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.
"According to Theravada tradition, many Buddhas have come and gone over countless eons"
"Some of a Buddha's followers may themselves become arahants, but they are not Buddhas, because they required a Buddha to show them the way to Awakening. (All Buddhas and paccekabuddhas are arahants, but not all arahants are Buddhas or paccekabuddhas)"
Well, for one thing, in Mahayana buddhahood is characterized by omniscience. Therefore an arahant, lacking omniscience, isn't a Buddha from the Mahayana point of view. In addition, nirvana is understood differently in Mahayana.
Now I see why people think Buddha is parallel to a God in Mahayana tradition. The Buddha and the Arahants are differed solely by method of attainment and ability to deliver the teachings. They are all liberated from Samsara, and thusly gone. The Buddha was human, endowed with the greatest psychic powers (like in the Kevatta Sutta). The body and mind (the five khandhas) of a Buddha are impermanent and changing, just like the body and mind of ordinary people. However, a Buddha recognizes the unchanging nature of the Dharma, which is an eternal principle and an unconditioned and timeless phenomenon.
In Mahayana, those who have attained nirvana still have work to do.
This implies that Nirvana is impermanent or even suffering, it is not, Nirvana is peace.
This idea originates from certain Mahayana texts such as the Threefold Lotus Sutra, where the arahant is said not to have reached final nirvana. Essentially, they're seen as being intoxicated with the samadhi of cessation, not the nirvana that's attained by a fully enlightened Buddha.
Well that makes no sense, because it implies that Buddhahood itself is impermanent or suffering or ruled by desire or attachment to Samadhi. it is not.
Moreover, it's said that Buddhas are then able to awaken these individuals from their temporary cessation in order for them to continue towards complete Buddhahood (making Buddhas extremely important), which is characterized by omniscience.
I don't know about that, it implies Shakyamuni isn't thusly gone. I don't think that's true, but I would have to prove it, and I cannot.
This is said to be due to Buddhahood being the result of wisdom and merit accumulation, and not just the eradication of afflictions.
So it claims that Shakyamuni is still afflicted?! It doesn't seem to make much sense with respect to the 3 marks of existence.
The nature of Shakyamuni in Mahayana is a bit more complicated, as well. For one thing, Mahayana isn't homogeneous in a number of areas; but in general, the historical Buddha is seen to be a nirmanakaya, i.e., a manifestation of the Dharmakaya who appears for the benefit of sentient beings.
Right.... I'm confused about that. Is he the Buddha or is he not? Is he free from suffering or not?
Of course, all of this contrasts with how the Buddha and nirvana are presented and understood in Theravada, which, as I said, is why these inter-tradition dialogues often end with everyone talking past each other. They're not very productive, either, which is why I tend to stay out of them.
Why oh why do I have such a hard time staying away...
Because you love me so much?
"According to Theravada tradition, many Buddhas have come and gone over countless eons"
True :thumbsup:
"Some of a Buddha's followers may themselves become arahants, but they are not Buddhas, because they required a Buddha to show them the way to Awakening. (All Buddhas and paccekabuddhas are arahants, but not all arahants are Buddhas or paccekabuddhas)"
This only is in reference to the sasana(religion) being impermanent, but Nirvana is ultimately peace. Once you're gone, you're gone. You don't come back. Once you don't come back you don't come back. Samsara is defeated. Like I said before, the difference is how Nirvana is attained, and whether one can deliver the teachings before one is gone(parinirvana).
I don't know what you mean. He says that a follower of the buddha can't be a buddha, and that an arahant is not a buddha. That's not what I was debating in the first place, but that's what you turned it into, so there it is. Anyways, i'm claiming to be done again. Let's see if I can stick with it this time
Let's put it this way, and indulge me for a moment if everyone else keeps trying to put off Nirvana with the idea that other people haven't attained Nirvana, how many people do you think are going to keep coming back? The same people who keep clinging to Samsara XD
I don't know what you mean. He says that a follower of the buddha can't be a buddha, and that an arahant is not a buddha. That's not what I was debating in the first place, but that's what you turned it into, so there it is. Anyways, i'm claiming to be done again. Let's see if I can stick with it this time
He's not saying they aren't Buddhas, just that they're not like Shakyamuni (Samyaksambuddha) because it mentions in the next sentence Sasana (the message) so as not to get people to think that just because the message is out doesn't mean that the message lasts forever. It will keep being delivered by Buddhas who attain realization after Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings are gone. They will then keep being delivered until all people are thusly gone.
One last thing I wanted to say(I wanted to say it and then you had already responded so in keeping with my goal of staying out of this discussion from here on out I will post what I was gonna say and not respond to the post ) I don't think anyone on here cares what you believe, but to act like the mahayana position is stupid is to say that the dalai lama and other greatly realized buddhists understanding pales in comparison to yours, to the point where their understanding is stupid. Are you sure you want to go that route?
I don't think anyone on here cares what you believe, but to act like the mahayana position is stupid is to say that the dalai lama and other greatly realized buddhists understanding pales in comparison to yours, to the point where their understanding is stupid.
When did I say that? I am quite aware I stand on the shoulders of giants, but I can say in some cases they might be mistaken. Like for the Dalai Lama in particular, since you mentioned him, I'm going to say the way he approached the Shugden situation could have been done differently, and he hurt the Karmapa school with his words and actions, and also the whole Tibetan Theocracy before (if he really believes he's the reincarnated versions of his predecessors) was cruel and had slavery. I will be a critic of any teachings I find unsound, and any teacher if I see fit.
Are you sure you want to go that route?
That's not really necessary, and I don't want to. I will however disagree freely and point out what makes no sense.
Okay the new point is that you want to be a Samyaksambuddha instead of an arahant because you want special higher attainment, and I reiterate my metaphor. Why would a person who is given the cure by the doctor who is not sick, refuse the medicine that can cure to the disease given to him by the doctor who has already given it to others (and it has been proven to work) and instead try to cure people by becoming a doctor while staying sick? That just seems counterproductive. As I said before, the best interest for others is to take the medicine first and then if you want to become a doctor become a doctor.
This is how I understand it, but I'm no scholar so bear with me. Using the metaphor, one does not refuse any medicine. I believe it is a misunderstanding to say that one wants to become a Samyaksambuddha instead of an arahant because arahat attainment is simply one of the steps to becoming a Samyaksambuddha. One takes the medicine with the intent of becoming a doctor, that is not sick, for the purposes of giving the medicine to all others, curing all others. Being cured and not becoming a doctor is not an option. According to Mahayana, an arahat is one who gets the cure and leaves. In Mahayana one does not aspire to become an arahat because one never has any intention of leaving to begin with.
Mahāyāna Buddhists see the Buddha himself as the ideal towards which one should aim in one's spiritual aspirations. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, a hierarchy of general attainments is envisioned, with the attainments of arhats and pratyekabuddha being clearly separate, and below that of fully-enlightened buddhas (Skt. samyaksaṃbuddha), or tathāgatas, such as Gautama Buddha.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._119_12-0" class="reference">[13]</sup>
In contrast to the goal of becoming a fully-enlightened buddha, the path of a śrāvaka in being motivated by seeking personal liberation from saṃsāra, is often portrayed as selfish and undesirable.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14]</sup> There are even some Mahāyāna texts that regard the aspiration to arhatship and personal liberation as an outside path.<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">[15]</sup> Instead of aspiring for arhatship, Mahāyāna Buddhists are urged to instead take up the path of a bodhisattva, and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._119_12-1" class="reference">[13]</sup> Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sūtra (Skt. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra), any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference">[16]
</sup>The Mahāyāna teachings often consider the śrāvaka path to be motivated by fear of saṃsāra, which renders them incapable of aspiring to buddhahood, and that they therefore lack the courage and wisdom of a bodhisattva.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._120_16-0" class="reference">[17]</sup> Novice bodhisattvas are compared to śrāvakas and arhats at times. In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, there is an account of 60 novice bodhisattvas who attain arhatship despite themselves and their efforts at the bodhisattva path, because they lacked ability in prajñā-pāramitā and skillful means to progress as bodhisattvas toward complete enlightenment (Skt. Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi). This is because they are still viewed as having innate attachment and fear of saṃsāra. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra compares these people to a giant bird without wings that cannot help but plummet to the earth from the top of Mount Sumeru.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._120_16-1" class="reference">[17]</sup>
In Mahayana, those who have attained nirvana still have work to do.
This implies that Nirvana is impermanent or even suffering, it is not, Nirvana is peace.
