Are Mahayana Sutras Taught by Buddha?
-
Some things for your consideration. I found the clarifications by Loppon Namdrol (a very knowledgeable and experienced scholar/yogi/teacher who I and Thusness considers to be highly enlightened) to be enlightening.
Note: the names here are display names of E-Sangha members.
Sonam Wangchug:This has been bothering me lately so I figured i'd post a topic about it.
Many people say that the historical Shakyamuni buddha did not teach mahayana sutras or vajrayana tantras.Jigme Phuntsok:
Yes, there are no record of any Mahayana sutras until much later, but this is because the Mahayana sutras were passed on strictly orally at first and not written down until later.
Namdrol:
That's a nice fantasy, but that is all it is.
Jigme Phuntsok:
Then how do you account for the presence of Mahayana-like doctrines in the Mahasangikas who were present in large numbers at the time of the early councils?Namdrol:
Which Mahayana like doctrines did you have in mind? Bodhicitta, great compassion, ten bodhisattva stages, three kayas, emptiness of persons and things and so on?
Jigme Phuntsok:
It is my understanding that the Mahasangikas taught a nascent form of the Buddha-nature doctrine which included teachings on the permanence of the Buddha, the primordial presence of countless qualities within the Buddha-nature; as well as the emptiness of all dharmas.
Namdrol:
Did you have a sutra in mind that they taught these things in? Or is this a speculation?xabir2005 (me):
Just to clarify: in your understanding, all Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras/tantras come from realized masters other than Buddha?
Namdrol:
Yup.
N
Londro:
Hi Namdrol,
Did you not once threaten to ban a person on this forum for asserting that the Mahayana Sutras and the Pali Canon were not the actual words of the Buddha?
LodroNamdrol:
Nope. Incidentally, a realized master is a Buddha. So they can represent the Buddha.
NPaljor:
As far as I know, only a fully enlighten Buddha (samyaksambuddha) endowed with the ten power, can turn the wheel of dharma. Enlighten masters like Nagarjuna, Tilopa, Naropa, Milarepa, Asanga... can elaborate and comment on the Buddha's words, their spoken words are in accord with the dharma yet not having the same status as "Sutra", which only reserved for the Buddha. Buddha Vajradhara, Vairochana, Samantabadhra are different manifestations of Sakyamuni Buddha in pure realm.
P.Namdrol:
By come from, Paljor, we mean in pure visions, etc. But we do not need to confuse pure visions with empirical history.
NPaljor:
The Buddha may not be around in nirmanakaya for us but he's always available to bodhisattvas (enlighten masters) in Sambogakaya (pure realm).
P.Namdrol:
Yes, that is correct, that is why we do not need to indulge in historical literalism to account for the origin of Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings.
NPaljor:
The nirmanakaya Buddha (historical Buddha) is as important as Sambogakaya Buddha, just as conventional reality is as important as ultimate reallity as declared by Nagarjuna.
I know that Sakyapas tent to emphasize the important of Sambogakaya but there's no need to ignore the important of nirmanakaya Buddha, they are the same: for the benefit oa all sentient beings.
P.Namdrol:
Actually, this is not so. According to Gorampa for example, the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya have the same relationship as an illusionist and his illusion.
But that is really not so germane here. What is germane when considering history is the empirical record. And the empirical record simply does not support the notion that Mahayana was taught while Gotama Buddha walked this earth. This does not mean that Mahayana does not have a valid origin -- it does, as I have explained. It is in the pure visions of later masters who came after the Buddha and who wrote down their visions of Buddha teaching various teachings in various places.
Now I don't know about what you think, but I am pretty sure that the number of monks who were said to be present on the summit of Vulture peak when the Buddha was teaching the Lotus Sutra, for example, cannot actually fit there. It is not a large place.
NPaljor:
If the house of Vimalakirti was big enough for 32 hundred thousands thrones, and these thrones each measured 42 hundred thousands league in height, and his house didn't increase in size, nor get crowded, then I think the vulture peak can be as vast as space to accomodate the number of monks, humans, non-humans, etc... Now why people who have "pure vision" should create something so "untrue" and "illogical", shouldn't that go against the dharma? Or is there something that is beyond intellectual elaboration?
P.
Namdrol:
It does not go against the Dharma, it means that the author of the sutra who was describing the setting was making a didactic point.
