to Buddha.
If a teaching goes against one of the Noble Truths or represents an aspect of the 8FP that makes compassion more of a hopeful ideal than logical then I figure it may not be authentic or a misunderstanding.
That's just me though.
Because Good always has an opposite. Whatever Good you do, will in some measure, somewhere, at some point, be counterbalanced by 'Bad'.
Whatever Good we try to achieve, there will be Suffering, to a greater or lesser degree, elsewhere.
And that is when such actions become Subjective.
We try our best, but we cannot please all of the people, all of the time.
As the saying goes, "No Good Deed goes Unpunished"....
For every ounce of Buddha Nature you have, you also have 'Mara Nature'.
Until Enlightenment, we are a composite....
Isn't that the problem though?
First of all, with delusions (as we all are, now) then there has to be a measure of both. It's a fine balance.
Without Delusions and labels, then what is there to label 'Good' or 'Bad'?
It is what it is. The Buddha takes everything as it happens and labels nothing.
It does change, of course it changes. Because while we change, everything about us changes too.
Nothing remains the same. Until enlightenment, we struggle to maintain a balance.
As I said, what is currently 'Good' in us is counter-measured by the Mara Nature which creates illusory perceptions and makes us falter.
We are never consistently, unfailingly good to the same degree, all the time....
Bon appetit!
Hmm. If I saw my Buddhanature as changing, then Id say there is no way to acheive it. But instead, our true self is always there, just the non self (i guess thats the correct term) is what is not stable. Once we realize this and our delusions are gone, we enter enlightenment where our buddhanature is there not changing. Dormant.
I suppose you have to be happy to call it 'Buddha Nature.'
I'm not comfortable with the term, unless we also acknowledge that in our Un-Enlightened state We have just as much of an equal measure of Mara Nature...
There has to be.
In an unelightened state, 'there is nothing good or bad but that thinking makes it so....'
We are not flawless.
Not even in our most 'Good' state, there is always an agenda....
@federica
Kind of like the core of the earth. Although there the land shapes different ways, weather changinga vegetation, etc the core is always there. Its alway> @federica said:
I mean The Buddha had full knowlede of the nature of life. I feel thats only possible when we realize we are not our attachments. If we said there are good and bad attachments and our non-self changes, now I understand. But the Buddha's wisdom didnt change from enlightened to unenlightened. He beat going through the cycle of birth and death.
Anyway, thats my personal intake. Not to say you are wrong.
(I think I posted wrong or something)
L
Well said
I iz 'L' for learner too.
Therefore the nature of enlightened and Buddha Nature could change ... especially with enlightenment ...
New Sutra?
"So, this spiritual life, monks, does not have pain, honor, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of moral discipline for its benefit, or the attainment of concentrationf or its benefit, or knowledge and visionf or its benefit. But it is this unshakable libteration of mind that is the goal of this spiritual life, its heartwood, and its end." earlier in the sutra, The Buddha says to the monks, "here, monks, some clansman goes forth out o faith from houehold life into homelessness, cnsidering, "I am victim of birht, aging, and death of sorrow, lamentation, pain dejection, and dispair; Iam a victim of suffering, a pret to suffering. Surely an ending of this whole mas of suffering be known."
MN 29 Mahasaropama Sutra 1 192-97
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html
The Buddha is telling us about empathy for suffering by being the one who suffers. He says that these things "fluff" we feel we get out of our practice are not true liberation of the mind (like honor, gain, and renown benefit) not even moral discipline. He just says its plainly being librated in the mind.
If we used empathy to develop liberation of the mind, are the other things that The Buddha taught are more like foundations to that point or is it the other way around, finding empathy and then building on that with the other things The Buddha taught the monks and lay people thereafter?
According to the Kalama Sutta the test is pragmatic - do the teachings when applied lead to wholesome mental states?
Yes, that is how Buddha Nature is described in some schools.
Testing as in try it out and see if it works? rather than testing its validity?
Should our practice be based on if it works or the practice itself? Getting your view point.
Is that teaching in the Pali or mostly Mahayana teachings (sutras? rather that suttas)?
@SpinyNorman I shall have a look see of the Kalama Sutta. Thanks. Cheerios!
Regarding the liberation heartwood sutra quote:
But it is this unshakable liberation of mind that is the goal of this spiritual life, its heartwood, and its end.