I don't think that is the case. There is still work to do because other beings have yet to attain nirvana, not because peace has not been found for oneself.
This is how I understand it, but I'm no scholar so bear with me. Using the metaphor, one does not refuse any medicine. I believe it is a misunderstanding to say that one wants to become a Samyaksambuddha instead of an arahant because arahat attainment is simply one of the steps to becoming a Samyaksambuddha.
One takes the medicine with the intent of becoming a doctor, that is not sick, for the purposes of giving the medicine to all others, curing all others. Being cured and not becoming a doctor is not an option.
I kind of understand what you're getting at but once a person becomes a Buddha they do not come back to Samsara, nor do they need to, because until the time of Maitreya there will be no need for another Buddha until the next decline of the Dharma etc. ad infinitum.
Of course if your goal is that you want to be born in Tushita heavens so you can try and be reborn as a human to become a Samyaksambuddha in a human birth so that you can guide people in the same path as you, my main problem with that idea is it implies that you think that others haven't attained Buddhahood yet which may be a mistaken view due to fear of abandonment.
And if you want to help people attain Nirvana, you can do that in this life by teaching and disseminating the Dharma. To become a Samyaksambuddha is just unnecessary right now because the Dharma is still being disseminated, and not forgotten. You are helping people attain Nirvana by becoming an Arahant, and to become attached to Samsara is counterproductive to the goal. :rolleyes:
According to Mahayana, an arahat is one who gets the cure and leaves. In Mahayana one does not aspire to become an arahat because one never has any intention of leaving to begin with.
Once you receive the cure, you cannot go back. That's what makes enlightenment, enlightenment. You don't go back to Samsara, ever, because you've no fetters left to bind you there.
Buddhists see the Buddha himself as the ideal towards which one should aim in one's spiritual aspirations.
That's wonderful, but you're also aware of how many Kalpas one has to live through to see the Dharma decline? Especially when the Sangha actually keep teaching it? to try and become a Samyaksambuddha and delay nirvana might be completely unnecessary. Everyone might already be free already, but we're stuck here in a deluded state of mind with the idea that others haven't. And I mean this doesn't even include the fact that all things in Tushita Heavens decline, die, get sick etc. The shifting of the aggregates are not friendly to a person in Samsara, and Karma, not Boddhisattvahood ties a person to samsara, even in the Tushita Heavens.
In Mahāyāna Buddhism, a hierarchy of general attainments is envisioned, with the attainments of arhats and pratyekabuddha being clearly separate, and below that of Samyaksambuddha
I don't know about that vision of hierarchy, or how it helps attainment for others, but all people who exit Samsara don't come back because they have achieved Buddhahood (albeit in different ways) they still don't have any of the mental impurities or fetters that tie a person to samsara. The only way to stay stuck to samsara is to willfully choose to ignore a fetter holding you back.
or tathāgatas, such as Gautama_Buddha
You do know tathāgata is a title for an Arahant right?
In contrast to the goal of becoming a fully-enlightened buddha, the path of a śrāvaka in being motivated by seeking personal liberation from saṃsāra, is often portrayed as selfish and undesirable.
As I said before, a person who refuses the medicine, that the doctor gave them and demands to be sick until everyone becomes a doctor isn't considering the possibility that they might be the only one refusing the medicine.
There are even some Mahāyāna texts that regard the aspiration to arhatship and personal liberation as an outside path.
But it is the only path the Buddha taught. The only way to be unaffected by it is to not hear it or to ignore it.
Instead of aspiring for arhatship, Mahāyāna Buddhists are urged to instead take up the path of a Bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas.
This implies there is a fall when it might not be there.
Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the bodhisattva path, presumably when ready.
They cannot, because there's no way back to samsara. It's like choosing to go back to sleep when you're already awakened.
According to the Lotus Sūtra (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra), any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.
Okay, I don't think so, because it doesn't seem to add up.
The Mahāyāna teachings often consider the śrāvaka path to be motivated by fear of saṃsāra, which renders them incapable of aspiring to buddhahood, and that they therefore lack the courage and wisdom of a bodhisattva.
I don't think so. There's no reason to fear Samasara. There is no courage or wisdom lacking because to become a śrāvaka you release fear and anxiety for equanimity. There's nothing to hold them back.
Novice bodhisattvas are compared to śrāvakas and arhats at times. In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, there is an account of 60 novice bodhisattvas who attain arhatship despite themselves and their efforts at the bodhisattva path, because they lacked ability in prajñā-pāramitā and skillful means to progress as bodhisattvas toward complete enlightenment
Okay, again I contest the idea that there's a hierarchy of awakening. There's being awake, and not being awake.
Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi. This is because they are still viewed as having innate attachment and fear of saṃsāra. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra compares these people to a giant bird without wings that cannot help but plummet to the earth from the top of Mount Sumeru
I think that's unfounded because there's no attachment an Arahant has left. There's nothing left to fear. Not even Samsara.
I don't think that is the case. There is still work to do because other beings have yet to attain nirvana, not because peace has not been found for oneself.
I agree with that, and as I said, there's no attachment left in an Arahant, also no samsara to fear. Samsara is a fragile bubble created by one's own clouds of ignorance. It clouds a person's eyes so they can't see what is in front of them. Dependent origination shows that once that cessation is completed the ignorance abates.
The only difference is how a person attained their enlightenment and ability to teach before being thusly gone. While the Samyaksambuddha is certainly an aspiration one might crave, it is a craving better abandoned, so one doesn't crave for immaterial existence. See craving to be better than a Śrāvakabuddha when you live in the time of the dissemination of the Dharma is craving for immaterial existence. You will get your wish, but it's unnecessary. Imagine for a moment if all sentient beings are Śrāvakabuddha for a moment. What would be the purpose then of becoming a Samyaksambuddha other than craving for immaterial attainments?
I kind of understand what you're getting at but once a person becomes a Buddha they do not come back to Samsara, nor do they need to, because until the time of Maitreya there will be no need for another Buddha until the next decline of the Dharma etc. ad infinitum....
...The shifting of the aggregates are not friendly to a person in Samsara, and Karma, not Boddhisattvahood ties a person to samsara, even in the Tushita Heavens...
...I don't know about that vision of hierarchy, or how it helps attainment for others, but all people who exit Samsara don't come back because they have achieved Buddhahood (albeit in different ways) they still don't have any of the mental impurities or fetters that tie a person to samsara. The only way to stay stuck to samsara is to willfully choose to ignore a fetter holding you back...
What you need to understand is that Mahayana has a different conception of buddhahood and what a Buddha is capable of doing; and, to steal a phrase from tiltbillings, "The Mahayana does not get to define the Theravada for Theravadins any more than the Theravada gets to define the Mahayana for Mahayanists."
In Mahayana, there's nothing stopping a Buddha from 'popping back' into samsara, especially considering that, for them, the distinction between samsara and nirvana is little more than an illusion when viewed from the ultimate standpoint of the Dharmakaya. Moreover, their conception of causality allows for the continuation of the mindstream after the breakup of the body. As Namdrol from E-Sangha once explained it to me:
If the causes if a mindstream were solely afflictive, then with the exhaustion of the karmic share that sustains the life force of the body, and thus the life of a Buddha or an arhat, I might be inclined to agree that the mind stream of a Buddha or an arhat would cease at death, since all causes for its continuance would be exhausted too. However there is a slight problem with this: if the mindstream's causes were solely afflictive, why does the mind not cease with nirvana in toto? Why does the mind continue after the eradication of all afflictions in a Buddha and an arhat? And if the mind continues after the eradication of the afflictions of a Buddha, etc., why could it not continue after the breakup of the body of a Buddha, etc., albeit in a non-afflicted state? In fact, Peter Harvey's interesting book, The Selfless Mind, makes this very suggestion on page 250 where he summerizes all of his arguments and findings.
In other words, not only does bodhicitta act as a cause to help keep a bodhisattva on the path to buddhahood throughout their innumerable lives, it acts as a positive, non-afflictive cause for the continuation of the enlightened being/mindstream as well. And this is perfectly logical and consistent within Mahayana's own understanding of itself, which includes certain terms that Theravada understands differently.
For example, the Theravada standpoint is that the cause of said mindstream (as well as the body) is kamma, both skillful and unskillful, although I'm not entirely sure if this corresponds to afflictive and non-afflictive in Mahayana. Nevertheless, in the Pali Canon, the noble eightfold path is said to be the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma (AN 4.235).