N -
Old posts by Namdrol:
"The Mahayana sutras are recorded words of Buddha, the words of Buddha recorded from the visions of Indian masters from 100 BCE onwards, just as the Pali suttas are the words of Indian masters recorded when they saw the Buddha between roughly 460 BCE-400 BCE."
.
.
Now with regards to Tantras (of Vajrayana):
"Tantras in general have always had a revealed source, and for the most part have never sought authorship by the historical Buddha as a criteria for their validity-- the tantras come from Oddiyana, where they are kept by Dakini guardians. Indian Mahasiddhas would visit there, and recover texts to bring back to India, for example, Virupa recovered the Raktayamari cycle from there.
Certainly some major tantras (Kalachakra, Guhyasamaja, Hevajra, lower tantra in general) have been thought to have been taught by the historical Buddha by some Tibetan exegetes, but there are whole classes of tantras considered to have never been taught by Shakyamuni Buddha, but rather by Samhogakaya manifestations. For this reason, tantras continue to be produced (albeit they are completely unoriginal in content) and sutras have not continued to be reproduced."More quotations from "Loppon Namdrol":
"I take the position that tantric texts were gradually written down beginning in the sixth to seventh century based on the experiences of Buddhist masters. I don't see much difference between "created" and "revealed".
One day these texts did not exist, the next day they did-- authorship is not an issue for me, that is whether they are the produce of a Buddha or a master putting words in a Buddha's mouth does not matter-- I think the system is highly effective whatever its origin. ""That is completely irrelevent to the quality of the teaching of this or that sutra. One's criteria ought not be authorship, but wisdom."
-
If you are wondering what is "pure visions from Sambhogakaya" talking about, here's an article on the Mahayana teaching on the Three Bodies of the Buddha (Trikaya):
http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3a.htm
Volume 9 Issue No. 3
All Form is Non-formby Venerable Master Shen-KaiThe myriad of things and phenomena in this world are formed by aggregations of numerous causes and conditions comprising four elements: earth, water, fire and wind. As such, they do not have independent natures of their own. A tree, for example, is the result of a combination of nutrients, water, sunlight and air. Thus, they are in fact empty because when the conditions that created and sustained them are no longer present, these objects will return to emptiness. However, we don't see them in this light. We think they are real, absolute and permanent. But they are not. They are dependent upon other conditions. We need to truly comprehend and awaken to this fundamental truth of emptiness.
The phrase 'all form is non-form' is from the Diamond SÅ«tra.
Buddha said, "SubhÅ«ti, what do you think? Can we use our ordinary flesh-eyes to see the TathÄ�gata’s physical form and thus believe we are seeing the true TathÄ�gata ?"
SubhÅ«ti replied, "No, World-honoured One. We cannot look upon the unreal form of the TathÄ�gata’s manifestation and think we have perceived the non-arising and non-ceasing true body of the TathÄ�gata."
How is that? The 16-foot physique of the TathÄ�gata is a bodily form produced by an aggregation of causes and conditions. When life ends, that body decays and eventually vanishes. It is not the truly pure Dharma-kÄ�ya of the TathÄ�gata because the Dharma-kÄ�ya has no form to be seen; it is empty and tranquil. How could flesh-eyes of sentient beings see the true form of the TathÄ�gata’s Dharma-kÄ�ya?
Buddha told SubhÅ«ti, "Not only is the TathÄ�gata’s bodily form a false form produced by the aggregation of causes and conditions, which does not have real substance, so is any kind of thing in the universe, in this world as well as beyond this world. All living and non-living things, shapes and colours are merely formed by aggregations of causes and conditions. They are impermanent and will change as causes and conditions disperse. They are as illusory as the flower in the mirror or the moon in the water!
"If looking at appearances of objects, sentient beings are able to lucidly awaken to its aggregation of causes and conditions, and understand impermanence, their arising and ceasing; and if at that very instant, distinguishing does not arise, then without discrimination, they can enter into deep stillness. In stillness, pure wisdom reveals itself. With supreme wisdom, they realise that all worldly form is created by causes and conditions. Its nature is empty; it is not reality. In this way, they will directly perceive the TathÄ�gata’s Dharma-kÄ�ya."