This is from a teaching lamas facebook page
There went again the sharp pain torturing my poor back. I couldn’t help groaning and lamenting to the little lama next to me: “What shall I do? It hurts so much!” “But haven’t you told us that in sickness, we should visualize exchanging ourselves with others and take their sufferings upon ourselves? Isn’t this the way to diminish self-attachment and pacify pain?”
The little lama’s words left me so embarrassed that I could have sunk through the floor. Often I sat on high podiums and prattled on, admonishing others quite irresponsibly about lofty principles: We must transform adversity and illness into spiritual growth! I used these lectures only to bind others but rarely to discipline myself, as I forgot them immediately afterward. Am I not exactly as described: “A giant in words, a dwarf in action”?
From somewhere here (can not remember facebook password for exact location)
https://www.facebook.com/UKBodhiAssociation/?fref=nf
That fluffy lama like most of us, is not walking the walk BUT showing integrity by admitting human frailty.
The point of dharma, the heartwood, is liberation. Not awesome meditation, ego tinkering, studying out moded or inapplicable teaching, chanting for [insert motive] etc.
If you just want an easy life, then remember dharma is initially about discipline and effort. It gets easier after liberation in my experience.
Buddha Nature is a Mahayana idea. It's interpreted differently in various schools.
Whether a practice has the desired effect, whether it leads towards the desired goal, usually liberation from suffering in Buddhism.
Yes, that's probably why it rubs my fur the wrong way... I'm more a Theravada Gal meself... though I think humour was my downfall, on another site.
That is how youd interpret The Buddha's point in test the teacher to see if he is correct?
Test it on yourself!
He says test the teacher to see if he is enlightened before receiving instruction from him.
He doesnt say test yourself. He says just do it!
Here's the relevant section of the Kalama Sutta:
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
But it also says in another sutta (on the metro now, cant look for it) that one must test the teacher to know if he is enlightend or better words follows/practices the teachings themselves. What Im refering to is test the teacher not test the practices to see if they work.
That, ans I practice for the practice rather than to see if it works for myself. It helps me wih not having expectations on what practice should be because I am testing/analyzing it for validity.
The Buddha says in some of his sutras to basically "just do it." It shows itself.
You test the teacher by testing the practices he teaches - for yourself. By putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of the teacher, to be trustworthy, you abdicate responsibility for being able to think for yourself.
"It's not my fault, he made me do it - it's what he taught me!" Cuts no mustard, in Buddhism.
Responsibility starts, where the buck stops. And it stops with you.
I usually dont test the teacher. I practice for the practice rather than practice to validate The Buddha's teachings.
(Me aside here), why does one need to validate The Buddha's teachings by practice? If it doesnt work, that doesnt mean the teacher is wrong. The Buddha is a guide. He isn't someone we bounce our practices on to proove it works. That defeats the purpose of finding the answer in onself not on the teacher.
But why do you practice? What motivates you?
I neve really thought why I practice. When I practiced Zen, we didnt ask why we just "did it'"The results like peace of mind, etc, we were not to be attach to that will block our practice. So, my saying "I practice becasue the Buddha said so" defeats the purpose of what the Buddha taught.
What motivates me? I honestly dont know. Sometmes i have good days on my cushion others not so good. Its discipline too. If I develop a motivation and live only by my expectations (with anything) I almost always stop practicing all together. I study mostly. Thats a lo of my meditation there. Study lets me understand what I adopt in my everyday life. Using it as a christian uses a bible, though, defeats the purpose.
So its not why... I just do it. It's more how and what' Whatever I come from my cushion with changes. Just like in writing, I try not to have expectations of that same experiene when I come back Usually, I end up doing something different.
@SpinyNorman
I try not to attach myself to the teacher. I try not to idolize the practice. I'm a free thinker and spirited (gypsy soul). Plus, that sounds like a trust situation. I trust The Buddha's teachings, I dont need to wave it in "my" face. It's nothing special. Thats what I like about it' It is life. I dont have to theorize and anylze it (unles trying to understand the sutra I read) bbecause the practice jsut isnt about that. I understood what The Buddha meant by test the teacher to see if his teachings are correct. It doesnt say test by practice. That comes natural. If the practice doesnt work, that doesnt meant the teacher is wrong. So, I see no inner correlation beween the two.