When it comes to the standard explanation of why the mind and body don't [always] cease with that attainment of nirvana, it's said that as long as the lifespan of the aggregates isn't completely exhausted — which itself depends upon the amount of input remaining from past kamma — the mind and body of an arahant will continue. When this input from past kamma is exhausted, there's said to be complete cessation of both mind and body.
A Mahayanaist would probably disagree with this in an ultimate sense, saying that this is only how it appears from the point of view of samsara (think relativity here), but not from the point of view of high-level Bodhisattvas and fully enlightened Buddhas. Whether or not we agree with this is irrelevant, however, since neither tradition is the arbiter of all things Buddhist. The best we can do is agree to disagree.
That doesn't mean we can't be critical of certain ideas or have inter-tradition debates, but it does mean that nobody can really 'win' such debates as each side is logically consistent within itself, and it all depends on what you take as the basis for your views. It's entirely possible that a person who accepts the commentarial literature in Theravada as authoritative can have serious disagreements with someone who only accepts the Suttas, so just imagine the amount of disagreement possible with someone who also accepts an additional collection of teachings that lies outside of Theravada altogether.
That's why I tend to look beyond these debates and focus instead on other criteria for choosing what to accept as the basis for my views, things such as archeology, scholarly opinion, textual analysis, etc. I'm just as liable to reject the majority of the Theravadin commentarial literature as I am the majority of Sanskrit sutras.
That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find things in each I like, admire or even adopt when I think they're beneficial; and it certainly doesn't stop me from trying to understand where other traditions are coming from in order to see past our differences.
Don't attach to the sutras, don't attach to jargon, don't attach to your idea of the Buddha, don't attach to definitions and don't attach to what I just wrote.
This entire argument is ridiculous, you know that? The key is this view of being "gone". You don't go away; you realize you were only ever a temporary arising based on conditionality, that "you" were never really here. It's the self-view that is gone, the separation from the emptiness. Take the personal interest out, and you'll find the truth. The schism between the Buddhist schools, and the misunderstandings that have arisen, are only fostering attachment and confusion.
Just look at all the good Jesus did, all the compassion he taught. Karma is shared, passed on, belonging to all (and to none). Any single bit of self, of separate identity, confounds true understanding of the Dharma, and distorts it. We are the ones that are burying the Buddha's teachings. There is common ground and truth in all of the Buddhist schools, but we're clinging in the worst way.
[quote=Cloud;144632] As in all things, the Buddha made it clear that he taught of nothing but suffering and the cessation of suffering. Animals, with few exceptions, "react". They don't cling, they survive and propagate. It is only when the mental faculties become more defined that we begin to suffer; such could be said of the elephant that mourns the loss of its child, even to the point of being left behind itself and perishing. This is very limited suffering in terms of all animals, and the common view of animal mentality would neither allow for the gamut of suffering that drives us to seek liberation, nor the ability to perceive karma and the fruit of karma which show us how we cause it (most animals do not have long-term memory at all to make it clear in some sense). That's my opinion on that...[/quote]
So, really, the Buddhist distinctions between animal and human, etc. have hardly anything in common with our, I guess we can call it, biological distinctions. I mean, a person born with a disorder such as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissencephaly"]lissencephaly[/URL] wouldn't really fall under the Buddhist definition of "human", would they? [SIZE=1](Sheesh that looks so awful typed out.)[/SIZE] They certainly can't exhibit the kind of existential suffering or drive for liberation that you are talking about.
[SIZE=1]That sounds really awful.[/SIZE] [SIZE=1]Bear with me...[/SIZE]
It seems like it can be resolved, though, if we include the bardo. For example, a human being born with lissencephaly would be released from the physical disorder at the time of death, thus they could attain liberation in the bardo. This begs the question though: [B]what category of life form are you in the bardo?[/B] If a human being loses their "human-ness" in the bardo, then so could animals lose their "animal-ness".
If this is true, it's like a loophole for all our animal buddies.
To revive an old thread, I'd like to add that in the bardo state, for the first 49 days a person may still be lingering around, especially the first three days. During which time a person is seven times more sensitive and clairvoyant. The sensitive part isn't important, what is important, however, is that the being needs no language, they can read your mind. Perhaps in such a state the animal would be so attached in ignorance to their animal form that they would force an incapacity to understand another's thoughts, but it's just as logical to say that they could understand beyond the scope of a human, as they are technically no longer bound by a brain. All signs point towards unlikelihood for an animal in bardo to attain enlightenment even if they claivoyantly comprehend a Tibetan monk reciting the Tibetan Book of the Dead every day for 49 days (if we're to make this a hypothetical experiment) for even in such cases with a human, the human is unlikely. It is compared to being able to remember the exact moment before dreaming, can you ever? Probably not and likewise like a wind blown through the wind in bardo you're screwed. But theoretically it is possible, especially due to clairvoyance I'd say. Though, as said, no one would ever know. Did Old Yeller go to hell? heaven? or did that dog reach the realm of infinite consciousness?
Simply quoting chan gogons is a form of "chan sickness". Such as the phrase "If you see the Buddha kill him. If you see Mara, kill him". I am sure most zen and chan practitioners are aware it's referring to the fact one can only seek enlightenment/Buddha within one's own mind and not from the outside.
IT'S NOT THE SAME AS TO SAY YOU CAN SLANDER BUDDHA'S TEACHINGS.
This is the reason why Buddha considered entering Nirvana after his enlightenment because he is worry people will mis-interpret or mis-understand his teachings and cause themselves and other people great karmic harm with slandering.
Now with all the information all over the internet where people can access everything without a teacher guiding you this danger is even greater.
By saying things like you dislike certain sutras means your contemplating the Buddha might be/is wrong. That is very foolishly harming yourself. For Buddha is not wrong with anything he taught, it's different people's capacity to understand the teachings thats the problem.
Valois Your attitude is all too common even historically when the "Sudden enlightening" school is flourishing in China. Again, people who "suddenly" awaken is not because they have heard something "powerful" it's more because they are deeply rooted in the dharma from cultivation for a long time. Thus chan masters knows when to give their mind the extra push to understand. Such as reading the diamond sutra etc.
Infact, alot of teachers who stop student from reading any sutras etc for a long time because excessive knowledge is useless knowledge that will just increase one's ego and views, thus making the mind more stubborn and less likely to get enlightened.
If everyone read historical Chan stories carefully. Most accomplished Chan masters were very well disciplined for a long time before allowed to learn any buddhist theories.
Anyway, this is warning is said for the good of every new and keen practitioner on here!
DO NOT SLANDER BUDDHIST SUTRAS OR THEORIES PRESENTED BY THE BUDDHA! If you believe in karma it's wise to heed this!
Although I do agree with you Ch'an_noob that to slander or misrepresent the sutras is offensive and karmically detrimental, I do feel that academic or scholarly discussion and interpretation of the writings themselves, which were written by men who were not the Buddha, is not an offense. In fact I think it is good to maintain an open mind and recognizing that that which should be revered is not the sutra itself but that which the sutra hopes to engender in the practitioner. These writings are only a raft. Of course; curse the raft that carries you, and you just might sink.
Considering the Sutras were written by people who are way more wiser and reached a higher level of awakening than anyone on this forum I don't feel that we have the authority to "academiclly or scholarly" discuss the quality or validity of their interpretations. It's pretty certain Maha Kasyap made sure Ananda was enlightened before he started writing down the sutras. They do not just let anyone translate sutras etc within being approved by the right knowledgable authorites.
All the teachings were recordings of the words of Buddha, hence any suggestions they were "wrong" or "inferior" is a slander.
This is just something my teacher have emphosised and it has been written on sutras many times. I can't say nothing when practitioners insist on treading dangerous path.
Lighten up. Buddha is a figment of your imagination, that is why you should kill it, otherwise you will continue to cling to it. Another Ch'an sickness would be to parrot the interpretation of koans by others.
Buddha said no word ever; to say otherwise is to slander him. See, Surangama.
I never said anything was "wrong" or "inferior." When a sutra states information, such as sexist or derogatory comments about women, or miraculous elements that betray all sense of grounded reality, I take it with a grain of salt. I have no way of verifying the state of liberation and enlightenment that the writers of these statements had attained at the time of writing, and as such must rely upon that which adheres to the cessation of suffering and upholds the virtues of equanimity, morality, charity, patience, and vigor.
I feel that this discussion is not conducive to generating loving-kindness and will only lead to confusion, suffering, and discontent. I love you Ch'an, and I hope that none of my statements have offended your beliefs.