Subhūti was the Arahat who best understood emptiness. Thus, with regards to emptiness, he had profound realisation. We see this in a story:
Once, Buddha went to the heavenly palace of TrayastrimÅ›Ä�s to preach Dharma to his mother. He only returned to earth after having been gone for a few months. All of his disciples missed him. When he returned, they rushed to welcome him, each hoping to be the first to pay their respects to him. Being the most advanced in supernatural ability amongst the Buddha's female disciples, BhiksunÄ« Lián-huÄ�-sè (蓮花色) used her supernatural powers and transformed herself into the image of Saint-king CakravartÄ«. Then, with great poise, she went to stand right up in front. She very happily paid her respects toBuddha and said, "Disciple Lián-huÄ�-sè is the first to pay respects to Buddha today. Oh, I’m overjoyed!"
Buddha replied with a smile, "Lián-huÄ�-sè, the first to see the TathÄ�gata wasn’t you. It was SubhÅ«ti!"
BhiksunÄ« Lián-huÄ�-sè was astonished! SubhÅ«ti had not joined in the queue to welcome the Buddha. How could he have been the first to meet the Buddha?
Buddha then said, "The bodily form of the Tath�gata is not seen by our perceptions. He who sees the Dharma, sees the Tath�gata."
As it turned out, when Buddha returned to earth, Subhūti had been in the meditation hall sitting in stillness, deeply observing the emptiness of all things and phenomena, clearly understanding the reality of inherent emptiness, and thus realising the formless Dharma-k�ya of Tath�gata. Even though he had not been there in the queue, he had in fact truly seen the Tath�gata.
Buddha has three bodies (TrikÄ�ya). One is 'NirmÄ�na-kÄ�ya'(化身), or the 'Emanation Body'. According to the sentient beings' capacity for understanding, Buddha manifests the illusory forms of physical bodies in numerous worlds. Because of their heavy karmic hindrances, some disciples were only able to see the 16-foot golden body of the Buddha, but were unable to see the 32 physical characteristics and 80 accompanying physical features of a great person (i.e. DvÄ�trimÅ›advara-laksana and Anuvyañjana).
Another body of Buddha is 'Sambhoga-k�ya' (报身), or the 'benefiting body', of which are two kinds: one is the 'body which benefits oneself', and the other is the 'body which benefits others'. The former is the Buddha's own attainment and awakening to his meritorious intrinsic pure Buddha-nature, in the state of Dharma joy. The latter is the appearance of enlightened, liberated Bodhisattvas to guide beginner-Bodhisattvas (i.e. sentient beings who emulate Bodhisattvas and practise the Bodhisattva Way) according to prevailing causalities, enabling these beginner-Bodhisattvas to benefit from the teachings of Greater Vehicle (Mah�y�na) with Dharma joy. Both Nirm�na-k�ya and Sambhoga-k�ya are physical forms which are visible. However, the perfect Sambhoga-k�ya of Great Bodhisattvas is a form that is infinite and of awesome majesty. It is not something that ordinary sentient beings like us can see. What ordinary people see is the Nirm�na-k�ya form.
The third body of Buddha, named 'Dharma-kÄ�ya'(法身), is the Truth Body of the TathÄ�gata, and also the reality of all phenomena. It permeates all of space and is omnipresent. An ancient sage said, "Green bamboos are entirely Dharma-kÄ�ya, luxuriant chrysanthemums are all PrajñÄ�; each grass, each tree, all in the ocean of Buddha-nature. Green bamboos are used for expressing the state of Dharma-kÄ�ya, but bamboos are by no means Dharma-kÄ�ya. Luxuriant chrysanthemums are used for displaying the function of PrajñÄ�, but chrysanthemums are by no means PrajñÄ�."
The myriad of things and phenomena in this world are formed by aggregations of numerous causes and conditions comprising four elements and five skandhas , arising by causality and ceasing by causality; their nature is inherently empty. And everything in the world is as such. They do not exist as individual entities. Hence, the nature of all things and phenomena is empty, tranquil and all pervasive. However, people are unaware of this and are grasping on to their belief that the numerous forms in the universe truly exist. But if you can truly comprehend this and awaken to the realisation that the nature of all forms is emptiness, then instantaneously you perceive the pure Dharma-k�ya of Tath�gata.