My question:
(Me aside here), why does one need to validate The Buddha's teachings by practice? If it doesnt work, that doesnt mean the teacher is wrong. The Buddha is a guide. He isn't someone we bounce our practices on to proove it works. That defeats the purpose of finding the answer in onself not on the teacher.
Because it was his recommendation.
How would you know, if you don't test it through practice?
Of course he is.
He leads by example. It is his teachings which form the foundation of our Practice.
Isn't 'Buddha Nature' to be like the Buddha?
How can we be like the Buddha if we don't examine and test things he taught, for ourselves?
You cannot find an answer if you do not first have the question.
The 'question' comes through researching and examining what the Buddha taught.
You can't be both a Buddhist and do it solo.
That is the purpose, to do it solo with Buddha as a guide. At least, for me personally, I dont practice to bounce what I do off his teachings "in order to proove his teachings right or wrong." I do that by practice. What is nice about the practice is we do not Depend on the Buddha but he is our guide and we Depend on ourselves, our inner nature. As soon as you start Depending on others than you form an attachment.
There is saying I liked when I practiced Zen, "kill The Buddha" (meant for example not direspect of course) The author was saying not to make an attachment to the Buddha. He (the person) isn't our Buddhanature. When we meditate, are we meditating to find ourselves or find the Buddha. That is the difference betwen guide and teacher.
Like I am a teacher by profession. Students at first depend on me to be their teacher. Then they look in their books to see if what I say lines up with what they are reading and doing outside when the speak English more often.
Afteawhile, they dont Depend on me as a teacher. They learn from themselves the skills they know and dont know. After many years of practice they "kill the teacer" and can use the knowledge they learn on their own to further their studies even though they still have a teacher.
The teacher has become a guide not the source of knowledge. The source of knowledge is the practice and experience.
-
In my practice, Buddha nature is to be like Dharma. Nichiren says "since the mind itself is the Buddha and the Buddha is noneo ther than the mind, what Buddha can there be outside the mind."
I dont know how Theravada sees it, but many Mahayana schools say the focus is on the mind. By culture we give offerings and relects to The Buddha (In Nichiren Buddhism, we give these to the Dharma); and that doesnt exclude it is in us that the Buddhanature is not in the Buddha himsself.
His teachings are a foundation of our practice, yes. I keep it as a foundation, though. If I attach myself to the teaching, I turn away from who I am as a Boddhisatva and try to mirror a person who havent een lived in my century! People bowed to the Buddha then and so forth. I do the same. I dont bow because the Buddha helped me. I bow because the Dharma helped me. But the Dharma (the actual teachings) are not ourseles. They are guides. To know our Buddhanature, we need to practice. If I find my nature is to spread the sutras by playing hopscotch with a friend, I would do so. There is no hopscotch in the sutras. Does that mean I should not spread it that way? Thats not the point of his teachings.
We can be Buddhist and do it solo because no one else is us. We, as individuals, find our own Buddhanature. We don't depend on another person to find it for us. They are not us.
If you mean witihout the three jewels, no. I agree. Though my point is not to replace them as if they are your true nature. Al three are guides and support. The physical Buddha, physical Dharma, and physical Buddhist community are not your Buddhanature. Who you are. If so, can you be a Buddha if these things did not exist? In other words' would you not have a Buddhanature if you didnt know about the Buddha?
Just differences by looking at how we attach ourselves to things.
The question is the answer. I dont ask "how can I become a Buddha? I become a Buddha by actually practicing the question and getting the answer. Living the Lotus.
I think you said you are more closer to Theravada? Im not to familar with Theravada school' I do follow the sutras and suttas. That could be why we differ.
I like the idea of Buddhanature but it seems to deify the process. I neither embrace nor reject the idea.
However if we will not find self in that which changes the only thing left is that which can never change which is the cycle of change itself.
@Carlita;
I think the point is not to take dharma on faith especially if the recommended practice doesn't seem to be working for you.
True. There is a sutra on "blind faith" (tilted by the book author). Anyone can believe or have faith in anything of interest, but if its not working out, for some they wonder why practice?
I think to undeify buddhanature is just call it self. A lot of times I try to use True Self. It takes the focus off the physical Buddha and more on the Buddha Dharma within.