Ch'an, I know this isn't the words of the Buddha, but I'm going to go ahead and assume, although you're not following Vajrayana Buddhism, that you're firmly convicted that the Dalai Lama is an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, in which case maybe this statement about his support of the internet medium will remedy your opinion of electronically transmitted Buddhist teachings and debates:
As the twenty first century progresses, the Internet is becoming an increasingly more widespread and important medium for the global sharing of information. This is true as well for information concerning the Buddhist teachings, its history, and various other topics related to Tibetan culture. Especially in places where books and qualified teachers are rare, the Internet has become the main source of information for countless people.
In a world in which misunderstanding and sectarianism are commonplace, education is the most powerful means to eliminate the ignorance that fuels discord. I therefore welcome Dr. Alexander Berzin's multi-language website, www.berzinarchives.com, as a valuable educational tool for making globally available online a vast array of articles spanning the various schools and aspects of Buddhism and Tibetan culture.
Regarding what you were saying about me, I don't understand what you mean. I've been semi-studying Buddhism for less than a year. That's it so as such I claim no mastery or expertise--but let me say, this website and some friends I've made on it have fueled me to be in the process of devouring entire websites on Buddhism so there's many benefits also motivation-wise. I do understand what you here and on a couple of other threads are claiming about my and, as I understand it, other peoples' over-intellectualizations of Buddhist philosophy, scripture and history so then please let me implore that I agree with these articles' assumptions about spiritual development: that debate en tant que a healthy means of figuring out exactly what you know about particular tenets is very healthy (and very practiced at least in Tibet), for if you're foundation is lop-sided the entire structure is doomed to collapse. Moreover Berzin (or I should say Serkong Rinpoche) further claims that there's an intellectual, emotional and devotional approach to Buddhism whose perfect balance ought to be sought rather than abandoned. You are correct that I certainly am skewed too far into the intellectual category and ought to work on developing my emotional side, but it's funny how the ego works, isn't it? That those you have most in common with often become your enemies?
“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us” - Hermann Hesse
Also if all the teachings are the Buddha's, what do you feel about the second and third turnings of the dharma wheel? You seem to be flaunting ch'an Buddhism, so does this mean the third turning is false, but the second is real and that it was the Buddha's doing? Or perhaps it was transmitted by a Buddha via meditation? If perhaps you like the third turning, what do you feel about the Tibetan educational system as I linked you to above, they learn to read through logic. Then that logic is deliberately transformed into incessant debating as harnessed by their adolescent virility. Is this bad? Also as I was saying above having a proper foundation through these very debates, your view of karma seems to be a metaphysical one, that Mara is the evil temper and if you dare say a word against the Buddha to hell you shall go! Rather isn't samsara itself really a nonexistent conventional way of pondering the vast engine of cause and effect?
To conclude I also live right near the bible belt and have learned to be weary of blind faith. If I be engulfed in Avici like Devadatta then so be it, I have no regrets. @Talisman, you're right and I personally apologize, I'm a weaker man than you!
Wow that's weird @valois. You talking about the Buddha and the turnings and which is right... just reminded me of Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam, all supposedly the work of the same God but the adherents each cling to their own tradition and say the other ones are wrong. Might we have found ourselves in the same situation?
Valois, I do not follow Vajrayana and do not follow any teachings by Dalai Lama.
I agree with my teacher's methods, hence restrict myself access to the information available on the internet. I also do not seek other philosphical views outside of what I am studying right now. I will indeed read much more widely in the future, but not until my mind is more stable so as not to cause unneccsary confusion to my practice.
Valois, I do not follow Vajrayana and do not follow any teachings by Dalai Lama.
I agree with my teacher's methods, hence restrict myself access to the information available on the internet. I also do not seek other philosphical views outside of what I am studying right now. I will indeed read much more widely in the future, but not until my mind is more stable so as not to cause unneccsary confusion to my practice.
don't take this the wrong way, I fully believe that you are 100% free to your own path and I absolutely respect that and you're picking a great path. That being said, I just can't understand why someone would say "I know the truth, therefore I will just study what I already believe since it must be true and will only study other things without accepting that they might have truth." As for me, I study whatever intrigues me, believing that it is possible that there might be truth anywhere, and I am simply searching for that truth rather than trying to prove that what I already believe is true. I don't mean that negatively towards you. If you feel that that's best for you than by all means.
"He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could be an Accomplished One, a {Fully} Enlightened One - there is no such possibility.'" -
Here, the Buddha simply states a woman cannot be a Sammasambuddha.
There is only ONE Sammasambuddha in our world system, namely, Siddharta Gotama.
A Sammasambuddha is the human being that attains full enlightenment via their own efforts, without a teacher, when there is no supramundane Dhamma is the world and then starts the Buddhist religion.
The Buddha said here the founder of Buddhism cannot be a woman, that is all.
I have never read a Theravada sutta where the Buddha mentions 'mindstream'. The Tiltbillings & Nomdrol notions of 'mindstream' are alien to the Buddha's sayings in the Theravada suttas.
If the causes if a mindstream were solely afflictive, then with the exhaustion of the karmic share that sustains the life force of the body...
For example, the Theravada standpoint is that the cause of said mindstream (as well as the body) is kamma, both skillful and unskillful, although I'm not entirely sure if this corresponds to afflictive and non-afflictive in Mahayana. Nevertheless, in the Pali Canon, the noble eightfold path is said to be the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma (AN 4.235).
The suttas state the lifeforce of the body is sustained by physical food. The notion that karma sustains the physical body is alien to the Buddha's sayings in the Theravada suttas.
The life force of a human body can be ended via a knife, gun, poison, suffocation, disease or old age. These are physical causes rather than karmic.
The Theravada suttas do not say there is a mindstream let alone the cause of a mindstream.
The Pali suttas certainly advise the noble eightfold path is the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma but kamma here merely is reaping a result of kamma that results in suffering. The kamma that leads to the ending of kamma means the 'doer' ends; 'self-identity' ends, so there is no 'doer' or 'reaper' of kamma. The kamma that ends kamma has nothing to do with ending a mindstream.
It is wise to distinguish between worldly Buddhist religions (such as Mahavihara populist Buddhism) & Buddha vacca (sayings) from the suttas.
This can be compared to popular teachings of Christianity when compared to the actual sayings of Jesus.
In this regard, Buddhism is not different from Christianity.
There are the sayings in the scriptures of Buddha & Christ and then there is what common people & priests believe.
Best wishes
For those uninstructed on the reality of mind, the Buddha provided the following discourse aptly named: Assutava Sutta: Uninstructed
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
Valois, I do not follow Vajrayana and do not follow any teachings by Dalai Lama.
I agree with my teacher's methods, hence restrict myself access to the information available on the internet. I also do not seek other philosphical views outside of what I am studying right now. I will indeed read much more widely in the future, but not until my mind is more stable so as not to cause unneccsary confusion to my practice.
don't take this the wrong way, I fully believe that you are 100% free to your own path and I absolutely respect that and you're picking a great path. That being said, I just can't understand why someone would say "I know the truth, therefore I will just study what I already believe since it must be true and will only study other things without accepting that they might have truth." As for me, I study whatever intrigues me, believing that it is possible that there might be truth anywhere, and I am simply searching for that truth rather than trying to prove that what I already believe is true. I don't mean that negatively towards you. If you feel that that's best for you than by all means.
Datz a dangerous path ta take homeboy... but I know dat no one can change nebody's mind until dat person wantz ta change demselves know wat im sayin? All da best aight?
The suttas state the lifeforce of the body is sustained by physical food. The notion that karma sustains the physical body is alien to the Buddha's sayings in the Theravada suttas.
The life force of a human body can be ended via a knife, gun, poison, suffocation, disease or old age. These are physical causes rather than karmic.
The Theravada suttas do not say there is a mindstream let alone the cause of a mindstream. The Pali suttas certainly advise the noble eightfold path is the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma but kamma here merely is reaping a result of kamma that results in suffering. The kamma that leads to the ending of kamma means the 'doer' ends; 'self-identity' ends, so there is no 'doer' or 'reaper' of kamma. The kamma that ends kamma has nothing to do with ending a mindstream.
It is wise to distinguish between worldly Buddhist religions (such as Mahavihara populist Buddhism) & Buddha vacca (sayings) from the suttas.
This can be compared to popular teachings of Christianity when compared to the actual sayings of Jesus.
In this regard, Buddhism is not different from Christianity.