© Copyright 2002.Jen Chen Buddhism Centre
Designed by DCS Solutions Ltd -
A nice summary on the development of teachings by Ven. Hui-Feng:
Before explaining how the sukha-tathagatagarbhikas (
) explain the "apparent conflict", and Chan too, let's take a few steps back.
Even in the early sutras, there is the idea of certain teachings as being "fully drawn out" (nitartha), and others as "yet to be drawn out" (neyartha). We could say, "explicit" and "implicit". However, at first, which were which was not stated.
So, there were some "apparent conflicts" quite early on. The biggest by far was that of the "pudgala", which was kind of a synonym for "atman". In some sutras the Buddha says things like "the pudgala does this and that", "the pudgala is reborn in some place", and so forth; and in other sutras, the Buddha states that "there is no atman, no pudgala, no sattva..." and so forth.
Now, one school, the Pudgalavadins, tried to come up with a theory that kept all teachings on a similar "truth" level. They ended up with an "expressible pudgala", which was rather dubious. Still, they tended to fall towards the extreme of eternalism, rather than annihilism. So, although neither are correct, the former is better than the latter (see my signature).
The other schools, notably the Abhidharma groups, came up with the "dharma theory", which broke everything down into irreducible parts, each of which was impermanent, dissatisfactory and not self (and empty too). Now, based on a group of these irreducible dharmas, one could have a designation, but these desigations / names, etc. were not real per se. Classic example: The five aggregates are real, the "person" is a designation based on the aggregates.
They then used this theory to explain the apparent contradiction, ie. that teachings that spoke of a "pudgala", "atman", etc. were actually just "conventional designations" and thus "implicit" and "to be fully drawn out", whereas thos that taught in terms of "dharmas", were "ultimate teachings" and "already fully drawn out". (I've an essay in my Blog, see signature, on this one if you want more details.)
To seal this, the Abhidharma literature which is slightly later than the sutras almost always tries to use the "dharma" / "ultimate" terminology. Therefore, a bunch of later explanatory literature wins the day.
But, there were still some problems with this Abhidharma dharma-theory. In particular, the tendency towards explaining these irreducible dharmas as somehow substantial. In fact, even up to the point of the Sarvastivada considering dharmas as themselves little atman, etc. (Remember, the Sarvastivada is from a school closely related to the Pudgalavadins.) Again, a slight leaning towards eternalism.
Now, another body of literature starts to appear, ie. the Mahayana sutras. Once again, they have the advantage of being the latest texts, so they can make arguments against all the earlier material, and consolidate a complete systematic view. The emphasis is on the fact that even these so-called Dharmas are empty too, not just empty of an atman / pudgala, but empty of any sort of substantiality, eternality, and so forth.
But, again, this has the tendency towards nihilism in the eyes of some. So, yet another body of literature starts to appear. Well, two, actually. These are the Yogacara literature, stemming from the Sarvastivadins. And, the Tathagatagarbha literature.
Because they are now the newest stuff, they can explicity within the text themselves say things like "Oh, the XXX sutra is just a provisional teaching, this sutra that you are reading now is the real, true and ultimate teaching!!" And, of course, the XXX sutra doesn't say anything to the contrary - because this new Tathagatagarbha sutra didn't even exist at the time to be refuted!!
Every new batch of literature that came out stated that it (and usually, only it), was the "explicit" and ultimate teaching, etc. etc. and that everything that had come before was merely provisional.
In India, this was nitartha versus neyartha. But in China, slightly different. The Chinese for a start received a lot of their Buddhism "all at once", or, at least in a quite different order at first to the Indians. ie. they got Abhidharma stuff first, then some Mahayana stuff, and then the Agama sutras, and then mostly Mahayana stuff with some later commentaries of Abhidharma and Mahayana.
So, mainly starting from Tiantai Zhiyi, they started to make "doxographies", and try to put the various sutras in order - of time, and importance. Of course, they considered (almost) every text that had "Thus have I heard..." to be all taught during the Buddha's time. However, because the later texts claimed to be more ultimate, etc. they ended up being put later in the Buddha's career.
eg. whereas modern scholars would say that the range of sutras, early and Mahayana, took place over about 8 centuries, Zhiyi crammed them all within the life time of Sakyamuni. First, the Avatamsaka, then the Agamas, then the Prajnaparamita, then the Vaipulyas (other Mahayana sutras), then the Lotus Sutra and finally the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra.