There are the sayings in the scriptures of Buddha & Christ and then there is what common people & priests believe.
Actually, I think a good argument can be made that the Suttas do. For example, SN 12.11 gives four nutriments for "the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth": edible food (kabalinkaro), contact/sense-impression (phassa), mental volition (manosancetana) and consciousness (vinnana). Moreover, in AN 6.63, the Buddha defines kamma as volition (cetana), so it's not a stress to say that kamma is one of the nutriments for a being (satta). A being, of course, is defined in SN 23.2 as one stuck in desire, passion, delight and craving for form, feeling, perception, volitional formation and consciousness, which according to Bhikkhu Bodhi is itself a pun between the Pali word satta, 'being', and sajjati, 'attached.' In addition, contrary to what many believe, there are places in the Canon where the term vinnanasota or 'stream of consciousness' is mentioned, such as in DN 28:
And since the passage above makes a distinction between, in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, "the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and the next" (i.e., an unawakened worldling) and "the unbroken stream of consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next" (i.e., an arahant), I don't think it's a stretch to say that kamma is at least one of the causes or nutriments for the stream of consciousness that's "established both in this world and the next." Furthermore, I don't think any of this is inconsistent with the idea that the 'kamma that leads to the ending of kamma' leads to the end of suffering associated with the 'doer,' with 'self-identity' — or to put it another way, the suffering associated with the actions of a being caught up in desire, passion, delight and craving for the five aggregates — and not, as you say, the end of a stream of consciousness.
I have never read a Theravada sutta where the Buddha mentions 'mindstream'. The Tiltbillings & Nomdrol notions of 'mindstream' are alien to the Buddha's sayings in the Theravada suttas.
Well, as I noted in my previous reply, there's at least one sutta (DN 28) where Sariputta, while speaking to the Buddha, mentions "stream of consciousness" (vinnanasota), so I'm not sure it's as alien to the Suttas as you may think.
The "being" referred to is a mental concept of identification. It is not a psycho-physical organism.
As for vinnanasota, in the sense you, Tiltbilling, Namdrol, Bodhi & Buddhaghosa are implying, it is alien to the suttas.
Countless suttas state consciousness is impermanent & the arising and passing of consciousness has been discerned.
The suttas state all conditioned things are impermanent and every form of consciousness is an impermanent conditioned thing.
Further, there are six classes of consciousness and no such thing as simple single consciousness.
Also, the suttas have standards and if a term is found in one sutta but contradictory to the many others suttas, it is not Buddhavaca.
I can only suggest you learn about more about the history of the DN.
There are aspects of the DN which are in complete contradiction to the rest of the suttas.
As for your words "I don't think it's a stretch to say that kamma is at least one of the causes or nutriments for the stream of consciousness", these make no sense at all.
Consciousness is sense awareness that functions with the sense organs. That the mind is conscious of a form via the eye, sound via the ear, etc, is unrelated to kamma.
It follows it is untenable to suggest kamma is at least one of the causes or nutriments for consciousness.
Kamma can influence the generation (growth) of consciousness and where conscioiusness becomes stationed or absorbed [like consciousness generating and absorbed in a TV program) but kamma is completely unrelated to the faculty or aggregate of consciousness.
It is wise to not dismiss scores of unconvoluted suttas for one dodgily translated DN sutta, where the term viññāṇasotaṃ is found only twice & remains undefined.
Please bear in mind the Buddha defined important terms such as vinnana in the suttas (such as in SN 12.2 and SN 22.79).
As viññāṇasotaṃ remains undefined, viññāṇa must take the ordinary meaning rather than taking on a new meaning Bodhi, Tiltbillings, Namdrol and your good self crave (tanha) to create.
And since the passage above makes a distinction between, in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, "the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and the next" (i.e., an unawakened worldling) and "the unbroken stream of consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next" (i.e., an arahant)...
Hi Jason
Also, the translation above is a contradiction.
How can an arahant have an "unbroken stream of consciousness", as translated by Bodhi, that conforms with the views of Tiltbillings & Namdrol, given an arahant is not subject to the "rebirth" you were implying? To imply an arahant's consciousness is "unbroken" supports the view of the eternalism of an arahant.
Further, "paraloke" means "other world" and not "next world". Even Bodhi translates "other world" in most of his works.
Therefore, the translation of "abbocchinnaṃ" as "unbroken" appears dubious.
And to translate "sota" as stream, as though it is a permanent stream, is also dubious.
Abbocchinnaṃ probably means "uninterrupted" or "always" (in a conventional sense).
Also, Bodhi appears to omit pajānāti, which = to know, find out, come to know, understand, distinguish.
In other words, the passage probably states something like:
"the flow of the consciousness experience of unawakened worldling is always established both in this world (human) and the other (ghost, animal hell, heaven) and the flow of consciousness experience of the arahant is always not established either in this world or in the other"...
To end, the meaning you are giving to the term viññāṇasotaṃ appears dubious.
The meaning appears to be the flow of conscious experience rather than a permanent unbroken phenonema of consciousness.
The sutta appears to discuss human experience whereas Bodhi is inferring meta-physics.
best wishes
DD
Abbokiṇṇa [= abbhokiṇṇa, abhi + ava + kiṇṇa, cp. abhikiṇṇa] 1.filled M i.387 (paripuṇṇa +); DhA iv.182 (pañca jātisatāni a.). -- 2. [seems to be misunderstood for abbocchinna, a + vi + ava + chinna] uninterrupted, constant, as ˚ŋ adv. in combn. with satataŋ samitaŋ A iv.13 = 145; Kvu 401 (v. l. abbhokiṇṇa), cp. also Kvu trsl. 231 n. 1 (abbokiṇṇa undiluted?); Vbh 320. -- 3. doubtful spelling at Vin iii.271 (Bdhgh on Pārāj. iii.1, 3).
As for vinnanasota, in the sense you, Tiltbillings, Namdrol, Bodhi & Buddhaghosa are implying, it is alien to the suttas.
Hi
Back to the thread topic.
The least favorite Buddha sayings and sutras for some are those that distinguish between beings. Many Buddhists crave to believe Buddhism is one happy family, with all in agreement, but the Buddha actually pointed out the distinctions between beings & those who regard themselves as his followers.
The Blessed One addressed the monks.
Do you see those monks walking back and forth with Sariputta? All of those monks are of great wisdom because Sariputta is one of great wisdom.
Do you see those monks walking back and forth with Mogallana? All of those monks are of great spiritual power because Mogallana is one of great spiritual power.
Do you see those monks walking back and forth with Kassapa? All of those monks are of great ascetics because Kassapa is a great ascetic.
Do you see those monks walking back and forth with Punna? All of those monks possess the divine eye because Punna possesses the divine eye.
Do you see those monks walking back and forth with Devadatta? All of those monks have evil wishes because Devadatta has evil wishes.
Monks, it is by way of elements that beings come together & unite. Those of inferior disposition come together & unite with those of inferior disposition; those of good disposition come together with those of good disposition. In the past they did so, in the future they will do so and in the present they do so.
Just as excrement comes together & unites with excrement, urine with urine, spittle with spittle, pus with pus and blood with blood come together, so too monks, it is by way of elements that beings come together & unite.
As for vinnanasota, it is alien to the suttas. The suttas have standards and if a term is found in one sutta but contradictory to the many others suttas, it is not Buddhavaca.
Countless suttas state consciousness is impermanent & the arising and passing of consciousness has been discerned.
The suttas state all conditioned things are impermanent and every form of consciousness is an impermanent conditioned thing.
Further, there are six classes of consciousness and no such thing as simple single consciousness.
Nothing I said, nor anything said in DN 28 for that matter, implies that the term vinnanasota refers to a single, eternal and independent consciousness. Moments of consciousness arising and passing away in succession simply implies that there's a type of continuity involved in conscious experience, nothing more. The same with terms like bhavangasota (stream of becoming) in Snp 3.12 and samvattanikamvinnanam (evolving consciousness) in MN 106. For example, from Piyadassi Thera's book, Dependent Origination:
In the Aneñjasappāya Sutta, the vipāka viññaṇa is referred to as saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ, the consciousness that links on, that proceeds in one life as vipāka from the kamma in the former life.
When it is said, “the consciousness that links on,” it does not mean that this consciousness abides unchanged, continues in the same state without perishing throughout this cycle of existence. Consciousness is also conditioned, and therefore is not permanent. Consciousness also comes into being and passes away yielding place to new consciousness. Thus this perpetual stream of consciousness goes on until existence ceases. Existence in a way is consciousness. In the absence of consciousness no “being” exists in this sentient world.
As for the rest, I merely said that I think a good argument can be made that the Suttas do say there's a mindstream, and I even presented one in which it's specifically referenced, and two others that use similar language. The best you can do is attack the validity of the suttas in question, or take issue with how they're being used or translated, which is fine by me. I just thought I'd play the devil's advocate and point them out.
You and your cronies are plucking words out of obscure suttas.
I am certainly not wrong.
I will adhere to core dhammas thank you, such as the three characteristics.
And you can adhere to dhammas of becoming; not connected with dispassion.
All the best Jason (householder).
DD
traditional buddhism is your truth. But you are by no means experiencing nirvana, the ultimate. That's ok, you will experience it when you're ready. I can only assume you will somehow get angry with what I said. It's all too predictable
Back to the topic, the least favorite Buddha sayings and sutras for some are those that are about core dhammas and about the supramundane, such as the following:
273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best.
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
Dhammapada
In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Ani Sutta
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
You and your cronies are plucking words out of obscure suttas.
I am certainly not wrong.
I will adhere to core dhammas thank you, such as the three characteristics.
And you can adhere to dhammas of becoming; not connected with dispassion; born of convoluting & mistranslating the Pali, under the power of craving.
All the best Jason.
DD
Ad hominems aside, what is it that I'm mistranslating exactly? Vinnanasota? According to the PTS dictionary, 'stream of consciousness' is a fairly accurate translation, although I think 'flux of consciousness' works equally as well:
Sota2 (m. & nt.) [Vedic srotas, nt., fr. sru; see savati] 1. stream, flood, torrent Sn 433; It 144; J i.323; sīgha -- s. having a quick current D ii.132; Sn 319; metaphorically, the stream of cravings Sn 715 (chinna˚; cp. MVastu iii.88 chinna -- srota), 1034; S iv.292; M i.226 (sotaŋ chetvā); It 114; denotes noble eightfold path S v.347; bhava -- s. torrent of rebirth S i.15; iv.128; viññāṇa -- s. flux of mind, D iii.105; nom. sing. soto S iv.291 sq.; v.347; nom. plur. sotā Sn 1034; acc. plur. sotāni Sn 433; plur. sotāyo (f. [?], or wrong reading instead of sotāso, sotāse [?]) J iv.287, 288. -- 2. passage, aperture (of body, as eyes, ears, etc.), in kaṇṇa˚ orifice of the ear, and nāsa˚ nostril, e. g. D i.106; Sn p. 108; J i.163, 164 (heṭṭhā -- nāsika -- s.); Vism 400 (dakkhiṇa˚ & vāma -- kaṇṇa -- s.). -- āpatti entering upon the stream, i. e. the noble eightfold path (S v.347), conversion Vin ii.93 etc. By it the first three Saŋyojanas are broken S v.357, 376. It has four phases (angas): faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Order, and, further, the noble Sīlas S ii.68 sq.; v.362 sq.; A iii.12; iv.405; D iii.227 (in detail). Another set of four angas consists of sappurisa -- saŋsevā, saddhammasavana, yonisomanasikāra, and dhammânudhammapaṭipatti S v.347, 404. -- phala the effect of having entered upon the stream, the fruit of conversion Vin i.293; ii.183; M i.325; A i.44; iii.441; iv.292 sq., 372 sq.; D i.229; iii.227; S iii.168, 225; v.410 sq.; Pug 13; DhA iii.192; iv.5; PvA 22, 38, 66, 142. -- magga the way to conversion, the lower stage of conversion DA i.237; J i.97; VbhA 307; see magga. -- āpanna one who has entered the stream, a convert Vin ii.161, 240; iii.10; D i.156; iii.107 sq., 132, 227; A ii.89; S ii.68; iii.203 sq., 225 sq.; v.193 sq.; DA i.313; Vism 6, 709; PvA 5, 153. The converted is endowed with āyu, vaṇṇa, sukha, and ādhipateyya S v.390; he is called wealthy and glorious S v.402; conversion excludes rebirth in purgatory, among animals and petas, as well as in other places of misery; he is a -- vinipāta -- dhamma: D i.156; ii.200; S v.193 sq., 343; A i.232; ii.238; iii.331 sq.; iv.405 sq., v.182; M iii.81; or khīṇa -- niraya: A iii.211; iv.405 sq. (+khīṇa -- tiracchānayoni etc.). The converted man is sure to attain the sambodhi (niyato sambodhipārāyano D i.156, discussed in Dial. i.190 -- 192).
And since I agree with you that this term is referring to the flow of conscious experience rather than a permanent unbroken phenomena of consciousness, I'm not really sure what the problem is.
Comments
as for the claims that only a handful have made it that far, and that an arahant is a buddha, let me quote a well known theravada site...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#maitreya
"According to Theravada tradition, many Buddhas have come and gone over countless eons"
"Some of a Buddha's followers may themselves become arahants, but they are not Buddhas, because they required a Buddha to show them the way to Awakening. (All Buddhas and paccekabuddhas are arahants, but not all arahants are Buddhas or paccekabuddhas)"
This implies that Nirvana is impermanent or even suffering, it is not, Nirvana is peace.
Well that makes no sense, because it implies that Buddhahood itself is impermanent or suffering or ruled by desire or attachment to Samadhi. it is not.
I don't know about that, it implies Shakyamuni isn't thusly gone. I don't think that's true, but I would have to prove it, and I cannot.
So it claims that Shakyamuni is still afflicted?!
Right.... I'm confused about that. Is he the Buddha or is he not? Is he free from suffering or not?
I am curious now.
Because you love me so much?
True :thumbsup:
This only is in reference to the sasana(religion) being impermanent, but Nirvana is ultimately peace. Once you're gone, you're gone. You don't come back. Once you don't come back you don't come back. Samsara is defeated. Like I said before, the difference is how Nirvana is attained, and whether one can deliver the teachings before one is gone(parinirvana).
He's not saying they aren't Buddhas, just that they're not like Shakyamuni (Samyaksambuddha) because it mentions in the next sentence Sasana (the message) so as not to get people to think that just because the message is out doesn't mean that the message lasts forever. It will keep being delivered by Buddhas who attain realization after Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings are gone. They will then keep being delivered until all people are thusly gone.
When did I say that? I am quite aware I stand on the shoulders of giants, but I can say in some cases they might be mistaken. Like for the Dalai Lama in particular, since you mentioned him, I'm going to say the way he approached the Shugden situation could have been done differently, and he hurt the Karmapa school with his words and actions, and also the whole Tibetan Theocracy before (if he really believes he's the reincarnated versions of his predecessors) was cruel and had slavery. I will be a critic of any teachings I find unsound, and any teacher if I see fit.
That's not really necessary, and I don't want to. I will however disagree freely and point out what makes no sense.
This is how I understand it, but I'm no scholar so bear with me.
Wikipedia has a good description the Mahayana view:
Mahāyāna Buddhists see the Buddha himself as the ideal towards which one should aim in one's spiritual aspirations. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, a hierarchy of general attainments is envisioned, with the attainments of arhats and pratyekabuddha being clearly separate, and below that of fully-enlightened buddhas (Skt. samyaksaṃbuddha), or tathāgatas, such as Gautama Buddha.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._119_12-0" class="reference">[13]</sup>
In contrast to the goal of becoming a fully-enlightened buddha, the path of a śrāvaka in being motivated by seeking personal liberation from saṃsāra, is often portrayed as selfish and undesirable.<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14]</sup> There are even some Mahāyāna texts that regard the aspiration to arhatship and personal liberation as an outside path.<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference">[15]</sup> Instead of aspiring for arhatship, Mahāyāna Buddhists are urged to instead take up the path of a bodhisattva, and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._119_12-1" class="reference">[13]</sup> Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sūtra (Skt. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra), any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference">[16]
</sup>The Mahāyāna teachings often consider the śrāvaka path to be motivated by fear of saṃsāra, which renders them incapable of aspiring to buddhahood, and that they therefore lack the courage and wisdom of a bodhisattva.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._120_16-0" class="reference">[17]</sup> Novice bodhisattvas are compared to śrāvakas and arhats at times. In the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, there is an account of 60 novice bodhisattvas who attain arhatship despite themselves and their efforts at the bodhisattva path, because they lacked ability in prajñā-pāramitā and skillful means to progress as bodhisattvas toward complete enlightenment (Skt. Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi). This is because they are still viewed as having innate attachment and fear of saṃsāra. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra compares these people to a giant bird without wings that cannot help but plummet to the earth from the top of Mount Sumeru.<sup id="cite_ref-Williams.2C_Paul_2004._p._120_16-1" class="reference">[17]</sup>
I don't think that is the case. There is still work to do because other beings have yet to attain nirvana, not because peace has not been found for oneself.