Actually, the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra (not to be confused with the early Parinirvana Sutra) was a genius idea! If they set the sutra at the parinirvana of the Buddha, then obviously it would have to be the Buddhas last (and thus ultimate) teaching! And yes, this was a Tathagatagarbha text.
All these were already translated, and the Tiantai doxography already in place, by the time that Chan came on the scene. So, the Mahayana sutras, especially the Tathagatagarbha sutras, were supreme. For Chan at first, the Lankavatara Sutra was extremely important, but also the Parinirvana, etc. Lotus, etc.
During the first few generations of Chan, they mainly used these Mahayana sutras as the basis of their practice. Bodhidharma cites them, so do Daoxin, Hongren and Huineng. It's called "based on the scripture, realize the mind / truth". This later came to be called "Ruali Chan", "rulai" being the translation of "tathagata", referring to the Tathagatagarbha sutras.
Later, in the late Tang and Song, etc. there was a move towards "patriarch Chan". Though the Sutra content was there, it was less obvious, and there was usage of techniques like "silent illlumination", "word/thought watching", etc. Still, most of these were based around later Mahayana thought, especially Tathagatagarbha. There were some exceptions, but they were minor.
It was in this later period that Chan goes to Japan and we have Zen. Also, a lot of Zen in Japan is Tendai influenced, so the notion of the importance of the Lotus Sutra and Parinirvana Sutra is perhaps even stronger than in China.
These Chan and Zen boys and girls were largely not scholars by this stage. Thus, where the Indian pandits were quickly putting Tathagatagarbha at the bottom end of their doctrinal scale of "which teaching is ultimate", subsuming it under a Madhyamaka (and Yogacara) over-system, the Chinese (and Japanese) did not. Nobody was really going around noting that "Hey, these buddhists are talking like the Vedantins or Brahmins!?", because there weren't (m)any Brahmins in China! Everything Indian got subsumed into the Buddhist fold.
Also, around the late Tang, the routes to India were not as open, and so the latest Indian explanations did not make it to China. Unlike in Tibet, which is the time when Buddhism started there. Their Tathagatagarbha and Yogacara was already largely the later, pre-packaged in Madhyamaka outfit version, and so it stayed.
(If only I could usually write a 1000 word essay so quickly! hahahahaha!)
Huifeng
-
I am particularly concerned of the authenticity of the sutras uttered by the Buddha. as it was not many centuries later after the Buddha passing, that dhamma were written down, as compared to oral transmission in the first 500 years after the Buddha's passing away.
-
some scholars commented that Theravada tradition teachings are more authentic to what the Buddha has taught. Mahayana was formed after the fourth council isnt it.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
some scholars commented that Theravada tradition teachings are more authentic to what the Buddha has taught. Mahayana was formed after the fourth council isnt it.
Read the replies by Namdrol, it will answer your question.
The article on the 3 bodies of the Buddha will also answer your question, since in Mahayana the Nirmanakaya is just one aspect of the Buddha.
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
I am particularly concerned of the authenticity of the sutras uttered by the Buddha. as it was not many centuries later after the Buddha passing, that dhamma were written down, as compared to oral transmission in the first 500 years after the Buddha's passing away.
Time wise, Pali suttas and Mahayana sutras are written down at around the same time, about 500 years after Buddha's passing away.
Pali suttas were preserved by an oral tradition starting from the first coucil. Mahayana sutras come from visions of enlightened masters receiving from the Sambhogakaya.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Time wise, Pali suttas and Mahayana sutras are written down at around the same time, about 500 years after Buddha's passing away.
Pali suttas were preserved by an oral tradition starting from the first coucil. Mahayana sutras come from visions of masters receiving from the Sambhogakaya.
then its not really uttered by the buddha. these masters are not buddhas right.
-
Those masters are enlightened Bodhisattvas of at least eight bhumi.
Only eight bhumi or above Bodhisattvas can receive visions from the Sambhogakaya of Buddha.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Those masters are enlightened Bodhisattvas of at least eight bhumi.
Only eight bhumi or above Bodhisattvas can receive visions from the Sambhogakaya of Buddha.
but did the buddha uttered the words? I prefer to rely and follow the words of the buddha.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
but did the buddha uttered the words? I prefer to rely and follow the words of the buddha.
The historical Nirmanakaya Buddha seen by the monks with their physical eyes 2500 years ago, no. Not that one.