I kind of understand what you're getting at but once a person becomes a Buddha they do not come back to Samsara, nor do they need to, because until the time of Maitreya there will be no need for another Buddha until the next decline of the Dharma etc. ad infinitum.
Of course if your goal is that you want to be born in Tushita heavens so you can try and be reborn as a human to become a Samyaksambuddha in a human birth so that you can guide people in the same path as you, my main problem with that idea is it implies that you think that others haven't attained Buddhahood yet which may be a mistaken view due to fear of abandonment.
And if you want to help people attain Nirvana, you can do that in this life by teaching and disseminating the Dharma. To become a Samyaksambuddha is just unnecessary right now because the Dharma is still being disseminated, and not forgotten. You are helping people attain Nirvana by becoming an Arahant, and to become attached to Samsara is counterproductive to the goal. :rolleyes:
Once you receive the cure, you cannot go back. That's what makes enlightenment, enlightenment. You don't go back to Samsara, ever, because you've no fetters left to bind you there.
That's wonderful, but you're also aware of how many Kalpas one has to live through to see the Dharma decline? Especially when the Sangha actually keep teaching it? to try and become a Samyaksambuddha and delay nirvana might be completely unnecessary. Everyone might already be free already, but we're stuck here in a deluded state of mind with the idea that others haven't. And I mean this doesn't even include the fact that all things in Tushita Heavens decline, die, get sick etc. The shifting of the aggregates are not friendly to a person in Samsara, and Karma, not Boddhisattvahood ties a person to samsara, even in the Tushita Heavens.
I don't know about that vision of hierarchy, or how it helps attainment for others, but all people who exit Samsara don't come back because they have achieved Buddhahood (albeit in different ways) they still don't have any of the mental impurities or fetters that tie a person to samsara. The only way to stay stuck to samsara is to willfully choose to ignore a fetter holding you back.
You do know tathāgata is a title for an Arahant right?
As I said before, a person who refuses the medicine, that the doctor gave them and demands to be sick until everyone becomes a doctor isn't considering the possibility that they might be the only one refusing the medicine.
But it is the only path the Buddha taught. The only way to be unaffected by it is to not hear it or to ignore it.
This implies there is a fall when it might not be there.
They cannot, because there's no way back to samsara. It's like choosing to go back to sleep when you're already awakened.
Okay, I don't think so, because it doesn't seem to add up.
I don't think so. There's no reason to fear Samasara. There is no courage or wisdom lacking because to become a śrāvaka you release fear and anxiety for equanimity. There's nothing to hold them back.
Okay, again I contest the idea that there's a hierarchy of awakening. There's being awake, and not being awake.
I think that's unfounded because there's no attachment an Arahant has left. There's nothing left to fear. Not even Samsara.
I agree with that, and as I said, there's no attachment left in an Arahant, also no samsara to fear. Samsara is a fragile bubble created by one's own clouds of ignorance. It clouds a person's eyes so they can't see what is in front of them. Dependent origination shows that once that cessation is completed the ignorance abates.
The only difference is how a person attained their enlightenment and ability to teach before being thusly gone. While the Samyaksambuddha is certainly an aspiration one might crave, it is a craving better abandoned, so one doesn't crave for immaterial existence. See craving to be better than a Śrāvakabuddha when you live in the time of the dissemination of the Dharma is craving for immaterial existence. You will get your wish, but it's unnecessary. Imagine for a moment if all sentient beings are Śrāvakabuddha for a moment. What would be the purpose then of becoming a Samyaksambuddha other than craving for immaterial attainments?
What you need to understand is that Mahayana has a different conception of buddhahood and what a Buddha is capable of doing; and, to steal a phrase from tiltbillings, "The Mahayana does not get to define the Theravada for Theravadins any more than the Theravada gets to define the Mahayana for Mahayanists."
In Mahayana, there's nothing stopping a Buddha from 'popping back' into samsara, especially considering that, for them, the distinction between samsara and nirvana is little more than an illusion when viewed from the ultimate standpoint of the Dharmakaya. Moreover, their conception of causality allows for the continuation of the mindstream after the breakup of the body. As Namdrol from E-Sangha once explained it to me:
In other words, not only does bodhicitta act as a cause to help keep a bodhisattva on the path to buddhahood throughout their innumerable lives, it acts as a positive, non-afflictive cause for the continuation of the enlightened being/mindstream as well. And this is perfectly logical and consistent within Mahayana's own understanding of itself, which includes certain terms that Theravada understands differently.
For example, the Theravada standpoint is that the cause of said mindstream (as well as the body) is kamma, both skillful and unskillful, although I'm not entirely sure if this corresponds to afflictive and non-afflictive in Mahayana. Nevertheless, in the Pali Canon, the noble eightfold path is said to be the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma (AN 4.235).
When it comes to the standard explanation of why the mind and body don't [always] cease with that attainment of nirvana, it's said that as long as the lifespan of the aggregates isn't completely exhausted — which itself depends upon the amount of input remaining from past kamma — the mind and body of an arahant will continue. When this input from past kamma is exhausted, there's said to be complete cessation of both mind and body.
A Mahayanaist would probably disagree with this in an ultimate sense, saying that this is only how it appears from the point of view of samsara (think relativity here), but not from the point of view of high-level Bodhisattvas and fully enlightened Buddhas. Whether or not we agree with this is irrelevant, however, since neither tradition is the arbiter of all things Buddhist. The best we can do is agree to disagree.
That doesn't mean we can't be critical of certain ideas or have inter-tradition debates, but it does mean that nobody can really 'win' such debates as each side is logically consistent within itself, and it all depends on what you take as the basis for your views. It's entirely possible that a person who accepts the commentarial literature in Theravada as authoritative can have serious disagreements with someone who only accepts the Suttas, so just imagine the amount of disagreement possible with someone who also accepts an additional collection of teachings that lies outside of Theravada altogether.
That's why I tend to look beyond these debates and focus instead on other criteria for choosing what to accept as the basis for my views, things such as archeology, scholarly opinion, textual analysis, etc. I'm just as liable to reject the majority of the Theravadin commentarial literature as I am the majority of Sanskrit sutras.
That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find things in each I like, admire or even adopt when I think they're beneficial; and it certainly doesn't stop me from trying to understand where other traditions are coming from in order to see past our differences.
Just look at all the good Jesus did, all the compassion he taught. Karma is shared, passed on, belonging to all (and to none). Any single bit of self, of separate identity, confounds true understanding of the Dharma, and distorts it. We are the ones that are burying the Buddha's teachings. There is common ground and truth in all of the Buddhist schools, but we're clinging in the worst way.
With that, I'm out.
Theravada vs Mahayana debate = not buddhism.
I forgot to mention that apparently the mere remembrance of dharma in bardo causes instant enlightenment, allegedly.
Ch'an_noob,
"A pious man is one who would be an atheist if the king were." - Jean de la Bruyere
"He that has satisfied his thirst turns his back on the well." - Baltasar Gracian
"Growth demands a temporary surrender of security." - Gail Sheehy
IT'S NOT THE SAME AS TO SAY YOU CAN SLANDER BUDDHA'S TEACHINGS.
This is the reason why Buddha considered entering Nirvana after his enlightenment because he is worry people will mis-interpret or mis-understand his teachings and cause themselves and other people great karmic harm with slandering.
Now with all the information all over the internet where people can access everything without a teacher guiding you this danger is even greater.
By saying things like you dislike certain sutras means your contemplating the Buddha might be/is wrong. That is very foolishly harming yourself. For Buddha is not wrong with anything he taught, it's different people's capacity to understand the teachings thats the problem.
Valois
Your attitude is all too common even historically when the "Sudden enlightening" school is flourishing in China. Again, people who "suddenly" awaken is not because they have heard something "powerful" it's more because they are deeply rooted in the dharma from cultivation for a long time. Thus chan masters knows when to give their mind the extra push to understand. Such as reading the diamond sutra etc.
Infact, alot of teachers who stop student from reading any sutras etc for a long time because excessive knowledge is useless knowledge that will just increase one's ego and views, thus making the mind more stubborn and less likely to get enlightened.