Mahayana and Vajrayana scriptures come from the visions of masters of the Sambhogakaya. Sambhogakaya is also a body of the Buddha. It is a dimension of the Buddha that is far more majestic than his physical dimension or the Nirmanakaya.
I would say wisdom is more important than authorship. The Theravadin Abhidharma is also not from Buddha, despite some claims that they are from the Buddha, all evidence points to the fact that they are commentaries from Arhats after Buddha.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The historical Nirmanakaya Buddha seen by the monks with their physical eyes 2500 years ago, no. Not that one.
Mahayana and Vajrayana scriptures come from the visions of masters of the Sambhogakaya. Sambhogakaya is also a body of the Buddha. It is a dimension of the Buddha that is far more majestic than his physical dimension or the Nirmanakaya.
I would say wisdom is more important than authorship. The Theravadin Abhidharma is also not from Buddha, despite some claims that they are from the Buddha, all evidence points to the fact that they are commentaries from Arhats after Buddha.
I see. as buddhists, we should follow what the buddha has taught, like the noble eightfold path and meditation.
-
I used to think like you, looking for the ultimate authority, in this case, the historical Buddha. But are we looking for a godhead to think for us? Telling what is right or wrong, drawing a line on the ground. The historical Buddha never claimed to be the one and only Buddha. If that were so, the turning of the dharma wheel would have been a failure! The Buddha showed us a way, to realisation. As far as I'm concerned, Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana are vehicles we use on our path to insight.
-
In Zen Buddhism, Buddha did not utter a single word. But in the history, there are many Zen monks achieving enlightenment isn't it? The Six Patriach of Zen Buddhism, was not educated and did not know how to read/write. But he was enlightened after hearing the Diamond Sutra and able to interepret many other sutras correctly thereafter.
趣入有多門 一切實�實 亦實亦�實 �實��實 是�諸佛法 -
personally I feel that Mahayana and other traditions are using mantras and I start to doubt it if it was spoken by the Buddha. I also felt that some teachings go against the Buddha's teaching, pardon my pun.
-
Originally posted by Franceso Totti:
personally I feel that Mahayana and other traditions are using mantras and I start to doubt it if it was spoken by the Buddha. I also felt that some teachings go against the Buddha's teaching, pardon my pun.
Theravada also use chanting as a form of meditation, a way to gain samadhi. They also have parittas and sutta chantings, all taught by Buddha in the pali canon, supposed to provide protection, and so on.
What the Buddha was against probably was the use of mantras and spells for selfish, greedy, evil purposes, that only serves to increase one's three poisons. There were mantras used for killing, seducing, harming others, etc. Those are certainly unacceptable.
But if the mantra does not serve evil purpose and instead helps in one's path, then by all means practice that, there is no harm.
As for teachings that go against the Buddha's teachings, what are those you are refering to?
-
what are mantras and parittas? care to differentiate them?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
what are mantras and parittas? care to differentiate them?
It's basically the same.
Parittas and Buddhist mantras are taught by the Buddha, and are different from mundane spells.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It's basically the same.
Parittas and Buddhist mantras are taught by the Buddha, and are different from mundane spells.
then how come theravada called it parittas and mahayana called is mantras? different terms, same meaning?
-
Buddhist Parittas (Gatha And Pirith)
Lord Buddha introduced Gathas (Poems) and Parittas (Truth Actions) for gain protection to Buddhist people, which are considered as more powerful than all kind of mantras. Because these verses have power of Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha. Parittas have truth actions which means from truth of virtue powers of Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha, wishing actions to be occurred such as blessings or removing life problems. Gathas are poems which have noble worshiping verses & characteristics of tipple gems. Some gathas or parittas were teaching of Lord Buddha so called as Suttas. We have experiences, also gods are told to us that Ratana sutta & Jalanandana paritta, can dispose any powerful mantras or problems of ghost or devils. We can remove our pains from chanting such kind of gathas in our home, under the Bodhi tree and some Devalas. You can offer flowers, oil lamps & odors to Buddha in such place then concentrate your mind to virtue powers of Buddha some time such as 15 minutes, then you can chant some gathas. Also you can chant Karaniya Metta, Maha Mangala & Ratana, suttas in everyday in your room at early in the morning or evening. It will bless to you, your family & your house, also can remove sicknesses and can success all of your works.