If everyone read historical Chan stories carefully. Most accomplished Chan masters were very well disciplined for a long time before allowed to learn any buddhist theories.
Anyway, this is warning is said for the good of every new and keen practitioner on here!
DO NOT SLANDER BUDDHIST SUTRAS OR THEORIES PRESENTED BY THE BUDDHA! If you believe in karma it's wise to heed this!
All the teachings were recordings of the words of Buddha, hence any suggestions they were "wrong" or "inferior" is a slander.
This is just something my teacher have emphosised and it has been written on sutras many times. I can't say nothing when practitioners insist on treading dangerous path.
Buddha said no word ever; to say otherwise is to slander him. See, Surangama.
I feel that this discussion is not conducive to generating loving-kindness and will only lead to confusion, suffering, and discontent. I love you Ch'an, and I hope that none of my statements have offended your beliefs.
To conclude I also live right near the bible belt and have learned to be weary of blind faith. If I be engulfed in Avici like Devadatta then so be it, I have no regrets. @Talisman, you're right and I personally apologize, I'm a weaker man than you!
I agree with my teacher's methods, hence restrict myself access to the information available on the internet. I also do not seek other philosphical views outside of what I am studying right now. I will indeed read much more widely in the future, but not until my mind is more stable so as not to cause unneccsary confusion to my practice.
There is only ONE Sammasambuddha in our world system, namely, Siddharta Gotama.
A Sammasambuddha is the human being that attains full enlightenment via their own efforts, without a teacher, when there is no supramundane Dhamma is the world and then starts the Buddhist religion.
The Buddha said here the founder of Buddhism cannot be a woman, that is all.
Kind regards
The life force of a human body can be ended via a knife, gun, poison, suffocation, disease or old age. These are physical causes rather than karmic.
The Theravada suttas do not say there is a mindstream let alone the cause of a mindstream.
The Pali suttas certainly advise the noble eightfold path is the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma but kamma here merely is reaping a result of kamma that results in suffering. The kamma that leads to the ending of kamma means the 'doer' ends; 'self-identity' ends, so there is no 'doer' or 'reaper' of kamma. The kamma that ends kamma has nothing to do with ending a mindstream.
It is wise to distinguish between worldly Buddhist religions (such as Mahavihara populist Buddhism) & Buddha vacca (sayings) from the suttas.
This can be compared to popular teachings of Christianity when compared to the actual sayings of Jesus.
In this regard, Buddhism is not different from Christianity.
There are the sayings in the scriptures of Buddha & Christ and then there is what common people & priests believe.
Best wishes
For those uninstructed on the reality of mind, the Buddha provided the following discourse aptly named: Assutava Sutta: Uninstructed
The "being" referred to is a mental concept of identification. It is not a psycho-physical organism.
As for vinnanasota, in the sense you, Tiltbilling, Namdrol, Bodhi & Buddhaghosa are implying, it is alien to the suttas.
Countless suttas state consciousness is impermanent & the arising and passing of consciousness has been discerned.
The suttas state all conditioned things are impermanent and every form of consciousness is an impermanent conditioned thing.
Further, there are six classes of consciousness and no such thing as simple single consciousness.
Also, the suttas have standards and if a term is found in one sutta but contradictory to the many others suttas, it is not Buddhavaca.
I can only suggest you learn about more about the history of the DN.
There are aspects of the DN which are in complete contradiction to the rest of the suttas.
As for your words "I don't think it's a stretch to say that kamma is at least one of the causes or nutriments for the stream of consciousness", these make no sense at all.
Consciousness is sense awareness that functions with the sense organs. That the mind is conscious of a form via the eye, sound via the ear, etc, is unrelated to kamma.
It follows it is untenable to suggest kamma is at least one of the causes or nutriments for consciousness.
Kamma can influence the generation (growth) of consciousness and where conscioiusness becomes stationed or absorbed [like consciousness generating and absorbed in a TV program) but kamma is completely unrelated to the faculty or aggregate of consciousness.
It is wise to not dismiss scores of unconvoluted suttas for one dodgily translated DN sutta, where the term viññāṇasotaṃ is found only twice & remains undefined.
Please bear in mind the Buddha defined important terms such as vinnana in the suttas (such as in SN 12.2 and SN 22.79).
As viññāṇasotaṃ remains undefined, viññāṇa must take the ordinary meaning rather than taking on a new meaning Bodhi, Tiltbillings, Namdrol and your good self crave (tanha) to create.
But thanks for pointing out DN 28.
Also, the translation above is a contradiction.
How can an arahant have an "unbroken stream of consciousness", as translated by Bodhi, that conforms with the views of Tiltbillings & Namdrol, given an arahant is not subject to the "rebirth" you were implying? To imply an arahant's consciousness is "unbroken" supports the view of the eternalism of an arahant.
Further, "paraloke" means "other world" and not "next world". Even Bodhi translates "other world" in most of his works.
Therefore, the translation of "abbocchinnaṃ" as "unbroken" appears dubious.
And to translate "sota" as stream, as though it is a permanent stream, is also dubious.
Abbocchinnaṃ probably means "uninterrupted" or "always" (in a conventional sense).
Also, Bodhi appears to omit pajānāti, which = to know, find out, come to know, understand, distinguish.
In other words, the passage probably states something like: To end, the meaning you are giving to the term viññāṇasotaṃ appears dubious.
The meaning appears to be the flow of conscious experience rather than a permanent unbroken phenonema of consciousness.
The sutta appears to discuss human experience whereas Bodhi is inferring meta-physics.
best wishes
DD
Abbokiṇṇa [= abbhokiṇṇa, abhi + ava + kiṇṇa, cp. abhikiṇṇa] 1.filled M i.387 (paripuṇṇa +); DhA iv.182 (pañca jātisatāni a.). -- 2. [seems to be misunderstood for abbocchinna, a + vi + ava + chinna] uninterrupted, constant, as ˚ŋ adv. in combn. with satataŋ samitaŋ A iv.13 = 145; Kvu 401 (v. l. abbhokiṇṇa), cp. also Kvu trsl. 231 n. 1 (abbokiṇṇa undiluted?); Vbh 320. -- 3. doubtful spelling at Vin iii.271 (Bdhgh on Pārāj. iii.1, 3).
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.0.pali.702010
Pajānāti [pa+jānāti] to know, find out, come to know, understand, distinguish D i.45 (yathābhūtaŋ really, truly), 79 (ceto paricca), 162, 249; Sn 626, 726 sq., 987; It 12 (ceto paricca); Dh 402; Pv i.1112 (=jānāti PvA 60); J v.445; Pug 64. -- ppr. pajānaŋ Sn 884, 1050, 1104 (see expln at Nd1 292=Nd2 378); It 98; Pv iv.164; and pajānanto Sn 1051. -- ger. paññāya (q. v.) -- Caus. paññāpeti; pp. paññatta; Pass. paññāyati & pp. paññāta (q. v.). Cp. sampajāna.
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.2.pali.407188
Back to the thread topic.
The least favorite Buddha sayings and sutras for some are those that distinguish between beings. Many Buddhists crave to believe Buddhism is one happy family, with all in agreement, but the Buddha actually pointed out the distinctions between beings & those who regard themselves as his followers.
I am certainly not wrong.
I will adhere to core dhammas thank you, such as the three characteristics.
And you can adhere to dhammas of becoming; not connected with dispassion; born of convoluting & mistranslating the Pali, under the power of craving.
All the best Jason.
DD
traditional buddhism is your truth. But you are by no means experiencing nirvana, the ultimate. That's ok, you will experience it when you're ready. I can only assume you will somehow get angry with what I said. It's all too predictable
Your posts have been refuted. They are not about the ultimate.
Non-conceptuality is a conditioned state because it involves a choice or volition
The ultimate truth does not involve choice. It is the UNIVERSAL nature of phenomena & reality.
Your posts are void of the language of the ultimate, such as dispassion, the destruction of craving, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.
Your posts are about "people" and "me, me, me", full of infatuation.
As least you have done well to place them on the beginner's forum.
There, you can receive advice about your mind's guru becomings.
All the best
DD
Traditional Buddhism is the ultimate truth; the universal truth of nature.
Your truth is your truth.
Traditional Buddhism states all conditioned things bear the characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (emptiness).
Traditional Buddhism states suffering occurs due to ignorance, craving & attachment.
These are natural truths rather than personal truths.
As for your insistance "non-conceptuality" is the ultimate truth, that is your personal truth.
It is not Nirvana and not related to natural truth.
All the best