Following Buddhist gatha, also called as Buddhist Mantra, can be used for remove any problem in your life. It is called as All Buddha's Gatha. (meaning of this gatha is : Avoid all evil, Cultivate good, and Cleanse one's mind - This is the teaching of the every Lord Buddhas!). For get more results from this gatha, you must chant or recall this gatha 108 times between 5am to 7am or 6pm to 8pm,Sabbapàpassa akaranam - Kusalassa upasampadà
Sacittapariyodapanam - Etan Buddhànu sàsanan!Other powerful Buddhist gathas are :
- Buddha worshiping gatha called as "Itipiso Bhagawan Arahan..." for own safeness & remove phobias.
- Rathnamala Bandana Gatha which have only god's sounds for family wealth & get gods attractions.
- Kanda Paritta for remove problems of snakes and other painful animals.
- Mora Paritta for own safeness from every enemies.
- Wattaka Paritta for safe from fires or bombs.
- Karaniya Metta Sutta for remove evil troubles & make friendly with gods.
- Maha Mangala Sutta for all success & wealth.
- Ratana Sutta for remove evil troubles, sicknesses and other environmental disasters.
- Atawisi Paritta for all success, good health and family wealth, etc...
- Jala Nandana Paritta for cut down all type of negative effects which are created by Mantra Science.
- Atanatiya Paritta for remove painful effects from ghosts, devils & other all type of evil powers.
- Anathma Lakkana & Damsak Pawatum Suttas for develop your wisdom & attract wise gods.
- Jaya Paritta for every success in wealth, good health & every happy.
- Maha Samaya Sutta for attract powerful gods & goddesses.
- Mara Tathgganiya Sutta for remove evil effects from inhumans called as Mara.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
then how come theravada called it parittas and mahayana called is mantras? different terms, same meaning?
You can say so. Maybe he wanted to establish the difference between mundane spells of the Brahmanical traditions. But in essence, same meaning.
-
Dear all,
There is a big difference between mantras and parittas. Paritta chanting is also typically called protective chanting. The efficacy of the Paritta chanting of the Theravada tradition comes from the meaning of the truths held in the paritta passages. In the Buddha's teaching, it is always said that truth holds power. And that the truth will protect you. When you chant these parittas, you are supposed to reflect on the qualities or teachings in the paritta. Reflecting on these qualities, the practitioner generates good thoughts which protects him. As the saying goes, the 'Dhamma protects those who practice the Dhamma' (Dhammo have rakkhati dhamma cari).
That is the root of the power that the parittas hold. This is different from mantras.
As I was taught, the power of mantras comes from the sounds. These are sacred sounds transmitted to us by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The power of the mantra first comes from the correct recitation of the mantra as it was taught to you by your teacher, the transmission lineage, the right visualisation and the altruistic mind of the practitioner when reciting the mantra.
_(|)_
-
Originally posted by Emanrohe:
Dear all,
There is a big difference between mantras and parittas. Paritta chanting is also typically called protective chanting. The efficacy of the Paritta chanting of the Theravada tradition comes from the meaning of the truths held in the paritta passages. In the Buddha's teaching, it is always said that truth holds power. And that the truth will protect you. When you chant these parittas, you are supposed to reflect on the qualities or teachings in the paritta. Reflecting on these qualities, the practitioner generates good thoughts which protects him. As the saying goes, the 'Dhamma protects those who practice the Dhamma' (Dhammo have rakkhati dhamma cari).
That is root of the power that the parittas hold. This is different from mantras.
As I was taught, the power of mantras comes from the sounds. These are sacred sounds transmitted to us by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The power of the mantra first comes from the correct recitation of the mantra as it was taught to you by your teacher, the transmission lineage, the right visualisation and the altruistic mind of the practitioner when reciting the mantra.
_(|)_
Ah I see... thanks for clarifying! What you said made sense.
As for mantras, from what I've learnt, you don't have to pronounce it exactly to get its positive effects. It is actually the practitioner's sincerity and one pointedness that makes it powerful... there is a story of how an old lady chanted 'om mani peh meh niu' because she mis-read the last character of the mantra, but nevertheless there is auspicious clouds and signs surrounding her house.
-
Oh yup yup, if you did not learn it from a teacher, then just do your best with the pronunciations. It should also work!